Forum of Refugee and Asylum Seeker Organizations in Israel, Statement of Opinion Concerning legislative proposals that endanger the lives of asylum seekers and refugees living in Israel

Forum of Refugee and Asylum Seeker Organizations in Israel, Statement of Opinion Concerning legislative proposals that endanger the lives of asylum seekers and refugees living in Israel

• Bill for the Immediate Deportation of Infiltrators Who Support the Regime in Their Country of Origin, 2024, No. P/5255/25 by MK Yulia Malinovsky:

Grounds for the Statement of Opinion:

1. The Bill seeks to present a “solution” to violent conflicts that have erupted among Eritrean asylum seekers in Israel in recent years. However, it ignores the background to the conflicts, the State’s obligations to the entire population of asylum seekers, of whom only a few took part in the conflicts, and the desired and necessary solutions to the plight of that entire population. As we have warned in the past, the tyrannical and repressive Eritrean government is exerting pressure and threats on Eritrean asylum seekers in Israel. For over a decade, asylum seekers have not been granted the status and rights they deserve in Israel and find themselves in Israel without the protection to which they are entitled. The Bill does not provide adequate solutions to all of these, but rather allows for mass and arbitrary deportation, which violates the State’s obligations.

   Our contentions concerning the Bill in detail:

The bill violates the State’s obligation to the Refugee Convention:

2. The State of Israel signed the international 1951 Refugee Convention concerning the status of refugees, ratified it in 1954, and even joined the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees accompanying the Convention. The provisions of the Convention and the Protocol have not been enshrined in domestic legislation, but it is undisputed that the State is bound by them. In addition, the State is subject to the interpretative and case-law presumption known as the presumption of conformity – according to which Israeli law must be interpreted as far as possible in a manner consistent with international law.
3. In addition to the obligation to determine the status of refugees, another complementary principle, recognized in international law and enshrined in domestic law in Israel, is the principle of non-refoulement, according to which a person may not be deported to a country where his life or freedom would be in danger.
4. Over the years, the State has applied collective protection from deportation to citizens of certain countries due to the situation in those countries, such as Sudan, Eritrea, and Ukraine. Despite the protection given to citizens of those countries from deportation, there has been a deliberate policy of leaving asylum seekers in a legal limbo in which they are not deported, but they live without status and with a visa that provides few rights and does not allow for a proper existence.
5. In the case of Eritrean citizens, over the years, the State itself and the courts have recognized both the dangers faced by Eritrean citizens if they are deported to their country and the widespread violation of human rights in the country. As described in the Israeli High Court ruling of Najat Serj Adam v. the Knesset: “Eritrea is a country that was recognized as an independent state in 1993 after thirty years of struggle with Ethiopia. Since the recognition of its independence, there have been no democratic elections in Eritrea, and the President of the State, who took office at that time and who also serves as Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Army, remains in office as to date. Eritrea’s National Assembly is composed of only one party (PDFJ). According to UN reports, consistent and widespread violations of human rights are perpetrated by the government. These violations include extrajudicial executions; a shoot-to-kill policy targeting those attempting to leave the country; disappearances of citizens and detentions without informing families; arbitrary arrests and detentions; widespread use of physical and psychological torture during interrogations by the police, army and security forces; inhumane conditions of detention; long and indefinite compulsory military service including infliction of cruel punishments which sometimes lead to suicides; failure to respect civil rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, association, freedom of religion and movement; discrimination against women and sexual violence; violation of children’s rights, including the recruitment of children, and more.”
6. Accordingly, for two decades, Israel has been applying the principle of non-refoulement to Eritrean citizens, and the Ministry of the Interior has repeatedly stated its policy that Eritrean citizens are not to be deported to their country. It is worth mentioning that in April 2018, in the presence of the then Minister of the Interior and the then Head of the Population and Immigration Authority, the Prime Minister announced that an agreement had been reached with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, according to which about half of the Sudanese and Eritrean citizens in Israel would be recognized as refugees in other countries under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the remainder would receive Israeli residence permits, which would allow them to live with dignity throughout the country. Less than a day after announcing the aforementioned agreement, the Prime Minister retracted his statement, although the UNHCR has since then reiterated and stressed that, for its part, the agreement is still relevant.
7. The Bill ignores the State’s obligations under the principle of non-refoulement and allows for the deportation of people to a country that indisputably violates basic human rights, in a manner that places the lives and freedoms of these people and their children in real danger. The Bill does not include any mechanism for examining the dangers, as required by the Convention. The Bill is not based on any research or review that establishes the assumption that those perceived in Israel as “regime supporters” are not at risk in Eritrea. This is despite the fact that procedures relating to the policy of collective non-refoulement require detailed opinions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice.
8. It should be emphasized that the principle of non-refoulement applies to any governmental authority concerned with the deportation of a person from Israel and is embodied within binding customary international law. In addition, the principle of non-refoulement is also enshrined in the Israeli Population Authority’s “Procedure for the Treatment of Applicants for Political Asylum in Israel,” according to which, the deportation of Eritrean citizens to their country, in the absence of any assurance of their safety if they are deported, constitutes a violation of their protection from deportation. Although the Minister of the Interior is granted broad discretion in determining policy regarding entry into Israel, broad discretion does not constitute a license to violate the Refugee Convention.

The bill evades the obligation to examine asylum applications:

9. The examination procedure for recognizing a person as a refugee was previously conducted in Israel by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In 2008, a gradual process began of transferring the processing of asylum applications to the Ministry of the Interior. As of today, the applications are examined in the first stage by the Asylum Seekers Processing Unit, under the Population and Immigration Authority, and its recommendations are forwarded to an inter-ministerial advisory committee to the Minister of the Interior that was established for this matter. The advisory committee, which includes representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of the Interior, forwards its recommendation to the Minister of the Interior, who then makes the final decision. It should be noted that until the end of 2012, citizens of Eritrea and Sudan could not submit asylum applications at all, as it was claimed that they were “protected from deportation” as a group, and therefore there was no point in examining their individual asylum applications. Even when the door was opened for submitting asylum applications, their processing was characterized by slow-walking the process and inappropriate examination of applications. The percentage of refugee recognition in Israel is 0.06% and most of the applications have yet to be examined a decade after they were submitted.
10. The pace and manner of processing asylum applications in Israel have been the subject of severe criticism from many international and State bodies, including the State Comptroller and the Supreme Court. In the aforementioned Comptroller’s report, the Deputy Attorney General warned back in 2017 that “there is a real legal difficulty in defending the pace of processing asylum applications, especially for asylum seekers from Eritrea and Darfur.” ​​In Israel, few applicants have been recognized as refugees, while in other countries, including European Union countries, the recognition rate for asylum seekers, from Eritrea for example, is over 80%. Moreover, the average recognition rate for refugees from Eritrea in the European Union was 46% in 2023, i.e. 46% of those who submitted asylum applications in the European Union received protection and status in the past year. The delay time in processing applications in Israel is also highly irregular. For comparison, according to the European Directive, EU countries, in the framework of routine processing, must decide regarding asylum applications within six months. As was previously stated, this is not the case in Israel.
11. This reality of a dysfunctional asylum system and failure to examine asylum applications, is what allows the system to be abused by those who may not meet the characteristics of asylum seekers. It is important to clarify that a thorough examination of asylum applications is one of the duties of the State of Israel even when the asylum system is abused. The solution is not arbitrary deportation, but rather a proper, fair and efficient examination of asylum applications ending in the handing down of rulings in their regard.
12. The Bill effectively serves as an “evasion” of the procedure for the treatment of asylum seekers, and does not distinguish between those who have submitted an asylum application and whom, under the law, the procedures of the local Authority and international law, may not be deported while their application is being examined, and those whose application has been rejected or who have not submitted an asylum application. The courts have recognized the caution required in examining asylum applications, as “the rights at stake in the context of examining a person’s application for asylum are the most fundamental and central of human rights, foremost among them the right to life, the right to bodily integrity and the right to liberty. Making an incorrect decision in this matter can lead to disastrous results – the deportation of a person to a place where he is likely to be persecuted and where his life or liberty is in danger.” The courts have also ruled that steps cannot be skipped or “shortcuts” allowed. Of course, it is appropriate to streamline and promote the processing of asylum applications, and in previous appeals, we have discussed a large number of tools necessary for this purpose. However, the question of the possibility of returning an asylum seeker to his country must go through the asylum procedure.
13. Regarding the two aforementioned issues, it is also important to note the position of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, on which the Bill is incorrectly and misleadingly based. The explanatory notes to the Bill state: “On December 4, 2024, a discussion was held in the Knesset’s Interior and Environmental Protection Committee regarding this issue. During the discussion, the representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Jane Williamson, noted that if there is clear evidence that an asylum seeker supports the regime in his country, there is no basis for the claim that he is in danger of death, and therefore there is no obstacle to his return to his country.” The quote attributed to the representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees was actually said by the chairman of the committee, MK Yaakov Asher, and is his interpretation of the words of the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This is an attempt to base the practice proposed in the bill, while ostensibly relying on the assertation of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, according to which it will be possible to deport “infiltrators” identified as regime supporters under the conditions mentioned in the Bill. However, the words of the UNHCR representatives, as they appear in the committee minutes, paint a different picture. In reference to the designation of asylum seekers and refugees as “infiltrators”, they stated: “These are asylum seekers and refugees, who are legally residing here in Israel. The law provides them with a visa of one sort or another. Maybe it is not the best visa, but it is a residence visa, and it is a legal visa.” They were further quoted as saying: “They live here under international protection. Within the framework of this international protection, if any of them commits crimes or violates the law in the State of Israel, they are subject to trial according to the law in the State of Israel. They are not above the law, the law does not overlook them. From here to deportation to their country of origin there is a long road.” In the committee, the Knesset members compared the situation in Israel to the situation in Europe, and in response, the UNHCR representative clarified that a distinction must be made between the State of Israel and European countries, where the asylum seekers’ applications are examined and their status is determined. This is in contrast to Israel, where, as is well known, the asylum system is not functioning and no decisions are being made regarding the status of asylum seekers. The representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees also stated that: “Asylum seekers and refugees are subject to the law and are obligated to obey it in the country of asylum.” As such, there is no dispute about this. Any person who commits an offense, whether he is an Israeli citizen or an asylum seeker, must be brought to justice, to the extent that clear evidence has been found that that person committed the offense.

