Question: Should African migrants be allowed to stay in Israel? - by Vic Rosenthal

Life isn’t easy in Africa, but lately it isn’t so easy in South Tel Aviv either. The latter is Israel’s responsibility. The former isn’t.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
28 January '18..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2018/01/should-african-migrants-be-allowed-to-stay-in-israel/

The subject of illegal African migrants in Israel has become a hot-button issue, with every imaginable group from human-rights organizations to the rabbis of the Conservative movement in America weighing in with advice for how Israel should deal with them.

I’ve chosen ‘migrants’ as the most neutral word. They are called everything from ‘infiltrators’ to ‘asylum-seekers’ to ‘refugees’, depending on the attitude the speaker has toward them.

First, here are some facts:

- There are 37,885 individuals considered ‘infiltrators’ living in Israel (Hebrew link to Israel Population and Immigration Authority). ‘Infiltrator’ in this context is defined as “a foreigner who entered Israel illegally via the Egyptian border.”
- 27,018 came from Eritrea, 7731 from Sudan, 2651 from various other African countries, and 485 from the rest of the world. They are mostly Christian and Muslim (I don’t know the breakdown among those in Israel, but about 63% of Eritreans are Christian).
- They began coming in the early 2000s, but since the completion of the border fence between Israel and Egypt, the flow decreased to a trickle. In 2017, the number was essentially zero.
Israel has diplomatic relations with Eritrea, but not with Sudan. Both countries have extremely poor human rights records.
- There are approximately 74,000 tourists who have overstayed their visas in Israel, 69% of whom are from the former Soviet Union, and the rest from various other places. This post is not concerned with them.
- Most of the migrants live in South Tel Aviv, although some of them can be found in Eilat, Bat Yam, Jerusalem and other places. Many work in menial jobs in restaurants, etc.

The Eritean and Sudanese migrants cannot be deported to their home countries, because – among other things – they could be conscripted into the military, prosecuted for visiting Israel (considered a belligerent country in Sudan), and so forth. Israel has made agreements with several third countries, presumably Rwanda and Uganda, to accept those migrants who agree to go there “of their free will.” Israel will pay each of the migrants who leave $3500, and will also pay something to the countries to which they go. The latest version of Israel’s law governing illegal migrants makes it difficult to work and even allows them to be jailed if they don’t agree to leave, making the “free will” stipulation somewhat moot.

Many of the migrants and the NGOs and other groups that support them say that they are refugees and have a right to asylum in Israel. By international law, a refugee is

…an individual who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

If a person enters another country, he or she may seek to be recognized as a refugee and to receive asylum, that is, permission for that person and immediate relatives to reside in the country. The decision to grant asylum or not is up to each country, and may depend on other factors than refugee status; for example, a criminal or a person who represents a security threat may not receive asylum. Even if asylum isn’t granted, the asylum-seeker may have other rights, such as not to be deported to a country where he or she would be tortured.

Those who leave a country to seek economic opportunity or for any reason other than “a well-founded fear of persecution” are not considered refugees. The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) refers to the African migration to Israel as a “mixed migration,” i.e., of economic migrants and true refugees.

Surprise! Coverage of Border Deaths Depends on Whether It's Israel, US, or Spain

...The old axiom “Jews are news” does not cut it anymore, at least not for a newspaper that wants to be seen as providing complete, contextual and proportional understanding of the world. News is news. And it is time that the The Times stop downplaying important tragedies elsewhere in the world for the sake of its obsession with Israel.

Gilead Ini..
Times of Israel..
12 March '14..

On Monday, a Jordanian citizen of Palestinian descent arrived at the Jordanian-Israeli border, attacked an Israeli soldier, and tried to steal his gun before being fatally shot, according to a preliminary Israeli investigation into the clash.

The attacker worked as judge in Jordan, a fact that’s well-known because, at least judging by a New York Times headline about the incident, his profession is more important to the story than his alleged assault on the border guard. “Jordanian Judge Killed by Israeli Soldiers at Border Crossing,” the newspaper titled its 582-word, page 7 story.

Regardless of the attacker’s line of work and its peculiar prominence in the New York Times headline, the story is certainly newsworthy. But is it more important than the story of a 16-year-old Mexican boy shot repeatedly in the back by a US border agent? Is it more compelling than the story of 15 Africans swimming toward the Spanish border who drowned as border guards fired in their direction with rubber bullets?

