Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

JPost editorial: Leftists bring Africans to Israel in order to undermine Jewish majority

The Jerusalem Post, which has a history of unbelievable editorials, has done it again. “The world’s leading Jewish paper” claims that the arrival of African refugees is part of a conspiracy by left-wing NGOs, meant to undermine the Jewish majority in Israel. Don’t look for proof for those claims; even JPost admits that there is none. Here’s the money quote:

Many of these NGOs are striving to undermine the character of Israel as a Jewish state by fighting to keep as many African migrants as possible in Israel and by encouraging more to come. But they rarely declare their true intentions publicly because they know that they would lose public support in Israel if they did.

And this is by a newspaper that opposes the two-state solution, yet somehow thinks that 50,000 Africans are a bigger threat to the Jewish majority than 2 million Palestinians.

Related:
+972 Magazine’s complete coverage of asylum seekers in Israel
Brievik couldn’t have said it better: Jpost wants us to use Oslo attack to reevaluate immigration policy
JPost editor forbids mentioning corruption allegations against Jerusalem mayoral candidate’

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. JG

      When it comes to weird conspiracy theories, there is not much differnce between Israel an Egypt (“extermination of the MB- who are the Zionist and Jews of Egypt- is a duty”).

      I personally think communist aliens invented Africans in first place to destroy white men’s gloryfull history. And Obama is their secret leader. Fact.
      Source:Internet

      Reply to Comment
    2. Rehmat

      I suppose the guys at JP never heard of Jewish National Fund (JNF) which have long been involved with ethnic-cleansing of Native Palestinians.

      But we Canadians know JNF quite well especially since JNF honored our prime minister Stephen Harper in November 2013, for his excellent services to the Zionist cause – especially kicking Iranian embassy out of Ottawa.

      “The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer,” said Yosef Weitz, director Jewish National Fund, March 20, 1941.

      http://rehmat1.com/2013/11/30/racist-jewish-group-to-honor-canadian-pm/

      Reply to Comment
    3. Kolumn9

      It isn’t a ‘conspiracy’. It is an overall explicit objective of many left-wing NGOs to overturn the Jewish State and they are more than willing to import new residents to do so. It would be like saying that there is a conspiracy among the writers on 972mag to transfer control over the West Bank to the Palestinians.

      Anyone that has seen what happens in other countries with generous refugee policies knows that the ‘refugee’ bureaucracy and process, once created, is viciously gamed. Every loophole is used to obtain refugee status and even those denied refugee status can stall the legal system for years while looking for means of achieving legal status. Almost no one ever gets deported. After permanent status is granted, the next phase is to allow family reunification. Family reunification is one of those never ending geometric processes. At every step the appeal is to ‘rights’ and ‘compassion’ and uses a small number of legitimate refugees to bludgeon the system into accepting everyone who makes up a story. The incentives for someone from the third world to make it the first world are just too great for it to work otherwise.

      I am also pretty sure you are wrong in stating that JPost’s editorials oppose the two state solution.

      Reply to Comment
    4. What this kind of thought does is paint any future High Court resistance as unpatriotic, anti-Zionist, and/or leftist. It also transforms Zionism as expansion and border security into culture and thought policing at home. This is an institutional battle, not a fifth column of leftists sneaking refugees into the country (or urging them to come). Consider that there is a bill pending in the Knesset that would make it illegal to advocate–just advocate–that IDF soldiers be prosecuted; that is both thought control and an attack on the High Court’s petition power.

      The refugee convention clearly states that mode of entry, illegal or not, does not determine asylum claim. Perhaps that is a bad idea; but it is there. The High Court ruled years ago that therefore illegal entrants could not be deported absent hearing of claim. And look where you are now–all because the government refused to follow the original High Court ruling fully.

      I think these events will be a determinative moment for the Israeli constitution for some time. The popular cards seem stacked against the Court. But the words of law are pretty damn obvious. Once again, I strongly suspect that asylum hearings begun 3+ years ago would have lead to mass deportations, because the Court would see no threshold for intervention. By ignoring this obvious path, the past two governments have created that threshold.

      Abrogate the treaty, oh mighty Supreme Knesset. Don’t go the way of Kafka and Orwell.

      If K9,above, believes what he is saying, he should as well be agitating for the ejection of the near twice strong non-African illegal infiltrators. But he is not. He plays the race card.

      The High Court is meant to embody long term thought in law. I can only hope the Justices take their roles seriously these next days.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        No, Greg, you play the race card. Repeatedly and consistently. It is some kind of built-in American reflex you and other like you have when arguing with someone politically to the right of you.

        The non-African illegal infiltrators which you are referring to aren’t trying to stay in the country on the basis of conventions that don’t apply. They came in on a tourist visa and overstayed their welcome. When they are caught they are deported. Their numbers drop every year. No one raises too much of a stink.

        The words of law are pretty damn obvious. From the text you cut and paste elsewhere. The convention applies to those “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. In other words, the convention pretty damn obviously does not apply to Eritreans or Sudanese in Israel. Now, if the flew in from their home countries maybe you can argue that they “came directly”. But, they didn’t. They walked here and along the way bypassed the refugee camps run by the UNHCR in neighboring countries and kept walking for 1,000 miles through one or two countries before getting to Israel. So, while the convention might not care about how they arrived in the country, it most certainly doesn’t apply in the case where they didn’t arrive to the country directly.

        All claims to the contrary are the kind of Orwellian or Kafkaesque nonsense you seem to reject.

