Land grab: Israeli govt backs bill to forcibly relocate up to 40,000 Bedouin villagers
Source: RT News
Israeli Cabinet ministers are backing a draft law to demolish Bedouin villages in the country's Negev Desert and relocate residents to state-approved settlements. If adopted, the country's latest ethnic cleansing project will affect tens of thousands.
Bedouin leaders have harshly criticized the plan, saying they were not included in discussions of the bill.
Under the Prawer-Begin plan, or 'The Bill on the Arrangement of Bedouin Houses in the Negev,' the Bedouin population will be relocated to officially recognized Bedouin towns such as Rahat, Khura and Ksayfe, and their current homes will be demolished.
"The government approved a plan that will cause the displacement and forced eviction of dozens of villages and tens of thousands of Bedouin residents," Rawia Aburabia, a lawyer from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), told MAAN news agency. "All of this while the government simultaneously promotes the establishment of new Jewish communities, some of which are even planned to be built on the fresh ruins of Bedouin villages."
Read more: http://en.rt.com/news/israel-relocate-bedouins-bill-937/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
timdog44
(1,388 posts)will let them set up casinos on their new land.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)world is moving, ever so slowly, toward something really ugly, I feel.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)
The oppressed becomes the oppressor.
sikofit3
(145 posts)Oh the irony....
Mosby
(16,350 posts)That progressives here prefer that the negev bedouin live without electricity, water and sewer lines in their communities, and Israel trying to create a better future for them is just like what the nazis did to the jews. Pathetic.
Thats what progressives here prefer? I wonder if you asked the bedouin if they would like to leave in exchange for electricity, water and sewer lines so that Israelis could build more homes for their growing population what they would say? Really? Go back to freeperville
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe Israel could even institute a program to help build up their communities as currently-placed. If Israel can lay water pipe and high-speed internet into the Jordan Valley for it's 'settlers,' then surely it can do the same within the borders of Israel! And it's not as if bringing these things to the Negev is some sort of insurmountable obstacle that Israel just can't overcome; Jewish towns and villages such as Arad and Dimona in the Negev have full access to the amenities, after all - and in 2011, Israel's government put forth a plan to create ten new towns in the Negev.
But the Bedouin aren't Jews, so Israel formulates a forced transfer of the population instead. Presumably to make room for those ten new towns... which will have full access to water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications, etc.
It's ethnic cleansing, Mosby and, once again, you've come out in support of it.
Mosby
(16,350 posts)While in the same counry Isn't "ethnic cleansing".
But feel free to continue to strip the phrase of any real meaning.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)on a liberal site – amazing.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If Israel were out to help these communities as you claim, water could be piped in; or at least, wells dug. Electricity could be wired in. Sewers could be dug. Infrastructure could be provided to provide these Israeli citizens with the resources you say Israel wants them to have. Again, it's very clearly doable, as evidenced by other Negev communities that, lo and behold, happen to be primarily Jewish (As noted in the article, recognized Bedouin villages are... well, they're shitty, on par with some of the worst Indian reservations in the US).
These people are being forcibly relocated, against their wishes, to a place of Israel's choosing - not their own. They were never consulted on this plan.
That is, the state of Israel is deporting a majority of a particular ethnic group from their homes and territory, by force, without consent, to a small number of "official" townships (reservations). From the looks of it, the land confiscated from them is going to be parceled out to the preferred caste in Israel. That is, the Bedouin are being "cleared out" and bustled into a small number of already-impoverished desert ghettos, in order to make room for Jewish communities that will be supported by government-built infrastructure.
I don't know if you want to make up a new word for that or what, Mosby, since I suppose to your "liberal zionist "mindset, the fact it's Jews doing it makes it much more acceptable and even a wonderfully charitable exercise... but the standing definitions of ethnic cleansing cover the situation well enough for me... especially when taken in context of the bigger picture.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)...The bill is expected to soon begin the legislative process in the Knesset. According to ACRI, the Prawer-Begin plan envisions the eviction of around 30 to 40,000 Bedouins, which will destroy their communal and social lifestyle and condemn them to poverty and unemployment.
Israel refuses to recognize 35 Bedouin villages in the Negev, which collectively house approximately 90,000 people – nearly half of Israel's 210,000 Bedouins, according to data published by Bedouin-Jewish Justice in Israel. The villages are not on official maps and lack basic services like water, paved roads and electricity.
The other half of Israel’s Negev Bedouins lives in government-planned townships. Residents have complained over a lack of basic infrastructure, transportation, school and health facilities. Israel’s Bedouin townships repeatedly rank in the country’s lowest socioeconomic bracket.
These are the issues IMO:
The number of people to be moved from '35 villages' of 'illegal housing' is stated as being between 30K and 40K, less than half the 90K the article describes living there. So they are not all being moved. A larger group of Bedouins don't live in the Negev. The article doesn't mention them, nor does it say whether those living in the approved areas were forced there or volunteered.
The article doesn't provide the acreage, nor how well they currently live. It says the other half of the Bedouin who live in the 'government-planned townships' 'complained over a lack of basic infrastructure, transportation, school and health facilities.' This would explain the charge that they will be impoverished. If they were prosperous, they would get what they needed.
The ones protesting this move don't seem to want that. They choose to live without 'basic services like water, paved roads and electricity.' They feel it is their culture being attacked, perhaps, their ancient way of life. Clearly, they can't have both ways of living at the same time.
That's a nice picture of camels in the RT article. I suspect a way of living is in place that requires much more land to live. The native Americans roamed over large tracts of land which ended up turned over to a system of intensive land use. the society that took their land, did not consider them as 'employed' and their way of living was not respected.
It made room for more people, but at a cost to nature and the original peoples. We seem to have a clash of modern urban living and rural or nomadic lifestyle in this story. This is a world wide problem, not just Israel, in a crowded world.
Our concept of desert living in America is based on water piped in for homes, businesses and agriculture. Many believe it will collapse due to aquifer depletion or drought reducing the snowcap river flow. The Bedouin lifestyle may be more sustainable than the modern one in the long run.
Please answer these neutral questions for me if you will:
Do you see a humanitarian reason at work in relocation, to bring them into the larger Israeli society, or addressing the complaints part of the population is making?
With global climate change, will the Negev Desert be unable to support a less intensive land use culture or will it unable to support intensive use?
What is the pressing need, is there something about this area the OP isn't explaining, and that we who are less knowledgeahle about Israel have no way of knowing?
TIA if you want to try those.
Mosby
(16,350 posts)Firstly one needs to understand that the Bedouin are a nomadic tribe who have lived in the Negev for a long time but never tried early on to register their land either with the Ottomans or later the Israelis and Egyptians. That is why the remaining towns are considered "unrecognized" or "illegal". They don't have deeds to the properties they lay claim to now. The Israelis have spend decades incentivizing relocation to modern villages in the immediate area and more than half have voluntarily relocated since 1948.
The Prawer plan (which is what this article is about) is designed to relocate the remaining Bedouin living in unrecognized communities and will be providing, among other things, 350 million dollars of development aid in the form of schools, industrial parks and training in technology and trades. Bedouin families will also receive compensation for the lands they are leaving and relocation funds.
Bedouins are way behind all Israelis in live expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, crime, educational attainment, poverty and who knows what else. One main goal of the Prawer plan is to assist the Bedouin as needed over time to improve their integration into Israeli society and as a result drastically improve their lives.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Native Americans resisted being forced into living the way that the Europeans thought was 'better.'
Some people do not want to be educated to fit into what they consider part of 'the machine,' so to speak. Literacy is being attacked in many ways, as a form of indoctrination to that system.
We don't know if they, like some fundies here, see infant mortality or death of the mother in child birthing to be acts of God, and to be accepted. At one time many Americans had large families as they didn't have birth control and expected to lose children.
The intrepretation of what is a crime may also be different in their culture, and regresssives are pushing in the red states to forget about what progressives call crimes like domestic abuse. We are seeing voices that want us ignore rape, abusing workers, child labor, denying education, food, shelter and a voice in our own country. I'm sure these voices are not just American.
I am thinking the other objection to their nomadic lifestyle is from the assumption of the Israeli state not recognizing their claims from a former era. This happened in the USA with the arguments over Spanish land grants not being honored. In all cases, the reason most people believe this was done are ugly ones, racism, greed, and a colonial mindset. Which is what Israel is accused of being many times.
Is there any chance that Israel can leave these people alone?
Or maybe more important - should they leave them alone?
Aren't these people considered to be Israeli citizens with voting rights and a voice in the Knesset (excuse me if I'm calling it by the wrong name) or parliament that governs Israel?
The claim in the article is that they were not allowed a voice in this decision. I have a unfounded suspicion that the outrage is from the oligarchs (or whatever they'd be called) among the Bedouins. They would be the one who had the most to lose in this situation. Perhaps the less wealthy among the Bedouins would like to get opportunities to leave that life.
Any other comments welcome.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Gotta bring some civilization to those savages? How virtuous. I'm sure it would take very little digging to find that the right wingers motives are far from selfless.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I take it you support what was done to Native Americans in this country --you made the argument that leaders made to justify the same policy then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_termination_policy
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)"We confirmed that we will stay steadfast in our lands, despite the injustice and tyranny of the Israeli authority," al-Tori told Ma'an. "We will rebuild our houses, even if they demolish them thousand times."
You're sick in the head.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)timdog44
(1,388 posts)called ethnic cleansing in the past?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Much like the difference between "legitimate warfare" & "terrorist massacres" ...
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)"The Ministerial Committee on Legislation overcame serious disagreements to approve a legal framework for moving the Bedouin into recognized communities; vote had been postponed two weeks to allow Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi to study the issue."
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)by the elite that seeks absolute power (except where the term can be employed against those it seeks to dominate).
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
marmar
(77,090 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)turn a blind eye to their brutal tactics against indigenous peoples.
It's interesting that Israel is using similar tactics that the US Government used in the 19th century against Native American tribes. Those tactics were also supported by Hitler. Oh the irony!!
timdog44
(1,388 posts)above, but was unsure how far a person can go here on DU talking about "Israel".
connecticut yankee
(1,728 posts)The Israelis built their country on land grabbed from the Palestinians in 1948. They've been grabbing land ever since.
One man's Terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter.
byeya
(2,842 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
timdog44
(1,388 posts)way back when they where supplying weapons to South Africa to support apartheid. It had come back stream.
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)You see, once all these "other" people have been robbed of their homes and beaten into submission they will eventually acquiesce to being 3rd class citizens, and Israel will finally know peace!
Crazy fuckers, the creation of Israel was undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century, and will be the cause of even more decades of bloody killing.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Amazing that people here actually hold this viewpoint.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)It's tragic for the ME.
Do you think it was OK to create Israel on Palestinian land? How could that be justified?
Do you think a Jewish life is more valuable than a Palestinian life? If no, then how can you justify Israel's actions?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I don't think a Jewish life is more valuable than a Palestinian life. That is preposterous. Incidentally, did you know that about a quarter of Israelis are not Jewish?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean the 20th century was a really shitty century, looking back. Almost nothing good happened, and even the best thing to come of it - the green Revolution - seems to have a very threatening dark side to it.
So no, Israel was not "one of the worst decisions of the 20th century." When you've got everything from the capitalization of the IMF, to the atomic obliteration of two Japanese cities, to the Holocaust, to the acceleration of anthropogenic global warming, the Japanese treatment of their "Colonies" in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, and so on, no, Israel's invention doesn't rate even the top 25 bad ideas.
Doesn't mean it was a great idea, of course. There is nothing about the last 60 years in Israel / Palestine that was not foreseen in the lead up to the creation of Israel, that could not be predicted, with the possible exception of the suicide bomber (and to be honest that was a Lebanese invention, so it might not even count!) It just stands to logic that colonial powers promising Europe's jews a nation out of land stripped from someone else was going to cause problems. There's absolutely no way it would have happened otherwise. But for the sake of three different states each wanting a puppet state in the middle east, and a dabble of Christian millenialism in the US, there it is, and 60 years of dead Jews and Arabs is the result.
Still, even speaking regionally, it only rates #3 worst - behind the initial colonial partition after WW1 at #1, and US support for Saddam during the 80's in #2.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)to many other human caused tragedies in the 20'th century.
When it comes to endless conflicts with no foreseeable ending, the IP conflict certainly is high on the list, and it leads to frequent wars and murder.
It's clear who is responsible and who supports the continuation of the conflict. The US is a culprit and US support for Israel dominates US politics. That's why there's a lot of discussion concerning the IP conflict among liberal circles in the US.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)"colonial powers promising Europe's jews a nation out of land stripped from someone else was going to cause problems.."
The BS that people believe is a credit to those who push that false narrative repeatedly.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Great Britain, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had absolutely nothing to do with it... It drifted from the sky to settle over the Southern Levant (a land without people for a people without a land, I'm sure!) like the purest of snow!
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)The only logic that comes close to justifying the creation of Israel also dictates we should abandon North America entirely back to its original, ancient owners. But we never will, because we value our lives more than theirs.
As another poster pointed out, the idea that Muslims are less valuable than Christians or Jews was obviously implicit in the creation of Israel. This should not be surprising considering the prevailing attitudes of white "western" leaders in the 1940s.
Israel's borders and population were deliberately and forcibly arranged so that a Jewish majority will be perpetuated in a region where Muslims are obviously the true majority.
If the British and Americans of the 1940s were not prejudiced against the Muslims whose land they had made a conspicuous habit of colonizing, then what is the real story?
A good hypothetical comparison would be if Japan had won WW2 and said to us: those natives deserve better, so we're going to give Manhattan and New Jersey back to the Lenape. That would be entirely true and justifiable, the NAs were abused and massacred. But even if Japan were strong enough to force that in 1947, would Americans just peacefully accept that for the long term? Or would we still be fighting to the death over it 60+ years later?
I'll stand by my statement that the creation of Israel was a tragic mistake, and by the obvious fact that colonial Europeans and their American business partners were obviously prejudiced against Muslims.
That's the thing about fundamentalism, it justifies you destroying and pillaging the other sides' stuff without feeling guilty.
That's true for illegal terrorists like those of 9/11 or the Boston Marathon, and it is true for legal terrorists (errrr soldiers) who use warfare to subjugate weaker societies.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Oh wait.
