El-Ad began by explaining that over the past few years,
50,000 African refugees have crossed the border into Israel. El-Ad insisted,
however, that we put this figure in a proper context. 50,000 refugees would
unlikely shift the demographics in Israel. The country has a total population
of 7 million citizens and, 1 million of these citizens Asylum seekers absorbed from
the Soviet Union. Suddenly, the number of refugees seems smaller.
So where is the crisis
here?
First of all, the number of refugees in Israel will only
increase. The pair explained that despite Netanyahu’s efforts to keep African
immigrants out of the country, his deportation laws and anti-immigration
publicity campaigns will have little noticeable impact. Netanyahu cannot deport
refugees from Sudan and Eritrea given the unsafe political climate, nor can he
discourage immigrants via media because all media in both countries is
government regulated. These two nationalities comprise over 80% of the total
immigrants. Yet, ultimately, Netanyahu can do little to keep them out of
Israel. According to international law, all nations must welcome asylum seekers
who were victims of human rights violations in their home country, and whose
life would be in danger if returned.
Still, compared to the Israeli government, El-Ad and
Lenkinski were not overly concerned with the quantity of refugees. They briefly
mentioned that Israel should assemble a better vetting system for sorting
through refugee applications, if numbers are such a concern. According to the
Israeli Interior Ministry, of the “refugees” documented thus far only .002% have
been approved as legitimate victims. This reveals first, that a better system
could be quite effective but also, that the Israel definition of a “refugee” be
too narrow. The Israeli government
clearly wants to inhibit asylum seekers in any way that they can, even though
the number of refugees in question would not drastically alter Israeli demographics.
In contrast, the El-Ad and Lenkinski’s main focus was to
ensure that these immigrants are accepted into society with basic human rights.
El-Ad described the struggles for the asylum seekers. Refugees are picked up at
the border and dropped off at a bus station in an area of South Tel Aviv that
already lacks proper infrastructure. Strict labor laws and the threat of
deportation create an abusive employer-employee relationship for the
immigrants. Likewise, they are not eligible for basic social services like
health care and education. Right now, the government withholds such services
less due to racism, and more in hopes of discouraging immigration and avoiding
the issue. Lenkinski says it is time for Israel to address this population:
“withholding civil services is not the way to fight this battle.”
While at first glance, this crisis might remind us of US
immigration debates along the Mexico border, the situation in Israel is much
more severe. It boils down to a crisis beyond national identity and population
control – how do we address civil rights in a nation that, by definition, was
created for only a specific sector of people? Further, there is a moral crisis
here. Israel is a homeland for a people who have been discriminated against
time and time again; how can we close our hearts and subject African refugees
to discrimination?
Lenkinski ended by expressing her disappointment when she
recently read a news article comparing violence against asylum seekers and
their property in Tel Aviv to Kristallnacht. We said never again. That statement applies to discrimination of
any peoples and now, it is Israel’s turn act on it.
Prepared by Rebecca Jacobson, Summer Intern
Prepared by Rebecca Jacobson, Summer Intern
2 comments:
Excellent work. see you,
Nice work, regards
Post a Comment