For Our Soul

Ethiopian Jews in Israel

Teshome Wagaw

• Publisher: Wayne State University Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780814344095
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Jewish Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Between 1977 and 1992, practically all Ethiopian Jews migrated to Israel. This mass move followed the 1974 revolution in Ethiopia and its ensuing economic and political upheavals, compounded by the brutality of the military regime and the willingness—after years of refusal—of the Israeli government to receive them as bona fide Jews entitled to immigrate to that country. As the sole Jewish community from sub-Sahara Africa in Israel, the Ethiopian Jews have met with unique difficulties. Based on fieldwork conducted over several years, For Our Soul describes the ongoing process of adjustment and absorption that the Ethiopian Jewish immigrants, also known as Falasha or Beta Israel, experienced in Israel.

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction and Historical Background

In the central part of northern Ethiopia, mainly around Lake Tana—the source of the Blue Nile—as well as in the surrounding Semien Mountains and in parts of southern Tigray and Wollo provinces, live small communities of Jewish people who throughout history have been known by a variety of names. The people among whom they have resided have called them kayla (a Semitic term that is not necessarily derogatory), taib (a name perhaps derived from the Amharic term tebib, meaning one who is skilled or clever, but, as we shall see later, associated with another expression, buda, a person with the “evil eye”), bale-ij (meaning one who is clever with his or her hands), and, in more recent centuries, Beta Israel (of the house of Israel). To most outsiders, they are known as the Falasha, a term derived from the Ge’ez or Amharic (the ancient and modern languages of Ethiopia) root of meflas, meaning to uproot. Given their historical claim to descent from King Menelik I, the son of King Solomon and Queen Makeda, the queen of Ethiopia or Sheba who came from Jerusalem, the term might be appropriate. But in recent years, educated members of the group have rejected it, preferring to be called either Beta Israel or simply Ethiopian Jews. That preference will be respected in this volume except when historical explanation requires other terms.

Over the period of 1977 to 1992, practically all Ethiopian Jews have migrated to Israel on the basis that they, like all other Jews of the world, were entitled to take advantage of the Law of Return.1 This book analyzes their immigration to and absorption into Israel. The analysis is based on original data collected during fieldwork over a period of several years, updated to 1992.

FRAMEWORK OF INQUIRY AND ANALYSIS

The definition of migration includes the act of physical transition from one social setting to another and different setting. For religious, political, economic, or cultural reasons, an individual, alone or with others such as family members or people with similar identities or objectives, abandons one society in favor of another. This transition involves a complete change and disorganization of the individual’s role system, including his or her social identity, status, and self-image.2 In other words, the individual leaves that which is cognitively, emotionally, and socially familiar for another setting that is either unknown or vaguely imagined and in which the psychological realities are markedly different from those left behind. Migrants face the formidable challenge of unlearning past roles which the new situation has rendered obsolete; modifying their self-images, perceptions of their status, and future expectations; and otherwise learning new sets of attitudes and skills that will enable them to assume new roles as required by the receiving society. Depending on what other experiences have preceded migration, such as some prior knowledge of the language or some other cultural acquaintances or affinities with the receiving society, upon arrival migrants must begin to reorganize their cognitive as well as emotional maps and learn new sets of cultural codes, language, and conventions as though life were beginning for the first time. This is done at a time when their accustomed circles of contact, and roles (the vehicles of social interaction that anchor individual and social identity as well as self-esteem), are shrinking. Their self-images of competence, ability, and responsibility regarding work, family, and community shrink or become altered. The degree of disorientation and confusion depends on their previous experiences, level of education or skills, age, degree of aspiration propelling them toward the receiving society, and the quality of their reception upon arrival in the new setting.

The literature on migration, immigrant absorption, and human adjustment or transformation suggests a variety of theories and paradigms one might use to structure an inquiry. Most incorporate, with varying degrees of emphasis, the concepts of role and identity, cognitive mapping, learning and unlearning, or socialization and desocialization, as well as social transformation. The works of Eisenstadt,3 Erikson,4 Merton,5 Bar-Yosef,6 and others have some bearing here, though none is singularly complete with respect to all aspects of migration and absorption. The analytic framework adduced by Eisenstadt,7 with modifications as necessary for the specific purposes of this inquiry, will be adopted to analyze the migration and absorption processes of the Beta Israel. The variables that may be helpful in the study of the sociological and psychological nature of the processes of immigration and absorption include: (1) the nature of the initial crisis in the society of origin which gave rise to the feelings of inadequacy or insecurity that precipitated motivation to migrate; (2) the social structure of the immigration process, the formation of the group in which that process is realized, and the basic orientation as well as roles of the members; (3) the process of institutionalization of immigrant behavior in the new country, including the new roles and values accepted and performed by the groups and the various degrees to which they participate in and are identified with in the new social setting (attention should also be given to the characteristics and platforms of the various leaders who emerge as a result of the transformation of the immigrant groups); (4) institutionalization of the immigrants as viewed from the vantage point of the absorbing society, description of the range of possibilities open to the immigrants and the institutional demands made upon them, and estimation of the compatibility of these with the immigrants’ role expectations or abilities; (5) the extent to which the pluralistic structure of a specific type of immigrant community or communities emerges—its scope and direction should be considered and then reviewed from the point of view of the types of roles (universals, particularisms, and alternatives) allocated within the absorbing society; and (6) the extent to which different types of disintegrative behavior or normlessness develop on the part of both the immigrants and the inhabitants of the absorbing society, and what the provisions or possibilities are for institutional reorganization and change in the absorbing society.

