Doc's Talk: This American Life Omits Context About Sinai Refugees

Thursday, August 15, 2013

This American Life Omits Context About Sinai Refugees

It would take a heart of stone to not be moved by the plight of Eritrean refugees suffering in the Sinai Peninsula. Many of them have fled their homeland to get out from under an oppressive government, only to be held captive by Bedouin tribesmen who regularly beat them and force them to call their relatives and ask for ransom. Some of the hostages do not survive their ordeal.

A piece about these victims aired on WBEZ's This American Life on August 9, 2013. The segment tells the story of these refugees in horrifying detail through a profile of Meron Estefanos, an Eritrean who now resides in Sweden. In 2011, Estefanos received a phone call from the United Kingdom from a man who said his brother had been kidnapped and was held in the Sinai. The man gave her two phone numbers so she could speak to the hostages herself.

Initially she was reluctant to contact the kidnapping victims, but eventually she made the call, and over the course of the next several months, she spoke with dozens of hostages. She started raising money to pay the ransom for the hostages. The emotional highpoint of the segment was Estefanos's visit with Eritreans who were able to make their way into Israel and escape their Bedouin tormentors. One of the hostages she helped free was so badly traumatized by what happened to her in the Sinai desert that she fainted upon meeting Estefanos.

Israel, Europe, and African Refugees

The segment cast a particularly harsh light on Israel by highlighting its decision to send some of the Eritreans who have made their way into the Jewish state back to their country of origin. The report stated that Israel does not give Eritreans answers to the request for asylum and that asylum seekers get no assistance for medical care or work permits. It states:

In the most recent figures available from the UN High Commissioner of Refugees, Israel granted refugee status to less than 1 percent of people who might qualify, the lowest rate of any developed country. A US State Department report declared in 2012 that the Israeli government doesn't even process asylum applications from Eritreans.

The report ends with the following indictment:

Last year, Israel completed most of its work building a fence along its border with Egypt, and there's a new law that allows police to detain anyone illegally crossing the border for years without trial. In 2012, the interior minister publicly stated that the purpose of the law was to make their lives in Israel unbearable. And now Israel is sending detained Eritreans back to Eritrea, back to the government they were trying to escape in the first place. The first planeload of 14 Eritreans left Israel last month.

In leveling this indictment, the report failed to include important context regarding Israeli policies regarding asylum seekers. In particular, the segment failed to report that human traffickers who have taken Eritreans (and others) hostage previously lured their victims into captivity with the promise of obtaining asylum in Israel. It also failed to report that with the completion of a fence to stop people from getting into Israel, these traffickers have now started kidnapping their victims outright from Ethiopia and Sudan before torturing them in the Egyptian held Sinai.

Here is what Physician for Human Rights Israel reported in June 2013:

Testimonies from recent months suggest an increase in victims who, rather than being lured with promises of being led to Israel, were forcibly kidnapped from Ethiopia and Sudan and taken to these torture camps. Today, the vast majority of persons held in Sinai are kidnapping victims. This shift has occurred partly due to a decrease in the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to reach Israel, since the completion in 2012 of a fence along the Israeli-Egyptian border.

This indicates that an increasing number of these torture victims are not asylum seekers, but victims of outright kidnapping by Bedouins living in Egypt. It also indicates that by making it harder for people to enter into Israel, Israeli officials have in fact made it harder for the Bedouins to ply their trade of human trafficking, which in most instances would be regarded as a good thing.

The segment also fails to report that Israel, like a lot of countries, is dealing with a growing problem of refugees and economic migrants from Africa. Eritrea is only one source of refugees fleeing into Israel.

Other sources of refugees include Somalia, Ethiopia and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. While Israel has seen an increase in refugees since approximately, 2005, the flood of refugees and economic migrants has increased substantially in the aftermath of the Arab Spring in 2011. Many of these refugees, especially those fleeing from Libya, try to make it to Europe and represent a serious humanitarian crisis that Israel simply cannot solve by itself.

Itamar Mann, a human rights lawyer and founder of the Israeli group We Are Refugees, reports that the Europe has been particularly effective in keeping immigrants from entering its countries. This is one reason, Mann reports, that more people from Africa have tried to get into Israel in recent years.

The EU Has been very successful in preventing people from crossing into EU territories and into EU territorial waters. The main technique, which an agency called Frontex is in charge of is simply outsourcing enforcement capabilities to countries in Africa so that people don't leave and stop them before they even embark. That has stopped that route.

All these things have an interesting tendency so that one route is stopped, another is opened, so in some ways the exposure of Israel in 2005 follows directly in this period when [Italian Prime Minister Silvio] Berlusconi had this very fruitful and successful cooperation with [Libyan President] MohammarQadaffi.

This immigration crisis was highlighted in March 2011, when a dinghy filled with 72 migrants from sub-Saharan Africa drifted in the Mediterranean for two weeks. According an article published in The Guardian on June 19, 2013, the passengers “died one by one, despite numerous distress calls, while NATO allies fighting Colonel Gaddafi were in the waters nearby but did not help.” Two survivors are suing France and Spain for failing to come to their aid.

Malta is another country confronted with a refugee crisis. In early July, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the country could not send back a group of 45 Somali immigrants without giving them a chance to apply for asylum. Malta has complained that other countries in Europe have not taken in their fair share of refugees from Africa.

Father Mussie Zerai, a Roman Catholic Priest from Eritrea has called attention to the plight of African refugees. In 2011 he spoke to the World Council of Churches about the problem of refugees in the Sinai Peninsula:

“More than 30,000 people have fled to Israel, mostly from countries like Tunisia, Libya, Ethiopia, Sudan and others, since 2009. Out of which, around 10,000 died during the travel, and 3,000 have fallen prey to the brutal organ thefts. The documentation we have gathered at Habeshia contains some astounding figures,” says Zerai.

Zerai also reported that “Asylum seekers are kept in jails by the Egyptian government, facing inhuman treatment and forced to be deported, which means a severe threat to their lives.” The WCC article continues:

Zerai also shared information about the recent incident of 118 Eritreans, who are faced with “forced deportation” at the detention centre in Aswan, Egypt.

“These asylum seekers are under severe threat of persecution if they return to Eritrea. This is the result of a human rights crisis in Eritrea due to which around 1,000 people are attempting to flee every month,” shared Zerai.

According to Physicians for Human Rights Israel, there are approximately 55,000 asylum seekers from Africa living in Israel. This influx of refugees into Israel is creating serious problems, including an increase in crime, much of it attributed to Eritrean and Sudanese immigrants. In 2010, a new police station was built in South Tel Aviv primarily to deal with the problem of crime associated with immigrants from Africa.

The plight of refugees from Africa is heart-rending and the problem will only get worse in the years ahead as a growing number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa are failed states with oppressive governments.

But the suffering of refugees from these countries is not a problem that Israel can solve by itself, which is what the segment seems to suggest.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk