Tag it:

Every person with a heart and conscience will identify with the rage of the former member of Knesset. However, one with knowledge of the traditional Israeli policy toward refugees cannot be a partner to his disappointment. 

When in the past did the State of Israel “open its gates and accept (non-Jewish) refugees?” One time only—when Menachem Begin decided to accept a few hundred refugees from South Vietnam who feared for their lives following the Vietcong victory. Even then, his decision encountered great resistance from the majority of the Zionist establishment, which contended that Israel is not supposed to absorb all the suffering in the world and that its destiny is to be a refuge for Jews, and only Jews. 

Not only that the State of Israel defines itself, in its declaration of independence, as a refuge for Jews, but that its definition as a Jewish state—in the demographic meaning of the concept—makes it xenophobic and hostile to both the idea of free migration (few states in the world implement a policy of free migration), and toward accepting persecuted refugees if they are not Jewish. In the field of immigration and acceptance of refugees, the State of Israel was never “a light unto the nations.”

One of the arguments heard from the Israeli policy makers is that, although their hearts are with the Darfur refugees and they would very much like to help them, “local affairs come first.”

Logical. 

So, let’s see what the State of Israel is doing in local matters. The intention, of course, is to the thousands of Palestinian families for whom in accordance with international law (addendum to the Geneva Convention, 1954) and according to the most fundamental logic, they deserve to receive family reunification, i.e., the ability to bring their spouse to the area in which they reside. 

For numerous years the Alternative Information Center (AIC) contended with the Israeli policy of preventing family reunification, and issued numerous publications, reports and position papers on the topic: about people from outside the OPT who were prevented from joining their first degree family members in the OPT; about Gaza residents prevented from living with their family members in the West Bank; about non-Israelis prevented from living with their partners—who are Israeli citizens, unless the Law of Return is applied to them, i.e. they were defined as Jewish. In all of these instances, the intent is to preserve the Jewish (demographic) character of the State of Israel, and to prevent the entry of non-Jews, not only in the area of the State of Israel, but also in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 

Not “a light unto the nations,” but utter darkness for the whole of humanity, as there is no country in the world that dares to prevent its own citizens (the exception in Israel, of course, are Jews) from living with their spouses and children, in their own country. In correspondence with the AIC, Aryeh Deri (who was then, ten years ago, the General Director of the Ministry of Interior) wrote that the state is proud to encourage family reunification of Palestinians—outside of Israel’s borders!

The insensitivity of the State of Israel toward the Darfur refugees proves once again that ones whose parents encountered closed gates, and, as a result, found themselves helpless before those who wanted to exterminate them, are not necessarily anxious to open their own gates for other refugees fleeing persecution.