Steven Kaplan Hebrew University of Jerusalem ETHIOPIAN PRISONERS OF ZION: THE STRUGGLE FOR RECOGNITION IN A BUREAUCRATIC SETTING Introduction No Ethiopian community anywhere in the world has been as seriously and completely transformed during the past quarter century as that of the Beta Israel (Falasha).1 In 1977 only about 100 Ethiopian Jews lived in Israel. By 2004 immigration and natural growth had brought the number of Ethio- pians in Israel to over 85,000. At the same time Beta Israel communal life in Ethiopia came to an end as virtually the entire community emigrated. Although the dramatic airlifts of Ethiopians to Israel in both 1984 and 1991 were celeb- rated in Israel as the fulfillment of the Zionist dream, their adjustment to the reality of Israeli society and its adjustment to them has not always been smooth. Conflicts and difficulties have arisen in almost every sphere of activity.2 The purpose of this paper is to explore a previously unexamined aspect of the Ethiopian migration and their status in Israel: the designation of certain immigrants as Prisoners of Zion (PZ).3 Although it concerns only a small fraction of the Ethiopians in Israel, we shall attempt to demonstrate that the issues which emerge through the examination of this topic, have implications 1 Ethiopian Jews were, until recently, most commonly designated by the term «Falasha». They also used the term (Beta) Israel «(House) of Israel», to refer to them- selves. They have in recent years been the subject of a vast literature. For detailed bibliographies s. STEVEN KAPLAN — SHOSHANA BEN-DOR, Ethiopian Jewry: an Anno- tated Bibliography, Jerusalem, 1988; HAGAR SALAMON — STEVEN KAPLAN, Ethiopian Jews. An Annotated Bibliography 1987–1997, Jerusalem, 1998; SHALVA WEIL, Bi- bliography on Ethiopian Jewry (1998–2001), Paris: Society for the Study of the Ethio- pian Jewry, 2001. For a concise overview s. STEVEN KAPLAN, «Betä Ésraýel», in: EÆ I, pp. 552–559. 2 For general surveys of Ethiopian life in Israel s. STEVEN KAPLAN — CHAIM RO- SEN, «Ethiopian Jews in Israel», in: David Singer — Ruth R. Seldin (eds.), American Jewish Yearbook 1994, New York, 1994, pp. 59–109; STEVEN KAPLAN — HAGAR SA- LAMON, Ethiopian Immigrants in Israel: Experience and Prospects, London, 1998. 3 Both English and Hebrew versions of the book by BARUCH MEIRI — RACHAMIM ELAZAR, The Dream Behind Bars: the Story of the Prisoners of Zion from Ethiopa, Jerusalem, 2001, have been published. In neither version, however, is there a discus- sion of the designation of certain individuals as PZ or of the process by which they are chosen. 126 Ethiopian PZ are listed in this book. Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 12:59:31AM via free access S. Kaplan 101 which extend far beyond the small number of individuals directly effected. Indeed, we shall argue that precisely because of the formal bureaucratic orga- nization of the definitional process, this case allows us to see issues in a clearer light than do larger less formal determinations. As I shall attempt to demonstrate below, the process of determining who is a PZ is a microcosm of the larger problem of identity politics for Ethio- pians in Israel.4 Not surprisingly therefore at the heart of the PZ process is a series of struggles over the narrative process. These include not only the ques- tion of who tells the story, but in what language and form (oral or written) it is told. Most importantly it includes the issue of what is considered a correct narrative and who makes this determination. The data for this study is based on my personal experience for almost a decade as member of the sub-committee which determines which Ethiopians are accorded the status of PZ. During this period, I have participated in over thirty meetings, during which several hundred files were discussed and a si- milar number of applicants and witnesses interviewed.5 Prisoners of Zion Throughout the history of the Zionist movement, Jewish activists and po- tential immigrants to Israel were confronted by governments who opposed their attempts to reach Palestine and later the State of Israel. While actively opposing to the existence of Zionism and the State of Israel, some states le- gislated against a wide range of Jewish activities including the teaching of Hebrew, religious instruction and most ritual observances; others outlawed the organization or promotion of emigration to Israel albeit tolerating most forms of religious practice. Whatever the specific legal rubric, hundreds of Jews found themselves emprisoned either because of their Jewishness or be- cause of their attempts to promote or organize aliyah (immigration to Israel). While some of these activists such as Ida Nudel and Anatoly (today, Natan) Scharansky became the subject of international attention, most languished in anonymity. Similarly, while those emprisoned in the Soviet Union were fre- quently discussed in the Israeli and world media, those in other lands gar- nered far less attention. In response to this historical reality, in 1992 the Knesset (Israeli Parlia- ment) passed Prisoners of Zion Act.6 Under this legislation a resident of Isra- 4 As the footnotes below indicate, many of these issues which arise in the discus- sion of the PZ are relevant in other contexts as well. 5 In addition, on 7 July 2003, I conducted an hour-long interview at the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption with the two Ministry staff members. 