This week, Israel took further steps to disfranchise refugees and illegal immigrants; the Knesset approved a 2% cut from all ministries to fund measures to repel African migrants. These $167 million initiatives include continuation of the fence along the Egyptian border, as well as the expansion and creation of detention facilities. Migrants may spend anywhere from 60 days to three years in these temporary detention centers.

Potentially even more worrying is Netanyahu’s commitment to visit parts of Africa in the hopes of “returning” migrants. Though his attempts to forcibly repatriate asylum seekers would subject many of them to persecution, the prime minister claims that Israel will continue to protect the “real” refugees. Especially in light of the small percentage of migrants granted asylum, his statement begs the question: how are can “real” refugees – versus economic migrants – be identified, given that even refugees must seek work?

Reut Michaeli, executive director of Israel’s Hotline for Migrant Workers, countered Netanyahu’s assertion that most migrants are fraudulent asylum seekers who only come to Israel for employment:

“Across the world, 88 percent of Eritrean migrants who seek asylum are recognized as refugees. I find it very difficult to believe that the ones who come to Israel are any different.”

Detainment camps are spread throughout the Sinai, run by Israeli and Egyptian criminals who abduct asylum seekers and hold them for ransom. Inside these prisons, migrants are subject to torture and rape until, and unless, family or friends come to their rescue. Despite accounts detailing human trafficking and even identifying the actual criminals involved, no persons have been prosecuted by either Egyptian or Israeli authorities.

Those who manage to leave the camps alive do not find the refuge they sought in Israel. Over 27,000 asylum seekers live with the uncertainty of the government’s next move – to date, Israel, which has no defined set of asylum law, has only recognized 200 refugees. The nation is a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, but rather than comply with its own commitments, the Knesset is implementing incredulous detention laws that criminalize refugees; last November, the government approved a detention center with a 10,00 person capacity to hold migrants until their deportation. Currently, the Knesset is determining penalties for asylum seekers that include a minimum three year prison term, as well as a five year term for accomplices.

Tel Aviv’s mayor argues that illegal migrants are coming for work rather than asylum, and holds them responsible for many of Israel’s economic woes. Employment is inherently connected to the asylum process, but such entangled intentions do not justify the illegal and xenophobic reactions the Israeli government parades brashly and without shame: Prime Minister Netanyahu believes the proposed measures are essential to protecting the “character and future” of Israel. Netanyahu further referred to refugees as a “threat to economy, society, security, and demographic fabric” of Israel. The rhetoric includes economic references, but primarily emphasizes the difficulty in their “absorption,” as asylum seekers are so underhandedly “changing the face of entire neighborhoods.”

While nations are empowered to confront illegal migration, Israel’s crude solutions ignore the victims of human trafficking and violate international refugee law. It is little wonder that the government has failed to crack down on Israeli involvement in Sinai’s prisons camps, when its own detention facilities will similarly flout human rights. The attorney for the Anu Plitim (‘We are Refugees’) NGO reminds Israel that it “is itself a nation of refugees and survivors.”

As we have blogged before, black African migrants have been the target of attacks by anti-Gaddafi forces on suspicion of being mercenaries for the regime since the conflict in Libya began. Recent reports suggest that the danger for migrants from Subsaharan African countries has intensified since the Gaddafi regime lost control of Tripoli, with rebels turning their wrath against those suspected of being mercenaries. Dozens of migrants are being held in a prison in the Suq al Jouma neighbourhood of Tripoli, according to the New York Times and Time magazine.

Libya had previously been very welcoming to migrants from elsewhere in Africa,  but the line between regime soldier and dark-skinned southerner or migrant worker has become blurred in the midst of the conflict, writes Time‘s Abigail Hauslohner in Tripoli.

Hauslohner visits a camp outside Tripoli and examines the background in depth:

The displaced mostly hail from countries across West Africa, like Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone. Many have lived in Libya for years — even decades — and carry the legal papers to prove it. Their presence is rooted in Gaddafi’s legacy of fostering close relationships with fellow African regimes and recruiting loyalists from among their citizens. But for a man who often sought to portray himself as a leader of the continent, Gaddafi may have done more to divide his country’s future than to encourage tolerance and respect.

It’s popular knowledge among the predominantly Arab and Berber rebel ranks here that Gaddafi funded questionable African warlords and armies, even as his own population struggled. And at his home in Tripoli’s Bab al-Aziziyah compound, rebels hold up old pictures of Gaddafi posing with African children dressed in fatigues as further evidence of their former ruler’s betrayal.