The definition of “regime supporter” in the law is vague and simplistic:

14. The bill defines a “regime supporter” as “an infiltrator who has expressed direct or indirect support for his country’s regime, including a public declaration of support for the regime or having substantial ties with representatives of government institutions.” This is a general definition, even though the explanatory notes to the law describe only a specific case of Eritrean citizens. This general and vague definition does not fit the complexity of eligibility for international protection. For example, an Ivorian citizen who is afraid to return to her country because her family members will force her daughters to undergo genital mutilation is entitled to protection regardless of her position (support/opposition) to the regime in her country.
15. Even in the case of Eritrean citizens, a careful examination of the nature of the regime in their country would easily show that some of those perceived as “regime supporters” are in fact being blackmailed and threatened by the regime through the embassy in Israel and its branches, which forces them to participate in events on its behalf. We have addressed this issue and even described how in other countries the embassy has been closed in light of this type of conduct.
16. The Eritrean community in Israel is made up of approximately 24,000 Eritreans and their children, who were forced to flee a murderous regime to obtain asylum in a country that would allow them a safe life. The asylum seekers themselves frequently seek protection from the law enforcement authorities against the agents of the regime and the Eritrean embassy in Israel, but encounter, in the less-than-worst cases, police incompetence and, in the worst case, deliberate disregard and failure to provide adequate protection. The complexity of distinguishing between those who meet the criteria for asylum seekers under the Refugee Convention, and those for whom there is evidence that they do not need asylum, is precisely the type of issue that must be examined within the framework of an asylum application, and the police do not have any relevant expertise in this matter or authority to make decisions on asylum applications.
17. The danger of entrusting issues related to international protection to the police can also be learned from their conduct surrounding the events that began with “Embassy Festivals” held in Tel Aviv and led to riots and, as a result, many false arrests. The events in question occurred on September 2, 2023. Human rights organizations and the asylum seekers themselves warned the Israeli Police in advance about the risk of holding these events and even went so far as to meet with police representatives with a request to order the cancellation of the events, but their requests were not granted. The next day, September 3, 2023, it was reported that 53 detainees were being held by the police. Most of the arrests were false arrests of innocent people. Some of the detainees were arrested in hospitals, others were arrested several days or even months after the event and in the absence of evidence linking them to the commission of any offenses. Others did not participate in the demonstrations at all and did not identify politically with either side. Several asylum seekers were arrested only because the Tel Aviv police had their details and phone numbers. Absurdly, this was an arrest of asylum seekers who had gone to the police station on their own initiative (and thus the police obtained their details) to urge the police to cancel the events. Many of them underwent hearings before revocation of residence permits and hearings before the issuance of deportation and custody orders.
18. All the above examples indicate that the Bill, which strives to rely on the judgment of the Israeli Police and the Population Authority, cannot stand. In the cases described, the police failed to identify the person who was being questioned and therefore arrested the wrong people. The police failures led to a serious violation of fundamental rights. Arrest decisions were copied from the files of various detainees to those of other detainees, arrest files were transferred without action reports or with action reports containing information concerning other detainees and asylum seekers who didn’t have even minimal connections to the events described, and many were arrested and imprisoned when there was not even a shred of evidence against them. Practices that have been proven to be poorly implemented and which lead to violations of basic human rights, including the right to freedom of movement and the right to liberty, should not be entrenched.
19. The police are not qualified to make the required distinctions, and these should be made only by those who have been trained to do so in the framework of examining asylum applications and not based on police judgment. The police do have the authority and the duty to address reports from threatened asylum seekers who warn them of the dangers they are exposed to in Israel. The police must investigate the complaints brought to them and provide protection to every person within the territorial boundaries of the country, regardless of their status, to maintain both their personal security and public order.
20. The mechanism proposed in the Bill for the examination of evidence in the case of asylum seekers is not a matter for the police to deal with. The authority is given to the Ministry of the Interior and the Population and Immigration Authority. The problems that exist are a result of the fact that authority has not been implemented for years. Creating a bypass mechanism is contrary to the Refugee Convention and Israeli law and will lead to risking the lives of those who would be entitled to protection if their asylum applications were examined.

Refugees and Persons Entitled to Protection – Not Infiltrators:

