Ethiopian Jews OSP, 2008 Dr. Yehuda Bar Shalom

First Contact in Modern times. 18 th Century  when Scottish explorer James Bruce stumbled upon them while searching for the source of the Nile River. His estimates at the time placed the Beta Israel around the number

1955  Some Contact with the Jewish Agency

1973  Rabbi Ovadia Yosef declares them as Jews from the tribe of Dan

1977 – Begin comes to power  In the early 1980's, Ethiopia forbade the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew. Numerous members of the Beta Israel were imprisoned on fabricated charges of being “ Zionist spies, ” and Jewish religious leaders, Kesim,(sing. Kes) were harassed and monitored by the government.

Operation Moses  Operation Moses began on November 18, 1984, and ended six weeks later on January 5, In that time, almost 8,000 Jews were rescued and brought to Israel.

Operation Solomon  In 36 hours, non-stop flights of 34 IAF C- 130s, filled to absolute capacity with seats transported 14,325 Beta Israel é migr é s from Ethiopia to Israel,

In Israel  new arrivals spent between six months and two years in absorption centers learning Hebrew, being retrained for Israel's industrial society, and learning how to live in a modern society (most Ethiopian villages had no running water or electricity).

Depression  Suicide, all but unheard of in their tukuls in Ethiopia, even claimed a few of the new arrivals due to the anxiety of separation and departure.

Falash Mura  The Falash Mura were virtually unknown until Operation Solomon, when a number attempted to board the Israeli planes and were turned away. The Falash Mura said they were entitled to immigrate because they were Jews by ancestry, but the Israelis saw them as non-Jews, since most had never practiced Judaism and were not considered by the Beta Israel as part of the community.

Ethiopian Activists  Ethiopian Jewry activists maintained that the Falash Mura had been forced to convert or had done so for pragmatic reasons without ever really abandoning their Jewish faith.

Identity Research  Salient Identities

 Both Israeli and Ethiopian

 Only Israeli

 Only Ethiopian

 Neither this nor that

The education system  Different values on Education

Afro Music  Tupac, Notorious Big.

Myths  They feel a lack of respect.

 In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “ personal self ”, but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “ level of self ” (Turner et al, 1987). Apart from the “ level of self ”, an individual has multiple “ social identities ”. Social identity is the individual ’ s self- concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). In other words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “ us ” associated with any internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual ’ s unique attributes.

 Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ self- categorization and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the expense of the out- group. The examples (minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people ’ s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘ we ’ rather than ‘ I ’.

 Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup favoritism is particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup. Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self- definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.

 In further research this example is referred to minimal group studies. Schoolboys were assigned to groups, which were intended as meaningless as possible. They were assigned randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict, personal animosity or interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of both their own group and the other group. Conclusions were that even the most minimal conditions were sufficient to encourage ingroup-favoring responses. Participants picked a reward pair that awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members. In other words, they displayed ingroup favoritism.