His alleged mercenaries — particularly the men who populated the fearsome Khamis Brigade, which was used to assault the rebels over the course of their six-month revolt — often came from the southern town of Sabha or the neighboring countries of Mali, Niger and Chad. The foreigners were alleged to receive benefits and even fast-track residency in exchange for their services as loyalists and fighters — a practice, whether real or exaggerated, that has fueled deep tribal, ethnic and geographic mistrust.

Anti-Gaddafi forces are currently holding Subsaharan Africans captive in a building in central Tripoli:

More than 120 other suspects — most of them foreign Africans — are being held at a school in central Tripoli, in the absence of a functioning government or justice system. There are rumors of other ad hoc prisons. And a guard, Jamal Mohamed, is sure the captives are snipers. “Polisario,” he adds, referring to a resistance movement in Western Sahara, from which Gaddafi allegedly recruited. Some of the captives have been punched in the eyes or nurse bandaged wounds sustained during fighting. Many were apprehended during battles in Gaddafi-stronghold neighborhoods. At least two admit to being members of the regime’s forces.

But many others say they were captured by accident or targeted out of racism or xenophobia. Abou Bakr from Niger says he had merely gone outside to look for water but lived in the wrong neighborhood, one where rebels happened to be searching for loyalists.

Tripoli is a racially diverse city, with skin colors ranging from pale to very dark — largely because Gaddafi encouraged such integration. And the Libyan rebels display the same diversity among their ranks. But a latent racism festers, along with the hazy rules that only locals seem to understand that distinguish between “good” black people from “bad.” The logic follows the lines of Gaddafi’s uneven favors, which even in Tripoli often served personal ambitions more than the public good (full story here)

According to this report in the New York Times, suspicion of black Africans is now endemic:

Many Tripoli residents — including some local rebel leaders — now often use the Arabic word for “mercenaries” or “foreign fighters” as a catchall term to refer to any member of the city’s large underclass of African migrant workers – link

It has become clear that the ambassador has failed his position and responsibilities to take the right decision at the right time to save his people. He did not assess the severity of the situation well enough and did not order the evacuation of Filipino workers in Syria who were seeking refuge at the time.

Hopefully with time, more competent staff are put in place and less corrupt and/or irresponsible ones are placed in vulnerable countries (countries where migrants are most vulnerable) like those in the region.

Follow up on this and more thorought details can be found here.

Currently, the MoI grants temporary protection under the Refugee Convention to nationals of certain countries, such as Eritrea and Sudan, provided that they can prove their identity.

The African Refugee Development Center (ARDC), based in Tel Aviv, has encountered numerous cases being dismissed out of hand by the MoI due to the difficulties in doing so. In the case of Eritreans, problems arise when there are discrepancies in identity between Eritreans and Ethiopians. Unlike Eritreans, Ethiopians are not eligible for temporary protection in Israel. As in the case referred to above, the MoI commonly rejects an applicant’s claim by asserting that they are not Eritrean but rather Ethiopian.

The long and complex history of Eritrean and Ethiopian relations has resulted in a state of confusion regarding national identity for several thousands of people. Individuals seen as traitors, such as those who voluntarily qualified to vote for Eritrean independence in 1993 or those who were involved in Eritrean Community Associations, were denied Ethiopian citizenship. At this time the Eritrean administration was only a “provisional” government and thus not capable of issuing legal documents such as passports, only identity cards. Therefore many of these cases fell under the definition of “stateless”, that is, they were not formally recognized as either nationality. However, Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. In 1996 both countries signed a formal agreement stating that acquiring Eritrean identity under the 1993 referendum does not deny individuals from Ethiopian nationality. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia then began issuing dual citizenship.

After Eritrea’s attack on Ethiopia in May of 1998, individuals of Eritrean ties residing in Ethiopia were issued with yellow “alien” identification booklets. These individuals were again denied their Ethiopian citizenship and were not issued with legal Eritrean documents, as they were seen as enemies of the state. This resulted in tens of thousands of cases of denationalized citizens. To add to the confusion, those Eritrean nationals who left Ethiopia were issued with an Ethiopian alien passport which did not show evidence of Eritrean origins. There are three common problems when attempting to prove Eritrean identity

Firstly, in the case of mixed marriages between Eritreans and Ethiopians, one spouse may be granted protection in Israel whilst the other is not, The spouse not granted protection may even face deportation. These situations are also particularly difficult if the couple wish to relocate. Furthermore, there are many difficulties for children born out of these mixed marriages in terms of citizenship which can result in the denial of a temporary protection visa. Due to the current political climate in both Eritrea and Ethiopia, mixed marriages and the resulting children are not accepted by either country and often face discrimination if they are returned. Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. The complexity of Eritrean-Ethiopian identity and nationality therefore results in several situations in which the principle of family unity is in danger.

Secondly, adult individuals of mixed heritage who gained dual citizenship (such as in the aforementioned court case) are often are dismissed as being purely Ethiopian and thus not eligible for temporary protection. However, these individuals are faced with the same discrimination and persecution as all other Eritrean nationals, such as forced military service.

Finally, identity cases are often brought forward by individuals having previously lived abroad for many years or in exile from their country of origin. In these cases, the claimant may not speak the native language of their birth place. For example, Eritreans exiled from Eritrea to Ethiopia may speak Amharic rather than Tigrinya or Arabic, the two most common languages in Eritrea. Similar language issues are found for those clients from Sudan, who do not speak tribal languages such as Fur. Language and identity often go hand-in-hand for the MoI is commonly used to dismiss temporary protection claims.

This court case was a step-forward in asylum rights and we must continue to advocate for fairer trials and a multi-dimensional understanding of identity.

by Zoe Peck

Kidane describes watching people dying of dehydration in the desert heat, “there was nothing we could do, there was so little water even for ourselves; we sent a prayer to God and moved on”. Sadly, Kidane’s journey is not unique. This is the typical journey, this is the reality. The estimated 18,000 Eritrean asylum-seekers currently residing in Israel have fled from one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. In 2009 Eritrea was ranked last in the World Press Freedom Index, even more oppressive than North Korea.

Fleeing Eritrea does not necessarily result in escaping the corruption of the regime, Kidane explains: “The Israeli Ministry of Interior demands Eritrean identification cards…we don’t have them, they are not important in Eritrea or the smugglers steal them from us”. To obtain an identification card, the people must go to the Eritrean embassy in Israel and pay $1,500 USD, which goes directly to supporting the very regime from which they just escaped. How do they afford this? Kidane explains: “you either suffer for a year or you borrow from someone; we suffer a lot”.

Furthermore, upon receiving the ID card, the asylum seeker must provide personal details to the embassy. This information is relayed back to Eritrea where it is viewed as betrayal and opposition to the regime, and can result in reprisals for the family remaining in Eritrea. To add further anguish, the asylum seeker must then sign a declaration stating that if they return to Eritrea they will accept any punishment the government deems necessary. Obtaining this document is not only a financial burden—it can mean a life sentence.

“We are tired, we want change; we want to get rid of the dictatorship”, says Kidane. The community is hopeful the toppling of many North African dictatorships in the past year will have an overflow effect on Eritrea and result in global condemnation of such regimes.

Five months ago, with the support of the African Refugee Development Centre (ARDC), a five-member strong committee was formed in order to support the broader Eritrean population living in Israel. The Eritrean committee aims to promote advocacy and awareness amongst the Israeli population regarding the plight of asylum seekers, as well as to strengthen unity within the Eritrean community. The five members were elected by the Eritrean community and report to a group of three elders, who settle any disputes that may arise and ensure accountability. Isaac explains that it is not always easy for asylum seekers, particularly Eritreans, to trust NGO workers. “Trust doesn’t come easily, even in the committee, we are friends, but the [Eritrean] regime has traumatised people”.

by Zoe Peck

Asylum seekers and refugees in Egypt face a threat of deportation to countries where they risk persecution. This violates the cornerstone of international refugee law that prohibits such deportations—the principle of non-refoulement.

Refugees in Sinai have attracted media attention because Egyptian authorities have caught, arrested, shot, or even killed an increased number of those attempting to illegally cross the border from Egypt into Israel.

Others in Sinai have been kidnapped or held hostage by smugglers or traffickers who may have deceived these mainly-Eritrean individuals into believing that they can assist them with entering Israel for a high enough price. There are reports that they have led them as far as Sinai and then held them hostage until they can provide more money; in the meanwhile, they are subjected to torture, rape and other sexual abuses.

Legally speaking, it is important to differentiate between migrants whom the Egyptian authorities have detained—whether refugees, asylum seekers or other categories of migrants.

Some refugees in Egypt have been in detention from as far back as February 2008. A group of several Eritreans and Ethiopians, as well as a few Somalis, are currently being held in Qanater prison; some of them have been detained for entering Egypt illegally, mainly through the Sudanese border. Many of them are held with criminals who have life sentences for crimes like drug trafficking.

