The M-word and The Mediterranean Risk (op-ed)
“Mistanenim”-- is Hebrew for infiltrators (Illegal border crossers from Africa into Israel). The analogous M-word in America is Mexican, and according to former Mexican President Vicente Fox they do jobs American N-words don’t want. (Fox said blacks and his remark was considered racist.) A recent headline echoed Fox: Israel looking to expel Africans despite demand for their labor. (45,000 asylum seekers compared to 3,000 ten years ago.)
Is this headline an indirect attempt to solicit a similar racial reaction that chastised Fox?
Israel has a problem. They call it infiltration. (A highly criticized term, but the language illustrates high prioritized national security.) In the United States the same problem is harmlessly referred to as illegal immigration.
In fairness the headline could have read: Israel aims to deter influx of asylum seekers. But it said -- Israel looks to expel -- as if they are manufacturing unjustified reasons -- Africans -- the majority of asylum seekers come from two countries (Sudan and Eritrea) not the whole continent -- despite demand for their labor -- but what does labor demand qualify?
The Israeli government responded to humanitarian crises by offering temporary refuge for Sudanese fleeing ethnic cleansing and Eritreans escaping opened ended conscription (Involuntary servitude disguised as military service.), but now Israeli authorities state most asylum seekers are not refugees but labor migrants. (Refugees flee political persecution and reprisal. Labor migrants seek to escape poverty.)
The United States has made similar distinctions. Cubans were political refugees fleeing an oppressive government but Haitians were classified as economic refugees. In 1991-92, after a coup d’etat establishing military rule, 40,000 Haitians took to the ocean to flee the poorest country in the western hemisphere. The U.S. Coast Guard intercepted survivors of this exodus and placed them in Guantanamo bay. There they were interviewed, most qualified for asylum, but Guantanamo couldn’t handle the rapid increase of asylum seekers. President George H. W. Bush ordered the Coast Guard to return them all back to Haiti regardless of status. Critics accused Bush of violating the Geneva Convention on Refugees which was written to rectify the refusal of other nations to grant Jews asylum that fled from the Nazis. President Clinton continued Bush’s policy under the rationale that prohibiting immigration would prevent Haitians from drowning.
Israeli authorities sounded Clintonesque when they stated: Only tough legislation that reduces the motivation to reach here will discourage African’s from entering. But most importantly authorities said, “The state of Israel will not be the solution to the social ills of Africa.”
Notice Israeli authorities didn’t say the social ills of Sudan and Eritrea they said the entire continent. Israel is preventing their country from being the destination of future refugees from the next humanitarian crisis that could breakout anytime and anywhere on the African continent. Is this inhumane, racist, or is it a matter of overpopulation and security? Or is it xenophobia from those that use the word “Mistanenim” and feel their country is losing its Jewish identity?
But what about the M-words or migrant workers? The Israeli government sent letters to some giving them 30 days to choose between “voluntary” departure to a third African country with a $3,500 grant or indefinite detention near the Egyptian border.
The real tragedy is that most don’t want to return to the African continent -- anywhere. And if they can’t stay in Israel they will risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe. Clinton’s policy was stated to prevent Haitians from drowning in the ocean. Israel’s policy encouraged one Eritrean that arrived in South Sudan after six years in Israel to say, “I’m not scared of drowning in the Mediterranean. God decides my fate.”
The International organization for Migration estimates close to 30,000 people from the African continent could drown this year in the Mediterranean Sea unless the European Union establishes an effective search and rescue service, and if more than 30,000 people drown will the European Union be indirectly accused of humanitarian neglect or will critics finally ask why were these people neglected on the entire continent
of Africa?
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 7/8/15
Is this headline an indirect attempt to solicit a similar racial reaction that chastised Fox?
Israel has a problem. They call it infiltration. (A highly criticized term, but the language illustrates high prioritized national security.) In the United States the same problem is harmlessly referred to as illegal immigration.
In fairness the headline could have read: Israel aims to deter influx of asylum seekers. But it said -- Israel looks to expel -- as if they are manufacturing unjustified reasons -- Africans -- the majority of asylum seekers come from two countries (Sudan and Eritrea) not the whole continent -- despite demand for their labor -- but what does labor demand qualify?
The Israeli government responded to humanitarian crises by offering temporary refuge for Sudanese fleeing ethnic cleansing and Eritreans escaping opened ended conscription (Involuntary servitude disguised as military service.), but now Israeli authorities state most asylum seekers are not refugees but labor migrants. (Refugees flee political persecution and reprisal. Labor migrants seek to escape poverty.)
The United States has made similar distinctions. Cubans were political refugees fleeing an oppressive government but Haitians were classified as economic refugees. In 1991-92, after a coup d’etat establishing military rule, 40,000 Haitians took to the ocean to flee the poorest country in the western hemisphere. The U.S. Coast Guard intercepted survivors of this exodus and placed them in Guantanamo bay. There they were interviewed, most qualified for asylum, but Guantanamo couldn’t handle the rapid increase of asylum seekers. President George H. W. Bush ordered the Coast Guard to return them all back to Haiti regardless of status. Critics accused Bush of violating the Geneva Convention on Refugees which was written to rectify the refusal of other nations to grant Jews asylum that fled from the Nazis. President Clinton continued Bush’s policy under the rationale that prohibiting immigration would prevent Haitians from drowning.
Israeli authorities sounded Clintonesque when they stated: Only tough legislation that reduces the motivation to reach here will discourage African’s from entering. But most importantly authorities said, “The state of Israel will not be the solution to the social ills of Africa.”
Notice Israeli authorities didn’t say the social ills of Sudan and Eritrea they said the entire continent. Israel is preventing their country from being the destination of future refugees from the next humanitarian crisis that could breakout anytime and anywhere on the African continent. Is this inhumane, racist, or is it a matter of overpopulation and security? Or is it xenophobia from those that use the word “Mistanenim” and feel their country is losing its Jewish identity?
But what about the M-words or migrant workers? The Israeli government sent letters to some giving them 30 days to choose between “voluntary” departure to a third African country with a $3,500 grant or indefinite detention near the Egyptian border.
The real tragedy is that most don’t want to return to the African continent -- anywhere. And if they can’t stay in Israel they will risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe. Clinton’s policy was stated to prevent Haitians from drowning in the ocean. Israel’s policy encouraged one Eritrean that arrived in South Sudan after six years in Israel to say, “I’m not scared of drowning in the Mediterranean. God decides my fate.”
The International organization for Migration estimates close to 30,000 people from the African continent could drown this year in the Mediterranean Sea unless the European Union establishes an effective search and rescue service, and if more than 30,000 people drown will the European Union be indirectly accused of humanitarian neglect or will critics finally ask why were these people neglected on the entire continent
of Africa?
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 7/8/15
Comments
Post a Comment