As if the internal divisions within Israel were not enough, last Shabbat saw unprecedented violence on the streets of southern Tel Aviv. Hundreds of Eritrean migrants fought each other in mass brawls, armed with “cold” weapons (clubs and rocks) and allegedly “hot” ones too (guns and explosives).

By the time police were able to restore order, more than 170 people — including 30 officers — had sustained injuries requiring hospitalisation, while there was also damage to vehicles and property.

The fighting was between rival Eritrean factions; the trigger, an Eritrean embassy event celebrating the Independence Day of the brutal dictatorship back in Asmara. The Eritrean dictatorship, now into its third decade, is ranked the third from bottom in the global press freedom index — only North Korea and the Central African Republic are rated more oppressive.

Israel, meanwhile, is the only country with a land border with the African continent. Between 2008 and 2012 tens of thousands of Africans (mostly from Eritrea and Sudan) entered Israel illegally, crossing from the Sinai Peninsula on foot, the majority claiming persecution and therefore political asylum. Then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu built a wall. Incidentally, that border runs along the same line first demarcated in an agreement between the British and the Turkish Ottomans in 1906 to protect the British-controlled Suez Canal with “strategic depth”.  The modern fence was built in full coordination with the Egyptians and has dramatically prevented a further influx of migrants.

Eritrea

Eritrean asylum seekers who oppose the regime in Eritrea clashed with pro-regime protesters outside the country's embassy in Tel Aviv on Saturday, September 2, 2023 (Credit: Itai Ron/Flash90)

Several questions remain unanswered from the rioting. Why weren’t the police better prepared, apparently having been warned in advance by Eritrean community leaders that the event would provoke protest? Presumably, most of the Eritreans in Israel are by default opposed to their own regime (hence why they fled), but is it possible some of them are only economic migrants and feel passionate and patriotic enough to defend their homeland? In addition, given similar clashes seen in Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, it has been suggested that the Eritrean regime has added targeting its expats abroad to brutal suppression of citizens at home.

This raises another question: when many countries prevent the marking of Eritrean Independence Day, why does Israel consent? Sources here have suggested that Israel’s lax approach has more to do with maintaining a presence inside Eritrea for strategic considerations (possibly naval intelligence) as a further front against Iranian interests along the East African coast and its access to the shipping lanes of the Gulf.

The public debate and blame for the rioting fell once more on familiar partisan lines of attack. Justice Minister Yariv Levin was quick to blame the Supreme Court, on the basis that over the last decade the court has repeatedly blocked government legislation aimed at preventing infiltration and imprisoning those that get into the country. 

The other side accused Netanyahu of neglecting the issue and backpedalling on a deal coordinated with the UN to relocate those that agree to leave voluntarily for other Western countries, while giving others temporary residence status in Israel.

Both sides have a point. Of more than 1,000 pieces of legislation ever passed by the Knesset, only 22 have been overturned by the Supreme Court; however, of the 22, four (all in the last decade) have related to the issue of illegal African migrants and their treatment.

Eritrea

Eritrean asylum seekers who oppose the regime in Eritrea and pro-regime activists clash with Israeli police, September 2, 2023 (Credit: Omer Fichman/Flash90)

It is a fascinating political, social and moral dilemma. How should a responsible government resolve this issue when faced with competing interests? In this case, on one side are Israeli citizens — Jews and Arabs of southern Tel Aviv and elsewhere — who want to bring up their families in a safe environment. They represent the lowest socio-economic strata and have suffered from increased exposure to violence, crime and homelessness when the Africans (mostly young men) camp en masse in their neighbourhoods.

Is the government right to protect them by enacting harsh measures against the migrants? Or, as the court has insisted, must the government’s response be proportional, and imprisoning illegal immigrants for three years without trial was not? There is also the calibration of how to balance the values of universal human rights — including those of illegal immigrants — when they conflict with local citizens.

This latest violence compounded other ongoing theatres of instability, beyond the anti-government protests and the security and economic ramifications of the judicial reform. It follows two protests over the last three weeks that turned violent  which took place as Jewish Ethiopian Israelis clashed with police, demanding justice for a young boy killed by a car in a hit-and-run for which the police have failed to make an arrest.

In addition, the death toll of Arab-on-Arab murder continues to grow. As of last Tuesday, there have been 167 fatalities so far this year, compared to 75 this time last year. At least, it has been confirmed that some of the funding for Arab municipalities will go through, despite objections from Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.           

Eritrea

Pro-regime Eritrean asylum seekers wearing red, September 2, 2023 (Credit: Omer Fichman/Flash90)

GLIMMER OF HOPE?

There was some cause for optimism this week, especially for those of us that place preserving the unity of the people of Israel as our top priority. Israeli media has reported on an agreement being reached under the stewardship of President Isaac Herzog that, according to reports, has been endorsed by Netanyahu.

The contours of the deal suggest that the government will revise the law to strip the Supreme Court of its reasonability standard. Meanwhile, there will be no changes to the make-up of the Judges Selection Committee, with a majority of seven out of nine members of the committee being required to appoint all new judges, giving the governing coalition a veto.  They will also agree to freeze all other reforms for a year and a half.

While this sounds like an appropriate tree for the government to climb down, the initial responses both from within the coalition and the protest movement have been to reject the terms and pour cold water on the chances of a successful compromise. For hard-right ministers, such a deal would be a betrayal, while Netanyahu continues to suffer from a credibility gap among the opposition.

Still, amid speculation that Netanyahu used the leak as a test balloon and with his eagerness to lower the flames in order to secure an invitation to the White House, we live in hope.

Richard Pater is chief executive of BICOM and a political analyst