This is a particularly vulnerable group for a few reasons. Firstly, their detention violates the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which Egypt has ratified. The law says that illegal entry of refugees fleeing persecution should not be penalized granted that they present themselves to the authorities within a reasonable amount of time and can explain their illegal entry or presence. Secondly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the agency responsible for conducting refugee status determination in Egypt, has not been able to access all such detained asylum seekers due to lack of response from the government authorities. While the UNHCR is the mainactor involved in upholding the legal status and welfare of refugees in Egypt, the Egyptian government is the only authority.

The UNHCR may not have the most accurate record of asylum seekers and refugees in detention if the government has failed to coordinate with them about certain detainees. This may leave a number of asylum seekers and refugees unaccounted for in the event of a deportation like we saw in the summer of 2008.

On the other hand, the detention of those who were caught attempting to cross the border with Israel illegally is lawful.

One such group of over 85 Eritreans and Ethiopians are currently detained in Al-Mustaqbal police station in Ismailia. They are at risk of being deported to countries where they may face incommunicado detention, torture, sexual assault or rape and other abuses of human rights.

It is more likely that if these detainees have been in Cairo, they have previously had a chance to approach the UNHCR, and many might already be recognized refugees. This differentiates them from those whose right to seek asylum has not been upheld. However, if those who attempted to enter Israel are bona fide refugees, their deportation is still illegal.

Since the Egyptian government authorities may be excluding the UNHCR from playing its delegated role in offering international protection to these detainees, it remains uncertain whether these crucial distinctions will be made. It is imperative that the authorities are aware of the danger that deporting refugees to countries where there is a high risk of persecution poses to these detainees, as well as Egypt’s legal obligation not to deport.

Written by:
Dalia Malek
PhD Candidate at King’s College London, Department of Law

This racism isn’t a new phenomena, but the obvious rise in its manifestations is quite alarming. Last week, Rabbis (Jewish religious leaders) from the ultra-orthodox city of Bnei Brak issued a public call to Israelis to stop renting apartments to “infiltrators” and migrant workers. The public call stated: “those who rent to them [migrant workers and refugees] are to blame for all the moral catastrophes that will results from this, but those who heed our call will… be blessed.” The ultra-orthodox activist behind the public call said that “finally we managed to make this neighborhood ultra-orthodox [drive out secular Jews] and suddenly we see that more and more gentiles hang around here.”

The public call by Bnei Brak Rabbis

The apartment lenders in Bnei Brak have found a way to increase their profits. Instead of renting an apartment to an Israeli couple, they split the apartment to rooms and rent them each to impoverished asylum seekers, sometimes “stuffing” ten refugees into a small apartment. The municipality of Bnei Brak plans to combat this illegal practice by increasing inspection to look for split apartments and are considering publishing (and publicly shaming) those who rent to Africans “so that the public knows the identity of those who prefer their personal financial interests over the severe and unjustified harm caused to the rest of the [Jewish] public”, the ultra-orthodox site Behadrey Haredim reported.

A similar call by 25 Rabbis not to rent to migrants and refugees was issued in July in Tel Aviv and was followed up by a pledge of 11 south Tel-Aviv realtors not to rent to refugees. Two weeks ago a Shas Tel Aviv municipality council-member proposed offering financial intensives to ultra-orthodox families to move into poor southern Tel Aviv neighborhoods where refugees and migrant workers reside. The reason behind the council-member’s initiative is to tackle an alleged “culture of African refugees flooding south Tel Aviv and causing a growing demographic gap resulting in a suspension of Jewish relocation to the neighborhoods.”

The cases reported thus far include ultra-orthodox Rabbis or politicians, but it would be misleading to single out the ultra-orthodox community. Racism toward African asylum seekers is common in general Israeli society. For example, last week the (secular) mayor of the southern Israeli city Eilat, Meir Yizhac HaLevi stated that if the state of Israel doesn’t intervene to stop asylum seekers from working in Eilat until January 11, 2011, the municipality “intends to block the entrance of infiltrators ourselves.” According to the mayor, “we plan to begin the process of removing illegal infiltrators from Eilat, make it hard for them to work here and rent apartments.” HaLevi, like all other Israeli officials, presents the African asylum seekers as illegal migrants, even though reports by the state itself admit that 80% of the asylum seekers are entitled to group protection and cannot be deported due to dangers they face back home.