6 From 1 April 1973 to 8 June 1992, benefits were paid under agreements signed with the Treasury. Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 12:59:31AM via free access 102 Scrinium I (2005). Varia Aethiopica el is recognized as a PZ, as a relative of an imprisoned PZ or of a martyr under the following circumstances:7 (1) Someone who was arrested, detained or deported for a period of at least six months because of Zionist activity in a country where such activity was prohibited, provided that he is an Israeli citizen according to the Law of Return8 and a resident of Israel; (2) Someone who was arrested, detained or deported for a period of at least six months because of his Jewishness in a country hostile to Israel, pro- vided that he is an Israeli citizen according to the Law of Return and a resi- dent of Israel; (3) Someone who was arrested, detained or deported because of the rea- sons listed in clauses (1) and (2) above and disappeared and six months have passed since his arrest, and he would be eligible according to the Law of Return of 1950; (4) Someone who was a resident of the Land of Israel before the establish- ment of the State, and because of his activities in order to establish the State, was arrested, detained or deported for at least at least six months, provided that he is an Israeli citizen according to the Law of Return and a resident of Israel. As we shall discuss below, those recognized as PZ or as their heirs are entitled not only to the honour bestowed upon them, but under certain circum- stances monetary compensation through Israel Institute for Social Security.9 For the purposes of implementing the law, three committees were esta- blished under the auspices of the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption to deal with cases of prisoners from (1) Arab Lands, which includes Iran (2) Eastern Europe, which includes the Soviet Union and other former Communist Coun- tries (3) Ethiopia. At a latter date this was expanded to include, (4) pre-State Jewish underground organizations such as Etzel, Lehi, and Ha-haganah. In practice, the Ethiopian committee, while dealing with immigrants from that one country, deals with cases of those emprisoned in Ethiopia, Sudan and in a small number of cases, Kenya and Djibouti. This distinction is of considerable relevance, because despite the numerous ups and down of Isra- 7 The Law of Prisoners of Zion and their Families — 1992, with amendments: — http://www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law. (My translation of the Hebrew). — http://www.btl.gov.il/English/benefit/pris/pris.htm contains an incomplete English summary of this material. 8 According to Law of Return, Jews living anywhere in the world are entitled to claim Israeli citizenship and immigrate to Israel. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int16.htm 9 www.btl.gov.il/English Tables 13.1 and 13.2.1 for details of the payments being received. As of 2002 644 PZ from all countries were receiving benefits. This from a total of about 1,200 awarded PZ status since 1992. Over two-thirds of these had disabilities of 50% or less. Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 12:59:31AM via free access S. Kaplan 103 el-Ethiopian relations, Ethiopia has never been in a state of war with Israel and hence is not defined as a hostile country.10 In contrast, the Sudan, through its membership in the Arab League (League of Arab States) has been in a state of war with Israel and thus fits the definition of a hostile country (see above).11 As a result, the criteria for recognition as Prisoners of Zion for those arrested and emprisoned in Ethiopia are more narrowly defined than for those incarcerated in the Sudan. While the former must prove that they were engaged in «Zionist activities» which led to their arrest or detention, the latter must merely demonstrate that they were singled out as Jews. As we shall see, this distinction leads to a considerable degree of confusion among the applicants and misunderstanding between them and the members of the committee. The Committee As was indicated above, applications for recognition as PZ are reviewed by four separate committees.