Measures of progress toward successful absorption include the extent to which the immigrants become dispersed in the new setting along the continuum of social and economic life in the society; the degree to which they participate in and contribute to the economic, social, or religious life of the larger society; and the extent to which they are able to achieve an increasing sense of accomplishment and self-fulfillment. These do not suggest, however, that the immigrants will abandon their primary group. Rather, the primary group, while fulfilling certain expectations, also makes it possible for the immigrants to reach out and become an integral part of the larger society. In the course of this process, one can expect that individuals will vacillate between the primary group for shelter and sustenance, especially in times of personal crisis, and the larger, absorbing society, toward which they will continue to move. Note that these premises are based on the conventions and expectations of the particular society—in this case, that society is Israel, which as a rule measures absorption in terms of the unitary or “melting pot” framework as opposed to the pluralistic framework increasingly accepted in other societies such as Canada and the United States.

IN THE LAND OF ORIGIN

In the context of Ethiopia, which is known as a “museum of people,” the existence of any community of people, exotic or otherwise, large or small, is not unusual. Simply stated, there are scores of groupings across the land speaking a wide variety of languages, practicing different religions, worshiping different gods, and engaging in different occupations. Perhaps for this reason, Ethiopian writers have not said much about the Jews in their country. Most references are to the effective resistance they put up throughout history to the nation’s central powers as well as to those occasions when they assumed power over the nation. Their unique identities in Ethiopia are based first, on the type of religion they had followed for more than two and a half millennia as Jews (although this specific appellation is not necessarily known or understood by most of the local non-Jewish community) who also happened to be black, and, second, on the kinds of occupations they practiced, although they were not alone in those occupations. But it is more logical to say that their occupational identities followed the religious one, since religion (in this case, the practice of non-Christian religion) was the excuse used for the treatment they received at the hands of the majority of the society which eventually led to their adoption and practice of certain occupations. For all practical purposes, except for their religion, the Beta Israel are indistinguishable from the other people among whom they live in physical appearance, and the way they dress, prepare their foods, construct their houses, and otherwise conduct their daily lives. Ethiopian records document, albeit scantily, their social, religious, and political history; the battles they fought and won or lost against various medieval rulers in Ethiopia; and the military and political techniques they deployed in their efforts to preserve their identities. Once conquered on the battlefield, however, they were denied ownership of land, vital in a peasant society. In their efforts to survive, they became artisans producing goods and entering occupations necessary in the community but whose practitioners were despised. In the course of time, economic circumstances emanating from their landlessness forced them to become an occupational caste and outcasts as well. As alluded to above, however, neither the larger Ethiopian community outside the immediate areas where the Beta Israel lived nor the outside world knew very much about them. What follows is a brief sketch of their origin, history, and religious and occupational practices in the context of Ethiopia. Readers wishing to learn more about the life of the Beta Israel, or about Ethiopia in general, are referred to the bibliography at the end of the book.

HISTORY AND ORIGIN

The history of the Beta Israel is surrounded by controversy and legend. Much of what they claim is not in accord with historical facts, but those facts themselves are either inconsistent or unable to elucidate many of the difficult questions. The task here is briefly to review what is known, what is claimed, and what is uncertain, and to indicate what is perhaps plausible.

