Mark Krikorian, in his latest post at the Corner:
Good for Israel in announcing it will turn back all Darfur refugees sneaking across the border from Egypt — thousands of Muslims claiming asylum would present an existential threat to the Jewish state. But here’s what the government has to deal with: the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, what appears to be the country’s equivalent of the ACLU, said that it is "Israel's moral and legal obligation to accept any refugees or asylum seekers facing life-threatening danger or infringements on their freedom." That last bit is great – “infringements on their freedoms.” So, apparently anyone, anywhere who doesn’t enjoy complete political freedom and manages to sneak into Israel should be allowed to stay. This kind of post-nationalism is bad enough in Europe and the U.S., but we at least have some strategic depth, as it were – the very existence of such sentiments in a country as small and insecure as Israel doesn’t bode well for its long-term viability.
2300 refugees have come into Israel, which has a population over seven million, over the last six months. Israel already has over a million Arab residents. Existential threats don't come in the form of a couple thousand people fleeing genocide who would quickly fall in love with a country that rescued them. [Update: Is there any reason to think that the incoming Darfuris are Muslim? I was just going on Krikorian's word there, but the persecuted populations in Darfur mostly follow Christianity or some tribal religion. Update2: Apparently the persecuted populations in Southern Sudan are Christian and animist, while the Darfuris are Muslim.]
