Ethiopian Jews: The discourse of conflict in Israel

Abstract

Minority groups such as Palestinian and Ethiopian Israelis have been against Israelis since for many years due to the discriminative polices that have been put before them. Ethiopian Israelis, although they have been accepted in part are Jews and permitted to migrate there, they have been exposed to racism, othering, and bias. Because of their treatment, they have protested and had clashes with the police and military which have resulted in bodily harm for many and the loss of life. Ethnocentrism and social identity theory provide reasons as to why this happens, as members of the minority and by extension, the out-group. Current research on the contact hypothesis and changing how we view social categorization gives us solutions as to how we may be able address intergroup conflict and move towards a resolution. This happens by either being in close proximity or contact with a member of the out-group and getting to know them other than superficial means or changing the way we view each other.

The reasons for the conflict are many. Palestinians have long complained about the lack of resources and the threat to their safety. The United Nations and Human Rights Watch as well as documented research have recorded Israel’s track record of their maltreatment of children and women (Shalhoub-kevorkian, 2007). There have been documented incidents of Israel’s aggression towards the people of Palestine without much world outcry. In recent news, the Palestinians mourned the last harvest of Cremisan Valley olives due to Israel building a separation wall. Cremisan Valley is the home to Beit Jala olives. These olives are known for producing some of the world’s finest olive oil and have been key to improving economic conditions for many Palestinians.

Since the beginning of the conflict, there have been attacks towards each of the groups on both sides. For Palestinians, many of them do not feel as if they have anything left. However, these issues are not unique to Palestinians, but they also extend to another marginalized group within Israel, Ethiopian Israelis. Although they have not suffered from having their land taken from them, their right to fair water access denied, or their houses and orchards being destroyed, they have had to deal with mistreatment and injustices at the hands of Israelis since their arrival.

Racism has been prevalent in Israel since its founding in 1948. Although racism was not a word used in its founding, it proved to be more engrained in the preservation of their society as they sought to establish themselves after the Arab-Israeli War. With this came the understanding of what is known as cultural racism. Cultural racism focuses on the ‘insurmountability of cultural differences’, all the while encouraging the preservation of them (Ben-eliezer, 2007). Palestinians were not the only recipients of this type of in-group out-group bias. In fact, Ethiopians Israelis also received their share of discrimination as well (Pedahzur & Yishai, 2010).

Ethiopians first arrived in Israel because of two large scale operations that were held in 1984 and 1991 (Ben-eliezer, 2007; Salamon, 2003). As of today, there are around 140,000 Ethiopian Israelis currently living in Israel. However, assimilation into Israeli culture has not been easy even though they have been following Jewish customs since the 12^(th) century (Ojanuga, 1993). Ethiopian clergy is not recognized by Israel. Likewise, children who immigrated to Israel with their parents were told that they lack the proper basic Israeli education and were sent to institutions of Israeli Orthodox Judaism for reeducation. It is not their lack of following tradition that has been the problem, but rather the color of their skin (Salamon, 2003). Most of the Israeli Jewish public do not subscribe to orthodoxy, but rather consider themselves Jewish by tradition, but not religion and they were not forced to go through reeducation for not being Jewish enough.

Conflict in Israeli society with regards to Ethiopian Jews started from the time they arrived in Israel. Ethiopian Jews are among the poorest people living in Israel and they are subjected to receiving almost 50% less wages than Arab-Israelis (Pedahzur & Yishai, 2010). There are those who question Ethiopian Israelis’ Jewish lineage and even openly discriminated against them. Blood banks have destroyed blood donated by Ethiopian Jews for fear of HIV (Kaplan, 2012; Seeman, 1999). This message of exclusion continued to propagate throughout the rest of Israeli society. Being a minority in Israel is not easy, especially one with dark skin (Pedahzur & Yishai, 2010). Although the claim is that Israeli society is not racist, the policies towards Palestinians and Ethiopian Israelis show a different story. Unlike other Israelis, Ethiopian Jews have been plagued with unemployment and lack public resources. And much like African Americans in New York, Ethiopian Israelis are subject to higher “Stop and Frisks” operations as well as increased incarceration and arrests rates than other Israelis. The constant mistreatment of Ethiopian Israelis has led to clashes with the police and an outcry of protests (Ben-eliezer, 2007).