Senior Israeli politicians also promote this sort of racism. The Interior Minister Eli Yishai (from the ultra-orthodox party Shas) claimed that “more than one million people have tried, are trying and will try to infiltrate [Israel] from third world countries.” According to him, “in order to maintain the Jewish majority, Israel must defend itself.” Several propositions are currently being considered by the Israeli government on how to defend Israel from this “danger”.

In the ongoing deliberation process inside the Israeli government a proposal being examined is to mass-deport the asylum seekers to African nations that would accept them for money. Another option being considered, which was reported last week in the papers Maariv and Makor Rishon is to construct a mass “holding facility” in the southern desert (Negev) that would hold thousands of tents. Officials in Israel’s Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Population, Immigration and Border Authority (inside the Ministry of Interior) have proposed this “solution” and it is being considered by a inter-departmental committee chaired by the Prime Minister’s Office director-general. According to officials quoted in the papers, the ability to work in Israel is what’s luring the refugees to come there, and the asylum seekers in the holding facility would be provided with food and shelter and forbidden from working. Fines for Israelis who employ African asylum seekers would be tightly enforced, and according to the Makor Rishon report (but no the Maariv one), the asylum seekers will be forbidden from leaving the facility until they find a country willing to accept them.

Once again we see how the incitement by Israeli officials against asylum seekers is used to justify immoral and illegal proposals for dealing with them. Instead of acting like a civilized nation and letting asylum seekers go through the process of determining whether they are eligible for a refugee status or not, Israeli politicians prefer to pretend that they’re all illegal migrant workers so they can treat them as such.

Originally posted on MideastYouth.com

According to the report Netanyahu is personally handling the matter, and is considering steps that “will shake up” the State. These steps include opening secret negotiations with African leaders who will be offered millions of dollars in exchange for accepting the asylum seekers Israel will forcibly transfer to those countries. Another option being considered is to forge an agreement with African countries and finance building refugee camps there for the asylum seekers deported from Israel.

According to the current Netanyahu government, the asylum seekers, who make up about 27,000 people (0.2% of the Israeli population) are a threat to Israel’s “delicate demographic balance”. Alongside these planned negotiations with African countries, Israel will begin constructing a fence along the Egyptian-Israeli border starting next month to prevent infiltrations from Sinai, which is the route African refugees use to enter Israel.

The report misleadingly calls the asylum seekers “illegal work migrants” and again repeats the official Israeli government’s stance that only a few of the asylum seekers are entitled to a refugee status. However, Israeli reports to the UN admit that 90% of the African asylum seekers are entitled to a refugee status. Israel refuses to even accept claims for refugee status and simply allows the asylum seekers to stay in Israel and fend for themselves.

Since Israel has no way of guaranteeing that the asylum seekers it deports will not face danger in the African countries that agree to accept them in exchange for money, this proposal contradicts customary international law that Israel is bound to, which includes the principle of non-refoulment that prohibits the return of a person to a place where he is expected to suffer persecution. The Israeli Supreme Court recognized Israel’s obligation to follow this principle based on the Israeli Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty which enshrines the right to life.

Sigal Rosen of Hotline for Migrant Workers, an Israeli NGO assisting refugees and migrant workers told Migrant-Rights.org that “every several months another Israeli decision maker or a member of parliament gets up and declares to whoever is ready to hear him that there is a need to deport all refugees back to Africa. Ignoring the immoral aspect of the plan, those who fantasize about the deportation of refugees to Africa forget that their plan is illegal both from international law and Israeli law points of view. It might be possible to find the African leader who will agree to accept Sudanese and Eritrean refugees for the right amount of money. It will be totally impossible to guaranty the safety of these refugees after their deportation.”

The ongoing incitement by the Israeli government against the African refugees who have escaped genocide and oppression in their countries is now being used to justify this barbaric and illegal plan. The Netanyahu government has a track record of making outrageous and racist proposals and rarely following through on them. We must make sure this plan too is never carried out.

UPDATE: An official response from Israel’s leading migrant and civil rights groups ACRI and HMW to Migrant-Rights.org: “Netanyahu’s words show a lack of historical memory. The Prime Minister should be reminded that countries all over the world are faced with the phenomenon of entry of refugees, and many of them make an effort to absorb them and provide them shelter. The State of Israel should establish a clear mechanism that would determine who is entitled to a refugee status. It should be remembered and reminded that a large number of the asylum seekers in Israel have escaped war and violence in their lands. A state that was established by refugees cannot turns its back on refugees who seek asylum from atrocities.”