Sudanese Refugees In Israel: For & Against

15 Responses to “Sudanese Refugees In Israel: For & Against”

1. nominally challenged on July 20th, 2007 8:43 am

   I actually think that most of the voices against the Sudanese Refugees totally miscalculate the extent of the problem. Part of the problem is that not all of the people crossing the Egyptian border are Sudanese, and not all of the Sudanese crossing the border are refugees from Darfur. Israel’s policy is to return anyone who is not actually a refugee from Darfur, back to Egypt, and to find a solution in Israel (including as a stop on the way elsewhere) for those who are actual refugees. Apparently, there are only about 300 actual refugees.

   At the same time, it looks as though there are renewed calls for sealing the border with Egypt, and that this might in fact happen. (I saw that on the TV news the other night, I can’t find a print reference to it though).

   I think that another thing that a lot of people here, who are against us taking in refugees, tend to overlook, is the extent of anti-Israel sentiment among Sudanese. Put simply, the 3 million Sudanese that Jameel is concerned about (in the blog you referenced above) are unlikely to trust Israel sufficiently to believe that anyone coming here might be in any sort of economic advantage over those staying in Egypt. It is my view that for the most part, the people coming to Israel - even from Egypt - do so out of abject desperation, and not because they necessarily believe that Israel will give them welfare. I mean - where are they likely to have read that? In the anti-Israel Egyptian media? In the anti-Israel Sudanese media? Their surroundings are not known to heap praise on Israel’s treatment of anyone, so just what is it that would make millions of Sudanese suddenly pick up and leave safe Egypt, for the unknown enemy “Zionist entity” based solely on some unfounded belief that life in Israel would be better for them economically? The argument of ’seeking economic betterment’ does not make sense in that context (leaving aside the fact that apart from a very small number of refugees to date currently working in hotels in Eilat, none of them have actually attained any economic advantage, unless you count being bussed around from city to city and dumped on the doorstep of some new authority each day as an economic advantage …).

   Another source of disagreement here is the ethnicity of the Darfurian refugees. Drima, perhaps you can give us a demographic breakdown of the population of Darfur that is in danger. I have read conflicting reports that they are all Muslim, all Christian, and all sorts of other things. While it doesn’t make a huge difference in my own personal view, there are clearly Israelis who are more willing to take Christian refugees than Muslim ones.

   This is despite the fact that not one of the people I’ve heard speak against the intake of Muslim refugees from Sudan seems to recall the precedent in which we took in Muslim refugees from Bosnia. Those people didn’t simply cross a border, but were actively shipped here. And to the best of my knowledge, they have not caused any ‘demographic problems’ whatsoever.

   I think that the situation is pretty clear: we should do what we can for those who are here. We should definitely deport anyone who is not actually a refugee. We should set a quota on refugee intake as other countries do, and act as a half-way station for true refugees beyond that quota, before sending them on to third countries.

   Of course, all of that depends on a healthy and efficient bureaucracy - which we don’t have. So what will probably happen is that we’ll twist ourselves in knots and end up making an international ass of ourselves, once again.

2. Drima on July 20th, 2007 9:15 am

   I watched a news report the other day on CNN or BBC (can’t remember) about Sudanese refugees in Israel.

   The crew went to Israel and interviewed both Israelis and Sudanese refugees. To my utter surprise most of the Sudanese interviewed were Southerners and NOT Darfurians.

   Providing an exact demographic makeup of who’s Darfurian and who isn’t, is not easy. However you can use a simple rule, religion (not tribe). If they’re Christian then they’re not Darfurian.

   I’d say only Darfurians (who are Muslims) face a real serious threat of being truly screwed if deported back to Sudan. Israel shoud not make that mistake.

   Southerners? Defintely won’t face a big threat as much as Darfurians if deported.

   The priority to stay should be for Darfurians.

   I say secure the border with Egypt properly. Strengthen security and accept those who are already inside Israel. They’ve witnessed hell. Jameel is too paranoid. They’re only a few hundred.

3. Roman Kalik on July 20th, 2007 9:28 am

   Interesting. Drima, your clarification on the matter shows that many of our aid groups are quite ignorant regarding the very people they’re trying to aid.

   And the rest of the public here, myself included, is left only with the few numbers the government has corroborated as anything remotely factual.

   Also, NC, you forgot about those who work in the kibbutzim.

4. Andrew Brehm on July 20th, 2007 9:48 am

   It seems very clear to me that Israel should accept as many Darfur refugees as she possibly can.

   The one blogger’s point about there being enough Muslim states to help is fallacious, as those countries obviously don’t help enough (or not at all).

   During the Shoah Jews didn’t have a country and were thus depending on other nations to help them. Few did.

   I believe that taking in (Muslim) refugees fleeing genocide would make Israel more Jewish, not less.