Theory

Ethnocentrism

One of the basis for the current conflict between Ethiopian Israelis and Arab-Israelis focuses around the concept of ethnocentrism. This concept is born out of the idea that judging another culture is based on the evaluation on one’s own culture (Hewstone & Greenland, 2010; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). This can be seen in the example above where Ethiopian Israelis are not considered Jewish enough to fit in their society. As stated, Ethiopian Israelis were forced to be reeducated to assimilate. Likewise, although Ethiopian Israelis had been practicing their religion since the 12^(th) century, their practices were not deemed acceptable because it did not match the norm of Arab-Israelis.

The concept of ethnocentrism can be traced back to Sumner’s writings on the basic state of conflict between in-groups and out-groups (Hewstone et al., 2002; Hewstone & Greenland, 2010). Arab-Israeli’s belief that their culture is the norm for Jewish behavior has caused problems with the integration of Ethiopian Israelis into Israeli society. As such, there has led to biases against Ethiopian Israelis and they have been questioned as to whether their practice of Judaism is authentic or whether Ethiopian Israelis are Jews. Sumner was of the view that ethnocentrism is rampant and universal and that biases are the result of intergroup competition (Hewstone et al., 2002; Hewstone & Greenland, 2010). Likewise, to preserve the solidarity of the group, in-groups exploit out-groups.

Social Identity Theory

According to social psychologists, humans are inclined to separate into groups, and therefore form identities based upon them (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). Within these groups, members identify with each other, those in the in-group, positively, and those in the out-group, they identify negatively (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). An example of this is how rival schools evaluate each other, by often stating that they are the best and devaluing another school as being the worst. In 1967, Tajfel studied how English school boys discriminated on an insubstantial sense of group membership against a perceived out-group. This gave way to his second experiment 1971, where Tajfel and colleagues set out to investigate what the minimal amount of conditions were necessary to establish a sense of group membership that would form the basis for discriminatory practices (Tajfel et al., 1971). What they found out is that the minimum condition for group favoritism was categorization.

Social identity theory posits that people seek to enhance their self-image. Our self-image is tied to our group image, and in a bid to increase it we attempt to enhance the group. In seeking to enhance the group, members of the in-group will discriminate against members of the out-group. By finding negative aspects of the out-groups, members of the in-group enhance their self-image.

Strategies

Contact Hypothesis

The contact hypothesis comes from the premise that prejudice is deeply rooted, and it may be reduced if there is contact between in-group and out-group members (Pettigrew, 1998; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). Much research has been presented about the benefits of contact between members of the different groups to reduce intergroup conflict. However, for this to work, researchers have also mentioned that it must be done under favorable conditions. Likewise, the members who are in contact from each group must be of equal status. Another key point is that the environment must be one in which the members of the different groups can get to know each other on more than a superficial basis.

In a research study, Ellison and Powers (1994) suggest that if African Americans formed friendships early in life with Whites, there was less of a chance of a negative perception and intergroup bias against them. This includes African Americans’ perception of Whites and White-dominated society. One of the keys to fostering a dialogue between groups is to create a situation where there is a common goal and change the view of “us versus them” into a collective “we”. In a longitudinal study done by Schroeder and Risen (2016) using Israeli and Palestinian teenagers, participants’ attitudes towards the outgroup improved when friendships formed at camps. This, in turn, increased more positive feelings towards outgroup campers and which also increased positivity toward all out-group members. By removing them from an environment where hostilities existed between them and providing tasks in which they needed to work together to complete tasks, they could get past their differences. However, as researchers have posited, in these situations groups can attribute their success to the environment rather than working with the cooperation of outgroup members (Taijfel, 1970).

Also, in a study done by Berger, Benatov, Abu-Raiya, and Tadmor (2016), they tested contact theory by way of creating the Extended Class Exchange Program (ECEP). This program was created to help reduce prejudicial attitudes between 3^(rd) and 4^(th) grade Palestinian and Israeli students. The students in the ECEP program were given different activities to do daily with their classmates. At the end of the 15-month period, results showed that discrimination and stereotyping had been drastically reduced.

This is not the only study that has tested this theory. Malhotra and Liyanage (2005) did a similar study between Tamil and Sinhalese young adults. At a peace camp, these two groups of young adults participated in lectures, creative activities, and tours to multiethnic villages together. Empathy had been increased between the groups as opposed to the control group. Other studies have shown favorable results with extended contact where media containing positive relations and friendship between in-groups and out-groups are portrayed (Brenick, Henning, Killen, O'Connor, & Collins, 2007; Cole et al., 2003; Paluck, 2009; Slone, Tarrasch, & Hallis, 2000).

Social categorization

When we meet someone new, we classify them. If you attend a function and your spouse introduces you to someone, you may note that they’re female, Asian, young, an academic, and so forth. Much like heuristics, these are mental shortcuts. Social categorization is a part of social perception. Although the inferences we come up with for someone may not always be correct, they allow us to make sense of the world.