In Mexico

José Antonio Elena Rodriguez was on the Mexican side of his country’s northern border when he was shot about 10 times, with most of the bullets hitting him in the back. The boy was killed when US authorities opened fire on a group of Mexicans hurling rocks at them. There is no clear evidence that Rodriguez was involved in the stone-throwing.

The New York Times barely covered the story two days later, on Oct. 12, 2012, with a 198-word AP story buried on page 18 of the newspaper. Its headline, “One Is Dead After Clash At Border,” didn’t mention the boy’s age, said nothing about his line of work or whether he was a student, and, in contrast with the newspaper’s headline about the incident in Israel, did not even mention whom the boy was “killed by.”

Israel and the disintegration of Sykes-Picot

The breakdown of the old Sykes-Picot political order is testing Israel’s border with Syria along the Golan Heights.

JPost Editorial..
09 June '13..

The political order artificially constructed in the Middle East by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement is disintegrating. As the Syrian civil war rages, the borders drawn nearly a century ago are becoming blurred.

Syria is gradually splintering into three different entities: one region along the coast is loyal to the Alawite regime of President Bashar Assad; another yet-to- be-determined swath of territory might fall under the control of Sunni opposition forces; and a Kurdish enclave with ties to northern Iran and Kurdish groups in Turkey is also emerging. Perhaps this is the inevitable demise of a state populated by a Sunni majority that is ruled by an Alawite minority.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s territorial integrity is also in danger of being compromised. Iraqi Kurdistan will soon have its own oil pipeline up and running. This is seen as an important step toward an independent Kurdistan.

Shi’ite areas in southern Iraq close to the border with Kuwait are increasingly pressing for autonomy, with support from Iran. And Sunni tribes in Iraq have joined forces against the Assad regime, creating a third distinct sectarian group in Iraq.

The changing balance of power might have ramifications for Jordan, where Beduin tribes rule over a Palestinian majority.

The breakdown of the old Sykes-Picot political order is also testing Israel’s border with Syria along the Golan Heights. Israel must remain vigilant to prevent the sort of anarchy that reigns along the 600-kilometer border which separates Iraq and Syria.

And that is precisely what Israel has been doing.

Dear Minister Davies, the UN did not demarcate Israel’s borders in 1948.

LOTL..
28 June '12..

While Emmanuel Navon has been otherwise occupied for the last few months, today he has returned in full force with a new post "Hopeless or Infinite?" on his For the Sake of Zion blog. A hearty welcome back and now to the issue at hand.

Last month, South Africa’s Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies declared that he intended to issue an official notice “to require traders in South Africa not to incorrectly label products that originate from the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) as products of Israel.” Davies added that Pretoria recognizes the State of Israel “only within the borders demarcated by the United Nations (UN) in 1948.”

The UN did not demarcate Israel’s borders in 1948. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved the recommendation of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to divide the British Mandate on Palestine between an Arab state and a Jewish state (Resolution 181). This vote constituted a mere recommendation since General Assembly resolutions are not binding in international law. Thus, the idea that the UN “created” the state of Israel with Resolution 181 is mistaken (the General Assembly can approve the admission of new states to the UN, but it cannot create states). This resolution became moot as soon as it was passed since the Arab states flatly rejected it.

The New Arab Tactic against Israel

Eugene Kontorovich
www.nationalreview.com
18 May '11

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267498/new-arab-tactic-against-israel-eugene-kontorovich

The closest parallel to last weekend’s incursion into Israel is being studiously ignored.

The hostile nations surrounding Israel have sent thousands of men across its borders in a violation of the internationally recognized boundaries of the Jewish state. While Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called this influx an invasion, a variety of United Nations officials defended the infiltrators as innocent “demonstrators.” International law has a clear answer to the question who is right.

For this is not the first time in modern Middle Eastern affairs that an Arab autocracy has used massive marches of nominally civilian personnel to invade and undermine a neighboring state. In the past, such attempts have been denounced by the international community for what they are: a use of force against the territory of another state in violation of the U.N. Charter. International law is based on practical precedents, on the way given actions were legally judged by the world community in the past. It is a testament to the selective use of international law in the case of Israel that Morocco’s “Green March” into Western Sahara, by far the closest parallel to this week’s events, has not even been mentioned by world leaders.

