Acts of citizenship as a politics of resistance? Reflections on realizing concrete rights within the Israeli asylum regime

Abstract

This paper investigates how Eritrean refugees in Israel and civil society organisations who engage with refugee issues contest the exclusionary politics of asylum in Israel. It presents various acts of claims-making initiated by Eritrean refugees themselves or in response to hostility by others, as well as acts inaugurated by Israeli civil society organisations on behalf of or with refugee populations. Drawing on the concept of activist acts of citizenship developed by Engin Isin, the paper subsequently analyses to what degree those acts have redefined aspects of social and political membership for Eritrean refugees in Israel. In a further step, it shows the limitations of such acts in terms of developing a solidaristic refugee-citizen agenda that profoundly challenges hegemonic public discourse and political debate. The paper concludes by arguing that activist acts of citizenship are best studied in relation to the transformative power they may have on the various individuals engaging in them, but not as a strategy for a wider politics of resistance, as ultimately nation state politics continue to determine the actual realisation of concrete rights.

Keywords:

• Acts of citizenship
• resistance
• claims-making
• Eritrea
• refugees
• Israel

Acknowledgement

Part of the fieldwork for this study was made possible by funding from the British Academy under its Social Sciences Small Grant Scheme 2010–2011. This support is gratefully acknowledged. I also wish to thank all Eritrean refugees as well as those in the various NGOs in Tel Aviv who shared their experiences with me. Lastly, thanks are due to two anonymous reviewers and the editors for valuable critical engagement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding

This work was supported by the British Academy (Social Sciences Small Grant Scheme 2010–2011).

Notes

1. The term was legally defined in the 1954 Prevention of Infiltration Act that describes an infiltrator as a person who entered Israel from Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq or Yemen, and is a resident or a visitor thereof. An infiltrator can face a five-year prison sentence for crossing the border illegally (Kalir 2015; Ziegler 2011).

2. This has not been the first time Africans or other foreign nationals came to Israel. In the early 1990s, labour migrants were purposefully recruited to replace Palestinian workers from the occupied territories in the aftermath of the first intifada (uprising). In their wake, Israel also attracted undocumented workers and refugees from various continents. The majority lived in similar parts of Tel Aviv as the contemporary refugee population, whose municipality adopted a welcoming approach in relation to welfare and health provision. From 2002 onwards, the Israeli Government started to adopt an aggressive policy of deportation and by 2005, most foreign workers had indeed been deported or had left voluntarily (Kemp 2004; Yacobi 2008).

3. The security fence covers the length of the 240 kilometres border between Israel and Egypt and once completed had an immediate effect on the number of refugees entering the country: while in the first half of 2012, reportedly 9570 citizens of various African countries entered Israel illegally; this number had been reduced to 34 in the first six months of 2013 and has since then stood at almost zero (Arutz Sheva, 2 July 2013, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169521#.UeXqBUB15DQ, accessed 25 March 2014).

4. All names of Eritrean research participants have been changed for reasons of confidentiality.

5. In addition, refugees of different nationalities began to be abducted and trafficked through Sinai by Bedouin groups, and incidents of rape, blackmail and even organ harvesting have been documented (see Physicians for Human Rights 2010; Van Reisen, Estefenos, and Rijken 2012). It is beyond this paper with its focus on Eritreans who live in Israel to discuss those dynamics in more detail.

6. By mid-2011, 496 refugees from Darfur had received temporary resident permits (A5 visas), while 2000 Eritreans who had entered before 2009 had received B1 visas which permit holders to legally work in Israel (Paley 2011). Refugees from Darfur are regarded as most deserving, as the discourse around Darfur centres on the language of genocide, a concept that has a lot of resonance among Israeli politicians and the general public alike.

7. This has happened with respect to refugees from South Sudan who were entitled to Conditional Release Visas in the past. In early 2012, the Israeli Government announced it would detain and deport any South Sudanese who did not leave voluntarily because with independent statehood, South Sudan was now considered a safe country to return to. This stipulation has been partly successfully challenged by the Refugee Rights Clinic (Anat Ben-Dor, email communication 10 February 2012). Nevertheless, many refugees from South Sudan have returned ‘quasi voluntarily’, and cases of a ‘forced’ return have also been reported (see African Refugee Development Centre and Hotline for Migrant Workers 2013).

8. These are amendments to the original Act from 1954 aimed at Arab enemies of the state of Israel (see endnote 1 above). The first amendment from January 2012 defined any person who enters Israel illegally as an infiltrator, including prospective asylum seekers. The government argued this would authorise detention for up to three years once a deportation order has been issued. The High Court struck this detention policy down. This subsequently resulted in various other amendments passed by the government that either shortened the time of detention or made the distinction between prison and an ‘open facility’ like Holot, all of which were either rejected or challenged by the High Court (for a detailed discussion see Hotline for Refugees and Migrants 2015).

9. Holot is characterised as an ‘open facility’ because those brought there can in theory leave, but they need to check in once a day (down from three times previously) and stay there at night, otherwise they face transferral to Shaorin prison. But Holot’s remote location in the Negev desert makes it quasi-impossible to leave and its occupants suffer from severe boredom and any lack of prospects for the future.

10. The following is based on my fieldwork diary, entry 7 April 2011.