Decategorization. One way to deal with in-group out-group distinctions is by way of decategorization. This way of reducing intergroup bias focuses on the individual and dealing with a person as an individual rather than seeing them as part of a group (Gaertner et al., 2000). In the case of Ethiopian Israelis versus that of Arab and European Israelis, instead of seeing the person as a belonging to a group based on ethnicity, the terms of dealing with them come down to the level of “you” and “me”. Since decategorization comes through personalized interactions, it breaks down the validity of stereotypes. One of the main advantages of decategorization is that it reduces stereotypes by changing attitudes of others who were originally viewed in terms of their group memberships (Gaertner et al., 2000).

Recategorization. As Crisp, Stone, and Hall (2006) explain, subgroup identities are vulnerable to stereotypical and biased threats from collective groups. Recategorization can reduce social categorization by increasing the attractiveness of former outgroup members by making them more inclusive (Crisp, Stone, & Hall, 2006). By creating one subordinate group, groups can be changed from an “us vs them” model to a collective “we”. This creates a single inclusive boundary. Gaertner et al. (1989) demonstrated that having a single group could reduce bias because it evaluates out-group members more positively.

References

Ben-eliezer, U. (2007). Becoming a Black Jew: Cultural racism and anti‐racism in contemporary Israel. Social Identities, 10(2), 245–266. http://doi.org/10.1080/1350463042000227371 ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
Berger, R., Benatov, J., Abu-Raiya, H., & Tadmor, C. T. (2016). Reducing prejudice and promoting positive intergroup attitudes among elementary-school children in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Journal of School Psychology, 57, 53–72. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.04.003 ↩
Brenick, A., Henning, A., Killen, M., O'Connor, A., & Collins, M. (2007). Social evaluations of stereotypic images in video games: Unfair, legitimate, or "just entertainment"? Youth & Society, 38(4), 395–419. http://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X06295988 ↩
Cole, C., Arafat, C., Tidhar, C., Tafesh, W. Z., Fox, N., Killen, M., et al. (2003). The educational impact of Rechov Sumsum/Shara'a Simsim: A Sesame Street television series to promote respect and understanding among children living in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(5), 409–422. http://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000019 ↩
Crisp, R. J., Stone, C. H., & Hall, N. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 230–243. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205280908 ↩1 ↩2
Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among Black Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75(2), 385–400. ↩
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98–114. http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98 ↩1 ↩2
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239–249. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239 ↩
Hewstone, M., & Greenland, K. (2010). Intergroup conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 136–144. http://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399439 ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
Kaplan, S. (2012). Black and white, blue and white and beyond the pale: Ethiopian Jews and the discourse of colour in Israel. Jewish Culture and History, 5(1), 51–68. http://doi.org/10.1080/1462169X.2002.10511962 ↩
Malhotra, D. (2005). Long-term effects of peace workshops in protracted conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(6), 908–924. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022002705281153
Ojanuga, D. (1993). The Ethiopian Jewish experience as blacks in Israel. Journal of Black Studies, 24(2), 147–158. http://doi.org/10.2307/2784649 ↩
Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 574–587. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0011989 ↩
Pedahzur, A., & Yishai, Y. (2010). Hatred by hated people: Xenophobia in Israel. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 22(2), 101–117. http://doi.org/10.1080/105761099265784 ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 ↩
Salamon, H. (2003). Blackness in transition: Decoding racial constructs through stories of Ethiopian Jews. Journal of Folklore Research, 40(1), 3–32. ↩1 ↩2
Schroeder, J., & Risen, J. L. (2016). Befriending the enemy: Outgroup friendship longitudinally predicts intergroup attitudes in a coexistence program for Israelis and Palestinians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(1), 72–93. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214542257 ↩
Seeman, D. (1999). “One people, one blood”: Public health, political violence, and HIV in an Ethiopian-Israeli setting. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 23(2), 159–195. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005439308374 ↩
Shalhoub-kevorkian, N. (2007). Racism, militarisation and policing: police reactions to violence against Palestinian women in Israel. Social Identities, 10(2), 171–193. http://doi.org/10.1080/1350463042000227344 ↩
Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-White interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71(3), 781–795. http://doi.org/10.1093/sf/71.3.781 ↩
Slone, M., Tarrasch, R., & Hallis, D. (2000). Ethnic stereotypic attitudes among Israeli children: Two intervention programs. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 370–389. http://doi.org/10.2307/23093721 ↩
Taijfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102. ↩
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74. ↩
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 ↩1 ↩2