The Beta Israel position regarding their history is in accord with that recorded in the Kibre Negest (“Glory of the Kings”), which Ullendorff8 refers to as the Ethiopian equivalent of the Talmud, the legendary source that seeks to trace, account for, and legitimize the history of the Ethiopian version of the Solomonic dynasty.9 According to that account, the legendary Queen Makeda (Sheba), the queen of Ethiopia, in union with King Solomon, conceived a son who became Menelik I, the king of Ethiopia. The young man was raised and trained in Jerusalem. When the time arrived for him to return to assume the kingship of Ethiopia, his father arranged for some Jewish nobles, priests, and guards to accompany him. The Ethiopian Jews, then, are descendants of these people, who presumably intermarried with indigenous local people. The legend of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba is, of course, woven into Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Ethiopian version adds that when the priests were asked to leave Jerusalem to accompany young Menelik, they stole the original tablets containing the Ten Commandments (the Ark of the Covenant), which they then placed in the holy city of Axum, where, according to legend, it remains to this day.10 While most of the Ethiopian kings and emperors trace their lineage to this source, so do the Beta Israel. Perhaps it is this belief that led them time and again into trouble, defeat, and humiliation as they tried to wrest their freedom from the rulers of highland Ethiopia during the Middle Ages.

MAP 1. Ethiopia in relation to its African and Middle East neighbors

The legend goes back to about 900 B.C., when King Solomon was ruler of Jerusalem. The prophet Zephaniah, a contemporary of the prophet Jeremiah who lived more than six hundred years before Christ, refers to Jews living beyond the River Nile and its tributary the Atbara (the Tekazai River of modern Ethiopia).11 This description fits well both the geographical location where the Beta Israel are found and the historical claim made by them. For the most part, the main centers of the Beta Israel were around the Semien Mountains, just south of the Tekazai River.12 In addition, there are several references in the Old Testament to the region of Cush, which included what is today modern Ethiopia. One account describes Miriam, the wife of Moses, as Ethiopian. The account relates that Moses’ sister was “angry” that he married. But was she angry simply because he married, or was she angry because he married an Ethiopian, someone ethnically different? The story of the Ethiopian official who was baptized by the apostle Philip while he was on an official visit to Jerusalem also indicates the existence of a Jewish community in Ethiopia before the Christian era.13

Documentary and archaeological evidence suggests that before the Axumite Kingdom accepted Christianity as the religion of the court in the fourth century, Judaism and heathenism (worship of the serpent) existed side by side. It seems heathenism was rampant among the upper classes while Judaism was strong among the agew (indigenous people) and the lower classes.

Historians are not in agreement about the authenticity of the legends, for there are other possibilities to account for the existence of a Jewish community in this part of Africa. One is that the Beta Israel are descendants of local people who converted when they came into contact with Jews from southern Arabia, particularly from Yemen, where there was a thriving community of Jews and where Ethiopia ruled for some time. Considering the very close proximity of Ethiopia to Yemen and the similarities in many cultural and physical referents, this seems very plausible. Some others adduce the existence of Jews in Elephantine who were either remnants from the old Israelites of Egypt or latecomers who traveled throughout the Horn of Africa and converted some Ethiopian agew to Judaism. This, too, is a possibility.14

RELATIONS WITHIN ETHIOPIA

Ethiopia long has been considered an anomaly among nations. Along with Japan and Iran, it is one of the oldest continuous nations in the world. This long and independent life, however, came with a price which included isolationism—both forced and self-imposed. Ethiopia is located in northeast Africa in close proximity to Middle Eastern nations that have contributed to its culture but in recent centuries also have become increasingly hostile because of Ethiopia’s religion and affiliations with Christian powers. It has been subjected to intrigues from European powers during the scramble for colonies in Africa. Its many internal conflicts and civil wars kept it busy and alone for a long time. Ethiopian religious and political institutions tended to become defensive, ossified, conservative, and unresponsive to emerging realities around them. Ethiopia’s monotheistic religious institutions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—must be viewed in this light.

Ethiopian calendars often are reckoned in terms of victories and defeats in war and battles usually associated with the reigning monarchies. Therefore, Ethiopian chronicles record the existence of the Beta Israel in the context of the many skirmishes and battles they engaged in against the rulers of the day. Seldom have the Beta Israel been studied by Ethiopians in their own right. This pattern of neglect also applies to many of the other religious and ethnic or linguistic groups of the country, including much larger ones.

Ethiopian history relates that during the tenth century, the Jews under the leadership of Queen Judit (Gudit, or “the monstrous one”) destroyed Axum and pillaged many of the monasteries and Christian institutions in other parts of highland Ethiopia.1...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• 1. Introduction and Historical Background
• 2. Israel as an Absorbing State
• 3. The Journey and Settlement
• 4. The Beleaguered Family in Transition
• 5. Setting Up Home
• 6. Crisis in Communal Integrity and Identity
• 7. Primary Education
• 8. Postprimary Education and Training
• 9. Adult and Continuing Education
• 10. Community, Race, Modernity, and Work
• 11. Epilogue
• Notes
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index