   In fact, I think it is likely that those refugees would become very loyal citizens if given the chance.

5. nominally challenged on July 20th, 2007 11:55 am

   RK

   Also, NC, you forgot about those who work in the kibbutzim.

   You’re right, I did forget them, though arguably, that’s not an economic advantage (joke)

   Still, there are only a couple of dozen on kibbutzim. This is not some epidemic influx as our friend NB likes to warn.

   Drima,

   Thanks for the clarification. That was my belief all along, but I had nothing to corroborate it with. RK is also right in saying that many of the aid groups here have no real idea of who they are actually aiding.

   But leaving aside aid groups, the policy that the Police Minister spoke about on TV the other night was that only the actual refugees from Darfur, numbering around 300 I think, will actually be allowed to stay and will be granted some form of refugee status. In the meantime, a compound has been constructed for them for processing. The rest, be they from South Sudan or from Nigeria and Ghana (as several were, apparently) will be deported as illegal immigrants.

6. The Raccoon on July 20th, 2007 6:11 pm

   I am with NC on this. We should help the Darfurian refugees if and when they are indeed refugees and indeed are in deep shit if we don’t accept them.

   Even then, we should look for a different home for them while we’re taking care of them.

   The border-running Ghanians can stay in Egypt. It’s tough for them, but I do not think that our moral obligation to help people outweighs the danger of a “refugee invasion” and/or terrorists among them in this case.

   And the border with Egypt should be hermetically sealed. With an electronic fence and overlapping automated gun outposts.

7. Don Cox on July 20th, 2007 8:53 pm

   “With an electronic fence and overlapping automated gun outposts.”

   I hope you are not serious about the guns. It cannot be a capital offense to want to move to another country to get a better job.

8. The Raccoon on July 20th, 2007 9:26 pm

   Don Cox -

   I served on that border, catching smugglers. You cannot defend it in any other way from individual infiltrators.

   I think you’ve missed the point… we do not know how many of those trying to cross the border are looking for a better job and how many are looking to kill some Evil Joooooooz. The porous Gaza-Egypt border has already cost us in blood. And with Hamas armed to the teeth and blood-crazed - along with assorted other such Muslim organizations - we simply cannot afford the risk.

   I am all for automated gun outposts. I believe we should have them on all of our borders. We’re not fucking Switzerland.

   Automated gun outposts are a great deterrent, I believe.

9. Tsedek on July 21st, 2007 12:12 pm

   Just an electric fence will do, Raccoon. I mean seriously ‘electric’.

10. Drima on July 21st, 2007 2:13 pm

    “I mean seriously ‘electric’.”

    Yup Tse, an electric one will do, not electronic.

11. The Raccoon on July 21st, 2007 4:48 pm

    An electric fence is super-expensive and seriously hazardous for the environment. It is also easily circumvented - you just shortcut it in one place and pass in another with non being the wiser.

    An electronic fence, on the other hand, is harmless for the environment, cheap to operate, and gives you exact locations of infiltration attempts - that is, it is almost impossible to circumvent.

    An electronic fence is costly in manpower, however. Enter the automated gun outposts - cheap to build and maintain, with a 3-man team easily capable of maintaining hundreds of these simultaneously - they are not AI-operated at this stage.

12. Jameel @ The Muqata on July 22nd, 2007 4:02 pm

    I say secure the border with Egypt properly. Strengthen security and accept those who are already inside Israel. They’ve witnessed hell. Jameel is too paranoid. They’re only a few hundred.

    If the border would be properly sealed as Drima states, I’d have no problem at all accepting the 1400 already in Israel.

    However, I can’t see the border being sealed properly.

    Egypt leaks terror and weapons into Gaza at an astonishing rate; if Egypt can’t stop that, I doubt they would stop fleeing refugees (which Egypt wouldn’t mind getting rid of in the first place).

13. Drima on July 23rd, 2007 1:30 am

    You have a point Jameel. After all, if the border isn’t secured and you accept the refugees, that will just send way more coming your way. So I guess the priority before anything is sealing the border.

14. Howie on July 23rd, 2007 3:58 pm

    Humane treatment…by Israel and Egypt…that is what I am for…some human kindness…and plenty of suspicion for filtering out those that are less than innocent.

15. Ron on July 23rd, 2007 8:57 pm

    Israel would be wise to provide comfort to Sudanese. The Sudanese have a long history of saving the Jewish nation from time to time.

    Sadat and Taraqa were peace makers and securers of the Jewish nation.

    Sudan would be a great friend to Israel because once they see kindness from Israel they will reject the anti-israel diet that they have been fed. I am assuming that they will no longer continue to prove their Arabness by hating Israel the most.

    Sudanese are African people by nature, geography, and culture and no amount of Arabization will eliminate what G-d created over a 10,000 years ago.

    Salaam

Leave a Reply