+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Would Israel's refugee policies stand up in... Nairobi?

Israel could learn a thing or two from the Kenyan High Court’s rebuttal of efforts to lock up asylum seekers.

Ibrahim, a refugee from Sudan, holds a document given to him by the UN in Egypt, as he takes part in a protest held by refugees and activists outside the UN offices in Tel Aviv, June 10, 2012 (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

There are judges in Nairobi [1], and they are more courageous and much more familiar with refugee law than judges in Jerusalem.

A Kenyan court last month published a ruling on a government decision to round up asylum seekers from urban areas and put them in refugee camps, from which they will need permits to leave.

There are around 600,000 asylum seekers in Kenya. At the end of 2012, the Kenyan government published a new policy saying that asylum seekers will no longer be able to live in cities, that it won’t register their asylum claims in cities, and that they must take it upon themselves to relocate to refugee camps.

Human rights organizations and a number of asylum seekers filed a petition against the decision and the authorities, and the court issued an injunction against the implementation the policy until it could make a decision. (In Israel, the High Court allowed the administrative detention of more than 2,000 men, women and children, and isn’t rushing to decide on the question of the Anti-Infiltration Law’s constitutionality. It didn’t even cross the court’s mind to freeze use of the law until it ruled on it.)

Imagine the Israeli deputy attorney general’s Kenyan counterpart, standing with a frozen drink in her hand, urging her superiors to adopt various measures to make asylum seekers lives miserable in order to deter them from coming to Kenya. Imagine a Kenyan state attorney standing in court, screaming that ‘they’re all work infiltrators and not refugees,’ that ‘Kenya is the only developed country that shares land borders with Somalia and Ethiopia’ (from where most its asylum seekers arrive), and that the draconian measures ‘were written in order to prevent ‘infiltrators’ from setting roots in Kenya’s cities.’

The Kenyan court did not accept the authorities’ claims; instead, it ruled that concentrating asylum seekers in refugee camps was illegal. The court based its decision on Article 26 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which guarantees freedom of movement for asylum seekers; it ruled that their confinement in refugee camps violates the convention and Kenya’s own laws. Additionally, the court explained that forcibly transferring asylum seekers to refugee camps is likely to encourage them to return to their home countries. Encouraging “voluntary repatriation” by Kenyan authorities, ruled the High Court, constitutes a violation of the basic principle of non-refoulement, established in the Refugee Conventions.

The ruling highlights the provinciality with which the Israeli Interior Ministry and state prosecution act. In countless legal proceedings, the prosecution has claimed that, “Israel is the only Western country that shares land borders with Africa.” It’s difficult not to break out into laughter when you hear the state prosecutor describe Israel as a “Western” country. The most preposterous part of the argument is the ignorance with which it relates to “Africa” as a whole, black, homogenous bloc that lies just beyond Egypt.

There are different countries of different types in Africa. The Interior Ministry and State Prosecutor are convinced that Israel is the only “Western” country in the region, and that all the other African countries are backwards, socially and economically. Therefore, it’s only natural that all of Africa wants to come here. Give me a break. It’s sufficient to look at Kenya’s developed economy, for example. It appears that Kenya, too, sees itself as “one of a kind in its region,” both on account of its greater economic development compared to other countries in the region, and its geo-political situation. It’s also enough to look at the ruling of its High Court.

In Israel, the courts are doing a slow-dance with refugee law that leads nowhere, practicing coitus interruptus whenever difficult, principled questions arise. The courts in Israel don’t rule on the basis of refugee law but rather on hunches (Hebrew). When they dare contend with international refugee law, the result is a ruling with a lot of un-authoritative language and with no courage to declare what the law is or explicitly tell the state to act in a certain way. The Kenyan court demonstrated that it is willing to reasonably and impressively analyze international refugee law, to take courageous decisions and to contend with the government in difficult cases that have far-reaching consequences for both its citizens and the basic rights of asylum seekers.

Could that happen here too? One can only hope.

[1] “There are judges in Jerusalem” is a famous quote by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, which he jubilantly proclaimed upon receiving a favorable Supreme Court ruling regarding the creation of settlements. The quote, however, has come to mean that the rule of law should be respected, and is usually uttered in praise of a court decision by the party who has been vindicated or won.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. rsgengland

      Did an Israeli State Prosecutor really scream in court “that they’re all work infiltrators, not refugees”, or is that just the fertile imagination of the writer, to put an extra emotional aspect to the case?
      All over the world, countries are trying to stem the flow of economic refugees that are fleeing their home countries, for a better future for themselves.
      These refugees, whether they are going to South Africa, or Australia, or Europe, or Israel, stretch the host countries ability to absorb them by their sheer volume.
      The vast majority of these so called refugees are economic migrants, that are not covered by any asylum seekers protocols.
      And every country is allowed to regulate the type and quantity of immigrants within its borders.
      The author of this article seems to fall into that group of politicos, that would like to impose their will/ideas on the vast majority of the population in the believe that they know best, and that the rest of the population are ignorant conservatives that need to be told what is right for them.
      Articles like this reek of intolerance in the name of liberty.

      Reply to Comment
      • Once the Convention has been ratified by a State, it is no longer just “international law” but the law of the land in that State. Here is Article 26 of the convention in its entirety:

        “Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances.”

        This means that Israel can indeed cram these refugees into camps, but only if they cram all aliens in Israel into these camps, including, I suppose, the US Ambassador to Israel. Instead of complaining about my odour, why not be honest and advocate that Israel abrogate the Convention? This would do far less harm to Israeli jurisprudence.

        We now know that the Kenyan Supreme Court believes, at least in this case, that words have a clear enforceable meaning. The great danger to Israel goes beyond the morality of camps to the prospect of honestly constructed law. I think your ilk see the law solely as tool to your ends; it is not, nor can it be for anyone.

        @Passer: “Give me a break.” I’m afraid that is not going to happen. Very good post.

        Reply to Comment
      • David T.

        “And every country is allowed to regulate the type and quantity of immigrants within its borders.”

        I’m sure that your opinion is completely different, if we are talking about Jewish immigrants and Palestine, isn’t it?

        Reply to Comment
        • rsgengland

          Read my post.
          The original article was about a particular group of refugees, which I contend are economic migrants.
          Economic migrants are not the same as Asylum seekers.
          Asylum seekers are covered by Protocols and International Agreements.
          Economic Migrants come under the category of illegal immigrants, not covered by any Protocols or Agreements.

          Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            I know Rsgengland,

            when it comes to Jews, Palestine according to you was not allowed to regulate the type and quantity of immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees within its borders.

            Is Israel allowed to do it, when it comes to the citizens of former Palestine it denationalized and keeps expelled? You know, regarding Protocols, international agreements, human rights, the resolution Israel claims to have accepted and Arabs rejected?

            And if so, were the Germans allowed when they did the same?

            Reply to Comment
          • rsgengland

            Always trying to compare Israel to the Nazis.
            The best way to describe that is Antisemitism.
            The Nazis wanted world domination.
            The Nazis tried to totally eliminate the Jews and Gypsies by ‘gassing and burning them in death factories’.
            If that is what you are accusing Israel of, then you are either an Antisemite or an Ignoramus, or both.
            I suspect the latter.

            Reply to Comment
    2. R2mi

      What kind of legitimacy in a democracy for a supreme court ?
      In another word : what’s the difference between Israel supreme court and Iran supreme leader.

      Reply to Comment