Truth a Victim in Report on Israel's Darfur Refugees

There are only two reasons that a reporter might wait until the seventeenth paragraph of an article to provide the other side to a seemingly outrageous story: first, the reporter is an extraordinarily poor writer who is betting unwisely that readers will actually read all the way to the seventeenth paragraph; second, the reporter knows that the seventeenth paragraph takes all the controversy and shock value out of the first sixteen paragraphs and thus the other side of the story is intentionally buried in hopes that readers will not read that far into the article and learn the truth. A perfect example of this "journalistic" technique was available in this morning's AP story, "Israel to Send Darfur Refugees Back to Egypt." We'll let readers decide whether the AP reporter put the real explanation for Israel's seemingly outrageous and hypocritical rejection of Darfur refugees in the seventeenth paragraph of the story or whether the intent was to paint Israel in the worst light possible through a shocking headline and the first sixteen paragraphs.

Capital Cloak prefaces this analysis by declaring that the situation in Darfur is deplorable, and we have sympathy for the hundreds of thousands who have been killed in what many have labeled genocide in Darfur. Any fighting that kills so many and leaves millions with no choice but to flee their lands and become refugees is of grave concern and should be stopped through all available means. Many countries, particularly those that border Darfur, have absorbed large numbers of refugees, particularly Chad and Egypt. Israel likewise has allowed hundreds of Darfur refugees to remain in Israel despite having entered the country illegally. Yet Israel is now under fire, as evidenced by today's AP story cited above, for declaring that it will not accept any more refugees seeking asylum who enter Israel illegally, with no exceptions.

Anyone familiar with the situation in Darfur would read the headline of today's AP story with a sense of disbelief that a nation established specifically as a home for Jewish refugees from the Holocaust would turn away people escaping from genocide. The first sixteen paragraphs only reinforce the perception that Israel, in deporting Darfur refugees, is acting out the ultimate hypocrisy through its intolerant new policy against all illegal aliens found within its borders. Yet once the AP reporter finally got around to including the Israeli explanation for sending Darfur refugees back to Egypt, the logic of the Israeli policy was not hypocritical or sinister. Like the emotional controversy over illegal immigration in America, the key element in the Israeli Darfur immigration issue is the word "illegal."

Not until the seventeenth paragraph does a reader of the AP story encounter a critical factor behind the Israeli policy toward Darfur refugees: the refugees are not fleeing directly from Darfur into Israel seeking asylum. Israel does not border Darfur, thus refugees from genocide in that land illegally enter nations like Chad or Egypt seeking asylum, and only after realizing how poor their living conditions and economic opportunities are in Chad or Egypt do they then illegally cross into Israel. Thus from Israel's perspective, it is experiencing a rapidly increasing influx of African economic refugees rather than victims fleeing from genocide. Egypt had already promised Darfur refugees that it would not deport them back to Darfur, thus once in Egypt they were safe from genocide. What Egypt could not offer, however, were employment and good living conditions. Thus the refugees illegally entering Israel were not actually seeking asylum or protection from genocide, but rather hoped for jobs and a better standard of living than what was available in Egypt. That pertinent piece of information cast an entirely different light on the motives and hard line stance of the Israelis toward illegal aliens, including Darfur's genocide survivors.

Perhaps more than any nation on earth, Israel must be wary of who it allows to cross its borders. To that end, Israel has established, unlike the United States, very strict policies toward legal and illegal immigration. A paragraph near the end of the AP story further clarifies an important reason for Israel's policy:

That the refugees are from Sudan further complicates the matter, because Israeli law denies asylum to anyone from an enemy state. Sudan's Muslim government is hostile to Israel and has no diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

Americans are wary of Middle Eastern terrorists crossing our border with Mexico by posing as Hispanics, and this has been one frequently cited reason for the need to secure our border with Mexico. Likewise, Israel faces a great peril from Muslim terrorists in Sudan posing as Darfur refugees and infiltrating Israel by playing on that nation's sympathies toward genocide survivors. In reality, Israel has no way to verify the identities of Darfur refugees and confirm whether they were in fact fleeing genocide, seeking jobs or better living conditions than Egypt offered, or were penetrating Israeli security to conduct future terrorist actions. Without the ability to make such determinations, Israel has adopted the most prudent course of action:

On Sunday, a government spokesman said some 500 Darfurians already in Israel would be allowed to stay, but all new asylum seekers would be sent back to Egypt, with no exception.

"The policy of returning back anyone who enters Israel illegally will pertain to everyone, including those from Darfur," spokesman David Baker said.

While international and internal activists fighting to publicize the plight of Darfur refugees condemn Israel for not living up to its "moral and legal obligation to accept any refugees or asylum seekers," Israel has attempted to make it clear that it is not deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to that country. Israel has been deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to Egypt, since the refugees entered Israel illegally by crossing Egypt's poorly policed desert border. Thus even in its hard line position toward illegal aliens from Darfur, Israel continues to demonstrate cautious compassion by deporting them back to the safety of Egypt. Yet the AP headline and most of today's article appeared to have been presented in such a way as to generate ill-will and unfavorable impressions of Isreal as enforcing an uncaring and hypocritical policy toward genocide survivors.

Once the distinction is made between asylum seekers and strictly economic refugees from an enemy Muslim government, it is no surprise that Israel has taken decisive steps to curb further attempts by Darfur refugees to come to Israel seeking economic prosperity rather than protection from an African holocaust.

It is a shame that readers of the AP story had to delve nearly twenty paragraphs into it to find the truth behind the emotionally charged headline.

Technorati Tags:
Darfur, Genocide, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Asylum, Deportation, Illegal Immigration, Chad, Economic Migrants, Holocaust, Associated Press, Biased Reporting