21. In the margins of the text, but not in the margins of their importance, two general comments must be made about the Bill. First, the Bill seeks to charge into a legislative vacuum. For years, the State of Israel has refrained from granting refugee status to those who would have been entitled to it if their asylum applications had been examined properly. The lack of legislative regulation leaves asylum seekers at the mercy of the procedures of various government ministries, which change frequently, and, in a single specific case, at the mercy of regulations that exclude a significant portion of the populations they are supposed to serve, as will be detailed below. In the absence of binding legislation, the rights of asylum seekers, which are few in any case, are frequently violated. As noted above, most asylum seekers hold a type 2(a)(5) visa, which allows them to work as per the State’s non-enforcement policy, but their employment options are limited and their entitlement to social services, welfare services, and medical care is limited. Asylum seekers do not receive even partial assistance in the areas of social security (National Insurance benefits); the new health regulations which, although they do officially recognize, for the first time, the need to regulate health services for asylum seekers, exclude most of those without status in Israel and leave the most vulnerable group – the children – to rely on the kindness of donors while being denied access to medical services; almost all of the professions regulated by government ministries are closed to asylum seekers; asylum seekers do not have the right to obtain a driver’s license; their banking services are limited, and more. This is just a partial list of services and rights that are inaccessible to the asylum seeker population, when in the absence of legislation, there is no certainty or stability that even the few rights to which they are entitled will be preserved.
22. A reality in which the State of Israel is a signatory to the Refugee Convention but there is not a single piece of primary legislation that relates to asylum seekers and their rights, while at the same time, abusive legislation is being promoted and ignores the fact that the asylum system is dysfunctional and seeks to deport those who are ostensibly identified as regime supporters, without proper examination of the asylum applications, is unacceptable.
23. Second, the Bill derogatorily uses the term “infiltrators” which no longer has a place in the context of Eritrean citizens who are under protection in Israel. This term was attached to them due to the manner in which they entered Israel nearly two decades ago, but since then, they have been residing in the country legally. The legislator chose to frame the issue of refugees and asylum seekers under the Infiltration Prevention Law, ostensibly as a technical legal term according to which an infiltrator is “a person who is not a resident within the meaning of Section 1 of the Population Registry Law, 1965, who enters Israel other than through a border station established by the Minister of the Interior pursuant to Section 7 of the Entry into Israel Law.” However, it is impossible to sever the connection between the new definition and the original meaning of the term. The law was originally enacted against the backdrop of the phenomenon of the fedayeen, organized and trained sabotage squads who infiltrated Israel to carry out terrorist acts. An infiltrator was defined as a citizen or national of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan, Iraq or Yemen. In other words, the term infiltrator carries historical baggage with an association to security, which is not relevant to refugees and asylum seekers. The use of the term in this context creates an incorrect and misleading narrative. In the framework of the process of enacting the amendment to the Infiltration Prevention Law, in which the definition of the term “infiltrator” was changed, the Ministry of Justice representative noted that the choice of implementing the Infiltration Prevention Law is deliberate and intended to convey seriousness and to ensure that the responsibility for handling the issue lies with the Minister of Defense. However, in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, the reality is different. First, everyone agrees that these are not people who came to Israel with the aim of carrying out acts of sabotage. Second, the authority to handle asylum applications and the affairs of asylum seekers and refugees in general is, in practice, that of the Minister of the Interior and is not a concern of the Minister of Defense. Third, if indeed there was a necessity to deal with “infiltrators,” it would have been possible to act under the Infiltration Prevention Law and file indictments for committing offenses as per the law, but out of recognition of the actual identity of the people despite their technical definition, this was not done. We will quote the words of the Honorable Justice Fogelman on the subject:

“The rhetorical choices of the legislator are not the subject of our criticism. In any case, it is important that rhetorical choices not obscure the essence. We must remember at every stage of the discussion the complex characterization of the new ‘infiltrators,’ a significant number of whom define themselves as asylum seekers.”

It is not without reason that when the various State authorities, including the Population and Immigration Authority, the Knesset, and the courts, examine the cases of asylum seekers, the examination is made regarding the principles of the Refugee Convention, which is embedded in our legal system, recognizing that the so-called “infiltrators” are in fact asylum seekers and refugees who were forced to flee their countries of origin in face of a foreseen danger to their lives. Furthermore, the explanatory notes to the aforementioned Bill state: “The State of Israel is obligated to grant asylum to people who are in personal danger in their country of origin, under humanitarian and international principles.” In other words, the proponents recognize that the population to which the Bill refers does not meet the technical definition of the term “infiltrators,” but rather that of a population that should be granted political asylum based on meeting certain criteria. As stated, before enacting a law that proposes a distinction between asylum seekers, or between “regime supporters and opponents of the regime” as written in the Bill, it must be ensured that asylum applications are indeed examined honestly, and that police judgements alone should not be relied upon, as they have often been proven to be wrong and lead to devastating results for those who are not regime supporters or lawbreakers, but have unjustly been labeled as such.

Other Bills that Paint a Troubling Picture:

In the spirit of MK Malinovsky’s proposed law, two additional bills were passed in a preliminary reading:

1. “Deportation of Infiltrators Supporting the Regime of Eritrea and Infiltrators Who Have Committed Crimes in Israel Bill”, 2024, No P/5278/25 by Otzma Yehudit (MK Limor Son Har-Melech and MK Yitzhak Kreuzer),.
2. “Deportation of Infiltrators Supporting the Regime of Eritrea and Infiltrators Who Have Committed Crimes in Israel Bill,” 2025, No P/5327/25 by MK Elyahu Revivo.

The two proposed laws mentioned above seek to expand the Interior Minister’s authority to deport not only those who are determined (though it remains unclear on what basis or through what mechanism) to be “regime supporters,” but also to deport asylum seekers who have committed criminal offenses—immediately after an indictment is filed.

This means deportation without conducting a criminal trial or obtaining a conviction, despite the fact that the presumption of innocence still applies to the accused.

It is important to reiterate that in previous cases, the police have filed indictments against asylum seekers who were later proven to be completely innocent, with no evidence against them.

A reality in which primary legislation allows the deportation of asylum seekers while denying them the right to due process and access to legal recourse to prove their innocence is simply unacceptable.

3. The Citizenship Bill (Amendment – Denial of Citizenship to the Child of a Person Who Entered Israel Illegally), 2025, P/5534/25, by MK Yevgeny Soba. 

Section 4A(b) of the Citizenship Law is currently worded as follows:

“(b) Anyone who submits an application under subsection (a) and meets the conditions explicitly stated therein shall have their request approved by the Minister of the Interior or by someone authorized by the Minister. However, the Minister may refuse to approve the request if the applicant has been convicted of an offense against state security or has been sentenced to five years or more in prison for another offense.”

The proposed amendment seeks to add the following words to the law: After “another offense,” add “or if they are the child of a person who entered Israel illegally.”

This amendment directly targets children of asylum-seeker parents.

It is essential to examine the entire legislative package. If these proposed laws genuinely aim to address issues of violence and crime (and as has already been clarified, this goal cannot be effectively achieved through these bills), why is there now an attempt to deny status to the children of asylum seekers—many of whom were born in Israel, are educated in our schools, and seek to be part of Israeli society, as this is the center of their lives?

The reality is different from what the bill’s proponents are trying to portray. The true goal is gradually creating cracks in the already flawed implementation of the Refugee Convention, ultimately enabling the deportation of individuals from Israel simply because certain political figures do not want them here.

 In addition to the fact that they seek to bypass the asylum system and deport those they define as regime supporters, they also authorize the Minister of The Interior to deport asylum seekers who have committed a criminal offense after an indictment is filed (i.e., without any legal proceedings).

Israeli governments throughout the years have deliberately avoided examining the status of those who fled horrors and life-threatening dangers in their homeland and sought protection and security in Israel. They avoid this examination to deny status to those who are indeed entitled to it.

Instead, these individuals—some of whom have fled terrible threats of death—have been turned into scapegoats, onto whom hatred and anger are directed, and upon whom all of Israeli society’s troubles and the government’s failures in neglecting South Tel Aviv are blamed.

The mechanism for resolving this issue, which the proposed laws aim to address, already exists. The government insists on not implementing it and instead proposes an indirect mechanism that contradicts the Refugee Convention. Asylum seekers are the most vulnerable population living in Israel. They have been here for over two decades without status and without the minimum rights necessary for a dignified existence.

These proposed laws have the potential to significantly harm the fundamental rights of asylum seekers, and such harm cannot be accepted.

Statements by ministers and members of Knesset, including false information and incitement against the asylum seeker population residing in Israel

Minister of the Interior Moshe Arbel (Shas Party) at the general assembly, 26.2.25:

• “In recent years, it has become clear that a very large portion of these refugees are supporters of the regime in Eritrea rather than opposition members. There is no justification for granting these refugees asylum or refugee status, nor for applying a non-deportation policy to them, as they would not face persecution in their country of origin.”
• “At most, they are labor migrants who, like millions around the world, seek to live in an advanced Western country, but there is no obligation to allow them to remain in Israel.”
• “Additionally, a significant number of these infiltrators have been involved in criminal activity, particularly severe violence against Eritrean regime opponents.”
• “The justification for deporting criminal infiltrators is clear. It is important that the precise wording in the committee be crafted wisely and in coordination with professionals from the Population Authority and the legal department so that the law can be effectively implemented.”

The information presented above is incorrect and represents a dangerous narrative. The asylum seeker population came to Israel because they fled a murderous regime and a tangible life-threatening danger. They are not labor migrants but individuals who escaped with their children from atrocities in their home countries.

Moreover, there is no mention of the fact that the asylum system has been dysfunctional for years due to deliberate policy decisions. There is no intention to grant refugee status to any asylum seeker; rather, the goal is to create an opening for deportation, with a clear potential for misidentification and the wrongful expulsion of individuals who are entitled to refugee status.

