What is behind the Israeli mistreatment of African migrants?

Disturbing rhetoric on race from Israeli government ministers.

The recent anti-African mob violence in Tel Aviv was, sadly, no surprise. Only a few days previously, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned “illegal infiltrators” could threaten the country’s existence “as a Jewish and democratic state”, with Interior Minister Eli Yishai saying that “the migrants are giving birth to hundreds of thousands, and the Zionist dream is dying”. 
Cabinet ministers talk in terms of “expulsion by consent or without consent” to “preserve the country's Jewish identity”, and of “taking steps to kick out” the “scourge” of “infiltrators”. A prominent Likud parliamentarian and chair of the “Knesset Caucus to Solve the Infiltrator Problem” urged for this “plague” to be removed “without delay and without mercy”.
A disturbing conference held in April in Ramle gives further insight into this mainstream racism, and points to an important connection between the anti-African incitement, and the institutionalised discrimination faced by Palestinians.
At the annual get together, “Israeli politicians and right-wingers – including Knesset Members and rabbis who are paid by the government – gathered to discuss the ‘problem’ of foreigners (read: non-Jews) in Israel”. One analogy is to imagine British MPs and even cabinet members proudly attending – and speaking at – an English Defence League convention. 
Yishai gave an address, and one rabbi told the audience that Israel “is our home and an Arab who wants to express his nationalism has many countries in which to do so”. Perhaps the most extraordinary contribution came from the head of a campaign group "Fence for Life", which emerged as a prominent voice supporting the construction of Israel’s Separation Wall.
Here, Ilan Tsion explicitly makes the case for the Wall on the basis that it can keep out non-Jews, grouping together both Africans and Palestinians as threats to the Jewish character of the state. Instructively, Tsion boasted of his group’s role in lobbying for both the Wall and for a continued ban on Palestinian family reunification. 
This week, Yishai asked rhetorically: “So what, the State of Israel, as the Jewish state, in the name of democracy, in the name of honouring UN resolutions, (should accept) a recipe for suicide?” Likewise, when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the separation of Palestinian spouses, the majority opinion stated: “human rights are not a prescription for national suicide”. 
The "demographic threat" discourse is commonplace amongst both the left and right. Netanyahu, as Finance Minister in 2003, described Palestinian citizens as the real “demographic problem”. When Ehud Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem, he considered it “a matter of concern when the non-Jewish population rises a lot faster than the Jewish population”.
Worrying about the numbers of Palestinian babies is also a concern for the so-called "liberals" or "peace camp", who echo the logic found in this recent op-ed (titled “Keep our Israel Jewish”) that “[African migrants] should be deported, for the same reason I think we should finalize a diplomatic agreement with the Palestinians: Because I want to keep living in a Jewish state”.  
This kind of ideology is inevitable in a country where racial discrimination is part and parcel of core laws and policies, and whose very establishment as a "Jewish majority" state was only possible, as Israeli historians like Ilan Pappe have pointed out, through ethnic cleansing and mass land expropriation. Indeed, the Ramle conference takes place in a town almost entirely emptied of its Palestinian population in 1948.
In 2012, African refugees are attacked in Tel Aviv for "threatening" the Jewish state; in 1948, Israeli forces targeted columns of Palestinian refugees “to speed them on their way”. In today’s Israel, politicians plan fences and detention camps for non-Jewish “infiltrators”; by 1956, as many as 5,000 Palestinians trying to return home had been killed as “infiltrators”.  
This thread running through Israel’s past and present – of expulsions, ethnocratic legislation, and obsessions with birth rates – is the context for the targeting of African refugees and Palestinians, and is one of the reasons why Israel’s advocates in the west are having to work so hard to maintain the myth of Israel’s democracy.
African immigrants in Tel Aviv Photograph: MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/GettyImages

Ben White is an activist and writer. His latest book is "Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy"

Show Hide image

The rules of US presidential history mean Hillary Clinton could still lose

Should Clinton win, Obama would become the first Democratic President to be succeeded by a member of his own party without dying in the process in over 150 years.

It’s looking good for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. Polls show an increasing national lead, and her campaign is pushing into states that wouldn’t usually be considered competitive. There have even respected figures effectively calling the election for Clinton already, weeks from polling day.

Prevented by a 1951 constitutional amendment from running for a third term himself, Barack Obama has campaigned hard for a Clinton victory. Clinton is not running for Obama’s third term and any victory would be her own, not his. Indeed, it is Michelle, not Barack, Obama who been called Clinton’s “most effective surrogate” in campaigning terms, and her appearances have been so successful there have been suggestions, and even assumptions, that she will one day run for national office.

Yet everyone is aware that Obama’s achievements in office, particularly Obamacare, are more easily secured by his replacement coming from his own party, indeed someone who served in his administration at a senior level, and the Obamas have not been reluctant to use their popularity to try and help achieve that outcome.

The energy the Obamas have put into Clinton’s election is understandable. If historical precedents mean anything, then the Obamas are right to be worried. Should Hillary Clinton win, Barack Obama would become the first Democratic President to be succeeded by a member of his own party without dying in the process for more than a century and a half.

This is not just a matter of the pendulum nature of US politics, ie. that the retirement of a sitting President means more people consider switching parties. The Republicans have generally been better at securing the succession than the Democrats.

There is a related situation on this side of the Atlantic; no Labour Prime Minister who attained the office mid-parliament has ever yet gone on to win the subsequent general election; this is not something that Conservative Prime Ministers appointed without a national election have had the same trouble with. Nor are they likely to in the immediate future.

In 1989, George HW Bush, in many ways the epitome of the Republican establishment,  moved smoothly from being Ronald Reagan’s Vice President to the presidency, while 60 years earlier, Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Warren G Harding and Calvin Coolidge succeeded the latter in 1929, ensuring the White House remained in Republican hands.

Twenty years before that, Theodore Roosevelt had successfully campaigned for William Taft, his chosen successor, to win the presidency. Not that that ended well either. The men later fell out and Roosevelt ran in 1912 as a third party candidate, destroying Taft’s attempts to remain in office and ensuring the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Yet Taft is better remembered for being the only President who was also later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of only two Presidents buried at Arlington National Cemetery, and so awe-inspiringly fat the White House needed to replace its bathtubs with larger models during his single term of office.

In living memory, the presidency has only passed between Democrats through the death of the incumbent POTUS. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 raised his Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, who won a landslide in his own right a year later. In 1945, four times elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt (yes, he was from the other party to the other President Roosevelt) died of a massive stroke three months into his fourth term.

Neither Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) nor Grover Cleveland (1885-89, 1893-1897) were able to secure the succession, despite each being elected twice (Cleveland’s two terms being interrupted by the single-term presidency of Republican Benjamin Harrison).

Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) came to the presidency at Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, the two having run on a multi-party national unity ticket while the civil war raged. Impeached by the senate, Johnson was unable to secure his own renomination and reelection.

In 1857, James Buchanan, the last Democratic President before the civil war, succeeded fellow Democrat Franklin Pierce. But the unpopular Pierce was refused the nomination by their party, who looked to give it to Buchanan, a party man who had conveniently been US ambassador to London during much of Pierce’s administration.

It’s a measure of how decisive a break with Pierce’s government Buchanan made that he replaced the entirety of Pierce’s cabinet, despite being of the same party and despite them being then, and now, the only cabinet to serve a full presidential term without a single resignation or replacement. 

This means the last Democrat POTUS to see out his term of office and hand over to a successor of whom he approved and for whom he campaigned was Andrew Jackson. He retired after two terms at an election that saw his long-time campaign strategist and later Vice President Martin Van Buren elected as his successor.

This is sufficiently long ago that Jackson was the last President who could remember the revolutionary war and Van Buren was born during it. The latter succeeded the former, regarded by history as the first President from the Democratic Party, on 4 March 1847.

That’s so long ago, it’s roughly the last time the pound sterling was worth what it is now.

Too much can be made of electoral precedents like this. Until Harding was elected in 1920 it was thought that no sitting senator could be elected to the presidency, although only two have subsequently. And it was an article of faith among southern Democrats that Sam Rayburn, the long-serving Speaker of the House of Representatives, would have been president were he not handicapped by being a southerner, it being assumed that after Reconstruction no southerner could be elected president. Rayburn died in 1961, and there have been multiple southern presidents since, beginning with his protégé, Lyndon Johnson.

There are many other examples of these sort of “never haves”. This XKCD comic strip, which came out during the 2012 election, demonstrates exactly how far the idea can be taken. On that basis, while ending the Democrats’ 140 years of successional failure isn’t the best or most important reason to elect Hillary Clinton President, it would be nice to be able to tick another one off the list.