        You are also grossly misreading the High Court’s ruling. It has nothing to do with the convention. The Court ruled that the previous incarceration law disproportionately impinged on a person’s right to liberty, as well as being in conflict with Israel’s Basic Law regarding human freedom and dignity.

        Grunis added: “Our ruling relates to the law that allows incarceration for up to three years. Even under the present circumstances, there is nothing to stop the legislation of a new law that would allow for imprisonment for a significantly shorter period.”

        There really is nothing in the ruling that would suggest that the justices are certain to rule against the new law assuming they judge the new open detention camp to not “disproportionately impinge on a person’s right to liberty”. I hope you are not putting too many hopes on this one. Even if they do rule against it, the Knesset will find another way to accomplish the same goal. Perhaps the Knesset will force the illegal migrants to stay within the confines of some peripheral city in Israel where there is no work to be done. I can’t imagine the court ruling against that.

        The basic point I am trying to make is that the overwhelming majority of the Israeli people do not want them here and there is really nothing the High Court can do to change or overcome that. Even attempting to do so is risky to the position of the Court. It wouldn’t be smart for the Court to fight a losing battle.

        Reply to Comment
        • “The non-African illegal infiltrators which you are referring to aren’t trying to stay in the country on the basis of conventions that don’t apply. They came in on a tourist visa and overstayed their welcome. When they are caught they are deported. Their numbers drop every year. No one raises too much of a stink.” : The Convention does apply or the Africans would already be gone. The others are refugees, wanting to stay indefinitely,and should be treated similarly; they are not. As I note on another thread, that is a violation of the Convention’s Article 6. If the Court had said the Convention did not apply, none of this would be happening. It applies. Even if every African refugee loses their claim at hearing, the Convention still applied. It is not a matter of saying “it applies so they must stay” but “it applies so they must be heard.” Why would the High Court have prevented deportation otherwise?

          Bibi and the Knesset have refused hearings for 3 years so as not to give in to a Court decision, and the echo to my mind is clearly ignored decision of the past on a Palestinian Israeli village and on some occupation matters. That’s the background turf war here. And it has become a constitutional crisis.

          On Grunis’ opinion, that decision was 9-0. That’s what Justices do when they want to make a forceful statement combined–find a common minimum, and certainly conservative Grunis wanted to limit scope while not avoiding the principle of judicial review. The new law has one year terms in an “open prison” with indefinite renewal, renewal which would be administratively decided. The law is not clear on duration, and offers no new criteria for renewal, so suffers from the same defect as the last. Note that renewal is not contingent on a new act, thus is not a new “offence.” Even the Knesset’s own legal adviser warned this would probably go down badly.

          And yes it is racial–very racial. The other almost twice as large infiltrator population (right, infiltrator?) is mostly post-Soviet. Many post-Soviet Jews immigrated under the Law of Return. These infiltrators aren’t even called infiltrators because of where they came from and, I suspect, ties they have, naturally, with post-Soviet Israelis. There is nothing wrong with this. They thereby can find work and social assistance. But they are not as other as are the Africans. There is a clear racial component, shown simply by the absence of the term “infiltrator,” even by you. Note that some Africans going to have their visas renewed have been told they must leave the country or go to the detention center. Contrast this with the post-Soviets, who are allowed to persist as they are, with no hysteria at all. This is non equal treatment of refugees.

          Hold the hearings. If you do, you can deport many of them. Most Israelis might want them gone, but the point here is the rule of law determined by a court. As I said elsewhere, it is quite possible this would save face for both Knesset and Court–but it would establish a needed precedent in judicial power, which you may not like. As I’ve said, these Africans are pawns in a constitutional conflict.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            That Israel does not deport them does not imply recognition that the convention applies to them. They have no claim to refugee status in Israel, but they happen to be persons that Israel and its courts determined can not be deported back to their home countries due to potential loss of life. That can be a consideration even absent any convention. The Court, best as I can tell, has taken no position on whether the convention applies. This is well and proper because the integration of the convention into Israeli domestic law is entirely within the realm of the legislature. As a document separate from Israeli domestic law the convention has no legal standing in front of an Israeli Court.

            You may note on any other thread whatever you want, but the convention explicitly does not apply to these people. Bringing up articles of a convention that does not apply is a non sequitur style of argument which is really rather boring.

            As the convention explicitly does not apply to these people there is no reason to hold asylum hearings for them.

            The illegal migrants that overstayed their visas aren’t called infiltrators because they did not illegally cross the border into Israel. When caught they are deported. The same policy would apply to the infiltrators except they can’t be deported back to their home countries. Yet they are present illegally and their integration into the country must be prevented. The only real difference he is not racial. The difference is that these people can’t be deported to their countries of origin. Where deportation has been possible, Africans are deported in exactly the same way as illegal migrants from elsewhere. So, whatever racial component you think exists is entirely imaginary.

            The Court will either back the compromise the Legislature put forward or it will be bulldozed over and ignored. And the point is that the ‘rule of law’ is determined by the court but ‘law’ is determined by the legislature. Where the court tries to determine law it is overstepping its authority.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Mareli

      “Paranoia strikes deep. Into your mind it will creep.” – Buffalo Springfield, “For what it’s worth”.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Ben Zakkai

      It’s the tinfoil yarmulke crowd again, receiving secret transmissions from God through space aliens and the CIA. Beep!

      Reply to Comment
    7. Aaron Gross

      Yeah, “left-wing NGOs” translates to two individual NGO workers, one of whom is unnamed. Pathetic.

      Reply to Comment
      • DerAsylant

        just have to wait for more to be uncovered

        Reply to Comment

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel