The issue of African migrants in “Israel” is a tricky one for both the Zionist entity and the original Palestinian inhabitants because each party to the conflict could exploit these individuals for strategic use against the other in spite of there being differing arguments on both sides to simply expel them back to their homelands.
The issue of African migrants in “Israel” comes up in international media from time to time, most recently back in April when a hybrid deportation-resettlement scheme for approximately half of these 35,000 people was nixed by the Zionist authorities just hours after it was first announced. Nowadays it’s once again back in the news after the Associated Press ran a popularly republished piece on the effect that “Israel’s” latest law is having on these migrants after the settler entity mandated that 20% of their salary be withheld each month and transferred to a “savings fund” that they’re only allowed to access if they leave the “country”. The article attempts to cultivate sympathy for these migrants and includes details about the ordeals that some of them have had to face as a result of this measure, which quoted sources claim is intended to pressure them to leave “Israel”.
It’s widely recognized that the “Israeli” authorities consider the non-Jewish African migrants (of which the majority are) to be a threat to the “Jewish identity” of their entity, or put more frankly, to their ethno-religious supremacist “state”, but on the other hand, they could also be “useful” for driving a wedge between the newcomers and the original inhabitants. The British masterfully pulled this off by importing Indian laborers to their African colonies, after which these new arrivals eventually became a class of their own and participated in the system of “indirect rule” over the native Africans. Although something similar could theoretically happen with the Africans and Palestinians, there’s no convincing indication that the ruling “Israeli” faction behind Netanyahu intends for this to be the case, though the systemic opposition’s “bleeding heart liberalism” preaches the need to accept anyone who’s supposedly fleeing from oppression.
As for the original Palestinian inhabitants, many of them might rightly view the African migrants as a second-degree occupation force because they never granted them permission to settle in their ancestral homeland. This would make them, in a structural sense, no different than the Zionist occupiers because both are living on Palestinian land without the rightful owners’ permission. Even so, the African migrants could cunningly be seen as temporary ‘allies’ so long as they actually do conform to the Zionists’ worst fears and contribute to the demographic time bomb that could eventually liberate Palestine from within by gradually chipping away at the apartheid “state’s” ethno-religious supremacist identity to the point where radical and inclusive political changes would have to be made. These could in turn lead to the internal dismantlement of the Zionist entity, aided to a certain extent by the potentially unwitting African migrants.
The Machiavellian calculations of the Zionists and the original Palestinian inhabitants towards African migrants therefore make these individuals’ presence in the Holy Land a Catch-22 for both parties since they could serve strategic purposes for each by simply remaining where they are, though the argument can also be made that both of them have a shared interest in their expulsion for different reasons.