Developed countries inevitably attract migrants in search of freedom or economic
opportunity; no less inevitably, some native-born citizens react negatively,
occasionally with violence, as neighborhoods change and livelihoods become
threatened by the influx of cheaper labor. The US, throughout its history, has
hardly been immune to such stirrings; in Europe, political parties running on
openly anti-immigrant platforms have enjoyed significant electoral
success.
Against this background, the news of a recent backlash in Israel
against the country’s many illegal migrants was entirely to be expected. Things
came to a head in late May in response to the alleged rape of an Israeli woman
by an African migrant. As protests broke out, accompanied by scattered acts of
violence, the government announced a decision to implement a policy of selective
deportation.
But if the Israeli case sounds typical, several factors also
make it unique. For one thing, although it has long been a magnet for foreign
workers, Israel is a relative latecomer to the ranks of the world’s most
developed nations, so that only in the past two years have the sheer numbers of
illegal immigrants reached anxiety-producing levels. For another, since Israel
offers more freedom and economic opportunity than do its neighbors, migrants
once in Israel are unlikely to leave voluntarily. Third, migrants from the Horn
of Africa – the bulk of today’s newcomers – are able to enter the country by
land through Egypt, evading any sort of border control.
Perhaps most
importantly, as a small country and the world’s only state with a Jewish
majority, Israel already has reason to be anxious about its demographic
balance.
In the face of millions of Palestinian “refugees” claiming a
right to repatriation, it is little wonder that non-Jewish immigration is seen
as an existential threat to the Zionist enterprise and indeed to the Jewish
right of self-determination.
But that brings us to another unique factor:
namely, the Jewish state’s predisposition to an open heart and abnormal displays
of compassion. Jews harbor a long memory of estrangement and rootlessness – a
memory that stretches back to ancient Egypt and that certainly was not
diminished by the experiences of the 20th century. On countless occasions, the
Torah, the prophets and rabbinic literature enjoin Jews to love and embrace the
ger – the sojourner, the migrant – for we were migrants in the Land of
Egypt.
Can Israel find a way to uphold Judaism’s concern for the stranger
without compromising its demographic makeup? On the far Left, some who are
largely unconcerned with the preservation of the state’s Jewish majority
vehemently oppose the border fence with Egypt now being constructed, not to
mention any move to deport illegal immigrants.
On the other side of the
political spectrum, some Knesset members have denounced migrants as a “cancer”
and a “plague”; one went so far as to demand that anyone trying to cross
illegally into the country be shot.
These politicians have tapped into a
sentiment that, according to a recent poll, is most pronounced among Israel’s
religious citizens. Then there is Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who accused
African migrants of spreading AIDS by raping Jewish women.
These are the
extremes; as against them, an emerging political consensus, running from
moderate Left to moderate Right, favors a sensible middle way. The consensus is
reflected in statements by senior government officials and even in government
policy, which itself appears to be moving fitfully toward a mixed and balanced
resolution.
In the case of today’s most neuralgic issue, the one posed by
illegal migrants from Africa, a balance has already been struck by means,
essentially, of inaction.
On the one hand, the state acknowledges that
wholesale deportation to an enemy or otherwise dangerous regime like Sudan or
Eritrea, which together account for the vast majority of migrants, is a
non-starter because of the risk to life and limb. On the other hand, granting
any sort of de jure right of residence would only encourage increased
migration.
The upshot is that illegal migrants remain in limbo: although
not granted work permits or a political horizon of any kind, they are also, for
the most part, not deported. There is even an official agreement not to enforce
laws prohibiting illegal migrants from working.
In practice, then,
migrants arrested along the Egyptian border suffer a brief detention – during
which little effort is made to determine the migrants’ legal status – and are
then delivered to the central bus station in south Tel Aviv and simply turned
loose. Their next stop is generally the nearby Levinsky Park, a de facto
absorption center and the focal point of non-governmental relief
efforts.
Eventually, most migrants move out of the park into overcrowded
apartments and find work as manual laborers.
This half-baked arrangement
was developed before migration reached its present levels; in the face of
today’s rapid growth, it has obviously proved untenable.
Coming under
sustained pressure for its failure either to foresee or to contain the
burgeoning crisis, the government is slowly forging a more comprehensive
policy.
Hence the border fence with Egypt: scheduled for completion by
the end of this year, the fence is designed to slow migration to a fraction of
its current levels.
Meanwhile, a large detention facility under
construction in the Negev will house migrants for up to three years while their
status is being resolved. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Deputy Foreign
Minister Danny Ayalon have explicitly stated that migrants will not be returned
to Sudan or Eritrea, but Israel has indeed begun to turn back illegal migrants
from South Sudan and the Ivory Coast, both of which maintain diplomatic ties
with Jerusalem and neither of which is deemed a threat to the lives of
deportees. On the domestic front, the prime minister, Knesset Speaker Reuven
Rivlin, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Arab MK Ahmed Tibi have all
condemned racist rhetoric and violent behavior toward migrants even as they
support measures to limit migration and deport those who can be
deported.
By making it more difficult to enter the country, and by
indefinitely delaying access to its civic life, Israel hopes to deter those
seeking economic opportunity alone. But bona fide refugees and asylum- seekers
will be properly processed and, if approved, granted some sort of permanent
status. As for migrants already in Israel, the majority will also gain some form
of recognition or amnesty. Although the government is keeping mum about its
intentions until the fence is completed, once that infrastructure is in place
there will at least be no risk of 60,000 migrants turning into
600,000.
Before that happens, of course, the situation on the street
could deteriorate. Still, there is reason to be optimistic that Israel will
succeed in balancing the need to preserve its demographic character with the
Jewish tradition of care for the sojourner – just as there is reason to hope
that responsible government policy will have a trickle-down effect on a restive
citizenry.
Elli Fischer is a writer and translator who lives in Modi’in.
He is involved in a grassroots initiative to educate Israel’s religious
community about African migration