The plight of African refugees in Israel
Israel has implemented a two-step plan to reduce the number “infiltrators” from Africa. The first step has been to stop the flow of asylum seekers into the country by constructing an expansive fence on the Egyptian border. Second, an old law has been updated to keep asylum seekers in detention without trial for a year. Additionally, refugees are being repatriated to third countries without consent.
Since the announcement of its new policy on 31 March 2015, Israel has begun to force Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers within its borders to choose between so-called “voluntary departure” and indefinite detention. While in the past the Israeli government has offered asylum seekers $3,500 to leave the country, as long as they signed a written consent form, the new policy provides that asylum seekers have 30 days to leave Israel with or without the consent of the individuals in question. The only alternative to leaving is now indefinite detention in Saharonim Prison in the Negev, which is a violation of international law. As Amnesty International has reported, Israel’s new amendments do not abide by its international legal obligations under several international conventions, including the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The International Refugee Rights Initiative has recently published a report on the “voluntary departure” of African asylum seekers from Israel to Rwanda and Uganda, pointing out that those who choose to do this are under a great deal of pressure, and laying out the steps that should be taken to combat Israel’s actions in the future.
Israel’s siege mentality has led to the labelling of asylum seekers as “infiltrators” and the refusal to grant Eritreans and Sudanese in Israel refugee status. Globally, these two nationalities are among those with the highest recognition rates for asylum claims; Eritreans receive recognition in 84.5 percent and Sudanese in 74.4 percent of cases. Israel, however, has not granted refugee status to a single Sudanese asylum seeker, and to only four Eritreans.
While many asylum seekers believed that Israel, with its reputation as a safe haven for Jews around the world, would be welcoming to those in need, the government has demonstrated a sense of hospitality only to Jewish African asylum seekers. While this group has been welcomed with open arms, Israel has implemented a two-step plan to reduce the number the non-Jewish “infiltrators” from Africa. The first step has been to stop the flow of asylum seekers into the country, by constructing an expansive fence on Israel’s border with Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Since the border fence was constructed, new arrivals have decreased more than 99 percent between 2012 and 2013. Secondly, Israel has amended the pre-existing Anti-Infiltration Law so as to be able to keep new arrivals in detention for one year without trial, followed by “additional indefinite detention in a specially constructed internment camp operated by the Israeli Prison Service,” as well as forcing asylum seekers already living in Israel to report for detention.
On top of this, Israel has begun the practice of deporting asylum seekers to third countries— Rwanda and Uganda. The problem with these deportation deals is that while both Israel and the recipient countries benefit—Israel gets rid of its “infiltration” problem and Rwanda and Uganda receive economic benefits and reportedly arms and agricultural technology—the asylum seekers themselves do not benefit and may be exposed to harm.
According to the Hotline for Refugees and Migrants based in Tel Aviv, asylum seekers are dropped into these countries unable “to rent an apartment, work, or file an asylum claim.” Many of the asylum seekers deported to third countries end up fleeing for a second time, often towards the Mediterranean in the hopes of getting to Europe. While Israel refers to the deportations as “voluntary departure,” there is nothing voluntary about the choice between indefinite detention and deportation to a third country where the asylum seeker will have few rights.
Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers are mistreated at every step of the way: oppression in their home countries, indefinite detention in Israel or “voluntary” deportation from the country, where xenophobic protests have increased.
Israel must be held accountable for its actions towards asylum seekers and its very low rate of recognition of refugees. While no mechanism to do so currently exists, Israel could be held accountable in other ways. For example, drawing international media attention to the plight of African asylum seekers there or external monitoring of its asylum system might pressure the government to alter its policies. Deporting Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda is simply shifting the burden, not eliminating the problem itself. For a country that prides itself on being a haven for those looking for refuge, Israel is far from living up to its own standards concerning the treatment of asylum seekers.
* This article is carried in the present issue of Rights in Exile newsletter.
* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM
* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.