This is a time of solidarity and compassion, not anti-refugee rhetoric

In my service with UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency, over the past twenty seven years, I have worked with and befriended thousands of refugees in different parts of the world. And I can tell you that they are among the most vulnerable, and yet the most resilient people on earth. They bring valuable skills and are eager to support themselves and their families by hard work. And, if given the chance, each can make a positive contribution to the host society, economically, socially and culturally.

Unfortunately, refugees are not always afforded this chance in their country of asylum. They are not actively encouraged and supported to reach their full potential, left instead to drift through day-to-day existence. To the contrary, all too often they are greeted with indifference at best and intolerance at worst.

Our efforts globally to combat the intolerant attitudes that threaten the well-being and safety of asylum-seekers and refugees have not been that systematic and forceful, though I recognize that there are quite many such efforts in this country especially at the grass-roots level. We see every day a massive outpouring of volunteerism, and a willingness by ordinary Israelis to stand against irrational suspicions and intolerant attitudes towards refugees and asylum-seekers. But we also witness even in this time of COVID-19, a situation unlike anything we have ever faced before, distortion, exaggeration and inflammatory rhetoric.

A case in point is anti-refugee stories, reports and comment pieces we have seen over the past few days, essentially calling on the government to “take advantage of coronavirus” to ensure the removal of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants in Israel. Because this farcical suggestion is premised on so many errors, both in law and in fact, it requires a response.

Firstly, these commentators apply their proposal equally to asylum-seekers fleeing persecution, human rights violations or armed conflict such as Eritreans and Darfuris, and immigrants without status, presumably tourists who overstay their visas and those foreign nationals who remain after their work visa expires. This melding is insidious and incorrect as a matter of international law and Israeli practice. Both the 1951 Refugee Convention, of which Israel is a Signatory State and whose delegates were prime drafters, as well as human rights law recognize that seeking asylum is a right and doing so is not illegal even where those in need of protection arrive without an entry visa or proper documentation. While Israeli governments have since 2012 tried to prompt the “voluntary” departure of Eritreans and Sudanese by various schemes, they have also acknowledged the risk of forced return and provided, albeit begrudgingly, a limited form of protection.

Conflating asylum-seekers and migrants takes attention away from the specific legal protections that refugees require. In the case of migrants, it is appropriate to consider return based on economic position and lack of a secure legal status. But for asylum seekers, the determining factor is whether upon return to the country of origin one can find safety or, in the alternative, face a reasonable risk of persecution. If persecution is genuinely feared, then the amount of money provided to return to Eritrea or Sudan and conditions of misery imposed in Israel will not induce return. Are these African asylum seekers merely work migrants and able to return home safely? In EU States, more than 80% of the Eritreans who apply for asylum are granted refugee status or some other form of protection. The situation is similar in Canada, where those who adjudicate Eritrean asylum cases have the discretion to grant them protection on the basis of their file alone without a hearing.

Critics of the Israeli government’s policy affording Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers temporary protection claim that these people are now able to return to their home countries and live in dignity with their families. This depiction is fantasy considering that there have been no changes to Eritrea’s mandatory military service that conscripts young Eritreans up to age 50, including returnees, for unlimited times while tens of thousands of Darfuris remain in camps for displaced persons, sites that are not only insecure but also short of space, water, and medical care, catastrophic conditions in the time of Corona. The rapprochement between Eritrea and Ethiopia and the change in government in Khartoum have not yet fundamentally changed those realities, however we might all wish they did.

Perhaps the most substantial misleading statements on which recent anti-refugee proposals are based are that the Deposit Law (20% of employees’ wages are withheld until departure) is effective and the most important (and almost only) tool to secure the departure of asylum-seekers. As is well documented, much of the amount withheld by employers never made it into State deposit accounts. Moreover, returns to countries of origin and third countries in Africa long predate the Deposit Law. Even with the Deposit Law, they remain a minority of departures from Israel. The programmes of UNHCR and its resettlement partners are by far the main means of reducing the numbers of refugees in Israel, assisting in 2019 alone 1,571 Eritreans and Sudanese to find a permanent home in Canada, the United States and several European countries. This accounted for 65% of all departures for the year. Had the Government not canceled its April 2018 agreement with UNHCR after one day, that number would have more than doubled.

The Deposit Law is, in our view, contrary to international law and only effective in increasing misery, domestic violence and forcing families to choose between rent, food and children’s health insurance. It is not a legislative accomplishment to be proud of and certainly not an opportunity in a pandemic. Returning the 300 million NIS held under the Deposit Law would not only alleviate unnecessary hardship and suffering, but is also a timely injection of needed resources into Israel’s economy.

The coronavirus pandemic is a test not only of national health-care systems and international cooperation for effective response, but also of our principles, values and shared humanity. It is a test of the extent to which we show solidarity and compassion to those who are the most marginalized and vulnerable in our societies, including refugees and asylum-seekers. These are people who left their homes and their country because they had no other choice when faced with political or religious persecution, caught up in ethnic conflict, or subjected to violence because of their gender, sexual orientation or political views. The issue of human rights is central to their flights. People only become refugees because one or more of their fundamental human rights are abused. Ensuring their protection is not only a core value intrinsic to democratic societies, but also a principle rooted in international law. In these very challenging times, they need - we all need - solidarity and compassion more than ever before.