In 1975, Spain appeared ready to pull out of much or all of Western Sahara, a large desert region between Mauritania and Morocco. Rabat hoped to annex the mineral-rich territory, but its claims of sovereignty were successively denied by a report of a U.N. fact-finding mission and an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, both of which favored self-determination for the region.

A Reader Asks: Why Won't Israel Define Its Borders In Advance of Negotiations

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
21 October '10

A reader asks: "You wrote, `But if Israel defined it's final boundaries before negotiations, the Palestinian Authority [says it] would return to the talks. Israel won't do that, of course.' Why is that `of course'"? I first joked that it was because the article was getting to be too long. In other words, I didn't have the space to discuss it. But let me explain that point now.

First, beginning with the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement, it has been clearly mutually agreed that the issue of boundaries would be settled in negotiations. Negotiations are supposed to be a give and take process: Israel would give more on boundaries if it got more on other issues. In addition, if Israelis knew they'd be getting a real, secure, and lasting peace they would be willing to offer more.

But there's also a particular negotiating trick that the Palestinian leaders have used repeatedly. Israel offers a concession saying, "If we do this, what will you give in return?" The Palestinians then say: Aha! You have offered to do this. We will give nothing in return but all future negotiations must start on the basis of you giving up on this point.

That might sound ridiculous but we've seen it over and over again, tolerated by Western mediators who act.as if this is a reasonable diplomatic posture.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

FM Lieberman proposes Israel withdraw to less than Auschwitz lines

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
25 June '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

"Therefore, for a lasting and fair solution, there needs to be an exchange of populated territories to create two largely homogeneous states, one Jewish Israeli and the other Arab Palestinian."

Here is the puzzle: If you go to the trouble to actually think about what Avigdor Lieberman is proposing (that a Palestinian state plunge into Israel in various locations where there is now a large Arab Israeli population) you realize that he advocates the creation of a Palestinian state with borders actually more dangerous than the '67 lines.

Granted, he also writes that "Israel will need to retain a presence on its borders to ensure no smuggling of arms" but that is painfully vague. What is a "presence"?

So why is he termed a "right winger" when in many respects he is proposing something to the left of Meretz?]

My blueprint for a resolution
By Avigdor Lieberman The Jerusalem Post 06/23/2010 23:40
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=179333

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," Albert Einstein once said.

Since 1993, successive governments, supported by the international community, have tried to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using the flawed paradigm of land for peace. Each time, the same formula was attempted, but failed every time because of Arab recalcitrance.

Increasingly, the international community has started to demand that Israel return to the pre-1967 armistice lines as the basis of any resolution to the conflict. This has largely happened because there is a misunderstanding that the dispute is territorial in nature and confusion on international law and precedent.

Most importantly, the Israeli leadership has historically provided no alternatives to this paradigm.

Those who claim that Israel must return to the socalled Green Line need to examine UN Security Council Resolution 242, the legal framework created following the 1967 war when the territories were conquered.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Borders

Marc Prowisor
Yesha Views
02 June '10

For years Israel has dealt with not just borders around the perimeter of the country, but borders within also. The “Green Line”, the “Gaza Strip” and the Golan Heights. For that matter, Israel has many other borders that they deal with daily, social borders, religious borders and economic borders, much like anywhere else, except maybe a little more pronounced.

Slowly but surely these borders have been coming down and disappearing. We are seeing that we have to be together, work together and stand together. We are seeing that none will come to defend us, but our own.

Those who are showing us this picture clearer than ever are none other than our own enemies, “our” meaning, not just Israel but the Jewish people.

Our enemies are teaching us, we who are in Israel, and we who are not, that where you live in Israel is not important, that if you live in Israel, is. We are being shown that the “world” is interested in supporting terrorist groups that wish for our destruction. We are being shown, once again, that Jews are not supposed to defend themselves, we are supposed to lie down and take whatever gets thrown at us…if you could only see the “bird” I am waving. We are being shown just how much influence the Arab world has in the world court, and how truth is no longer part of the picture, being replaced by hatred and deceit.

The buzzword is “Flotilla”, “Peace Activists”, etc. etc… and the band played on. I would laugh out loud but this game is getting more dangerous day by day, for all of us, all over the world.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.