MK Limor Son Har-Melech (Otzma Yeudit Party) at the general assembly, 26.2.25:

• “The sense of lawlessness and fear in southern Tel Aviv has not changed. The infiltrators continue to take over entire neighborhoods, making life there unbearable. Fear and crime are on the rise, families are leaving, women are afraid to walk the streets, the elderly do not dare to leave their homes, and the state stands by, shackled by the Supreme Court and legal rulings that prevent any solution.”
• “Everything the government has tried to do to protect the citizens of Israel has been erased in the name of progressivism by legal decisions that do not take into account the terrible suffering, the severe harm to the quality of life, and sometimes even the very lives of the residents of southern Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva, Netanya, and Eilat.”
• “From our perspective, everyone should be deported—both regime supporters and opponents. Anyone who is here illegally has no place in the State of Israel.”
• “Blocking decisions and proposed laws on this issue means more violence, more rape, more crime—and the victims are the residents of these neighborhoods.”
• “This struggle is not just a legal or political battle; it is a fight for the State of Israel as a Jewish state. We will not allow the Supreme Court or foreign organizations to tie our hands.”
• “We have no obligation to absorb infiltrators who have turned the lives of our citizens into a nightmare. They are not refugees; they are labor migrants who are here only because they know that Israel allows it while they exploit our compassion. We cannot continue to accept a situation where Israelis feel persecuted in their own neighborhoods.”

The racist rhetoric is evident in every word. These are not legislative proposals aimed at solving a problem but rather harmful legislation designed to worsen the situation of the most vulnerable population living in Israel. This is done by crafting a narrative that portrays them as violent and criminal rather than recognizing them as asylum seekers who have lived in Israel for years without even the minimum rights necessary for a dignified existence.

MK Melinovsky (Israel Beytenu Party):

• At the general assembly, 12.2.25:

• “We have 23,000 infiltrators whom we don’t really want here. It is clear that they are not asylum seekers; they are labor migrants.”
• “They have established criminal organizations there; they are violent and aggressive. They physically harm many people.”
• “In my view, they shouldn’t be here at all. Most of these infiltrators are men aged 20 to 50. They are not asylum seekers; they are a fifth column. If this force of young men rises against us in central Israel one day, it won’t be like Operation ‘Shomer Homot’ — it will be something much worse.”
• “We are allowing violent people to live here, take over public spaces, intimidate Israeli citizens, and hold violent demonstrations in support of their home country’s regime.”
• “Looking ahead, I believe that if we reach that point, those convicted of crimes should also be deported from the country.”

• At the Interior Committee discussion, 24.2.25:

• “Don’t talk to me about international conventions. I don’t need them. There is a limit to stupidity. Even UNRWA was mentioned in international conventions.”

• “Most of the people here are infiltrators and labor migrants, not refugees. There are criminal organizations that have taken over the State of Israel. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to visit southern Tel Aviv. This could turn into a nationalistic crime. In their businesses, they broadcast Al Jazeera. There are gangs, unlicensed businesses, and black capital circulating there.”
• “They have developed gangs there. These are very homogeneous and wild groups

This is inflammatory and generalized terminology, far from reality, intended to promote a false narrative against the entire asylum-seeker population. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that MK Malinovsky explicitly states that she has no intention of adhering to the provisions of the Refugee Convention.

Summary

Instead of implementing the existing practice that takes into account the rights of asylum seekers and refugees in Israel, while addressing the shortcomings of the asylum system that does not function and and deliberately leaves them in a normative fog in terms of their rights, the Bill seeks to focus only on a small and exceptional group of asylum seekers, which does not represent the general population  and to expand deportation authority not only to those labeled as “regime supporters” but to all asylum seekers. The State has the tools and the obligation to protect Eritrean citizens who are entitled to protection both from deportation to their country and from State representatives in Israel; to examine their applications for asylum in a careful, responsible and efficient manner; and of course, to exhaust all criminal proceedings under the law. The Bill does not provide a solution for any of these matters.