Law and Morality Clash Yet Again

[Israeli]

The Israeli government is expecting the Knesset (parliament) to pass a law regulating the settlement of Bedouins in the Negev, by which tens of thousands of Bedouins will be expelled from their homes, villages and lands, and concentrated in several more townships to be founded at sites of villages recognized for this purpose. Please appeal to the Israeli ambassador in your countries, requiring him to act against this new law. Please appeal as well to your own Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking to apply pressure on the Israeli government and prevent this draconian law from being legislated.

Details @
http://on-the-left-side.org.il/warning-racist-legislation/

and ...

http://tv.social.org.il/en/fixing-the-bedouin
http://www.nif.org.au/acri_discriminatory_prawer_plan_approved
http://www.dukium.org/eng/

[Scootaloo]

1. But but but Lebanon! Tibet! Namibia! Anywhere Else! n/t

[delrem]

2. So, they want to regulate what they're doing?

Or better, absolve themselves with a get-out-of-jail-free card.

That reminds me of something to do with the US security and banking industries.

[azurnoir]

3. Aren't these Bedouins Israeli citizens?

we've been told that Israel doesn't discriminate against it's Arab or Bedouin citizens must be some mistake .........

[pelsar]

4. why do you thinks its discriminatory?......

i've heard many times that the law must be followed, even if it uproots people....and where they are presently living is not legal....so why is the application of the law against israeli citizens discriminatory....

i'm not arguing the morality of the law....many laws are immoral in my mind, i'm asking why is it discriminatory?
____

and just to quote a poster:
But but but Lebanon! Tibet! Namibia! Anywhere Else! n/t

meaning dont look elsewhere...they are breaking the law, and shouldnt it be applied just as so many advocate that the "law" should be applied to israel and not elsewhere? and that is not discriminatory is it?

[azurnoir]

7. what is the land being cleansed for? will it remain open or will it utilized for 'other' purposes?

However once again if you approve of your government relocating populations based on their ethnicity that's fine, and even more I luv the 'clever' questions too

[pelsar]

8. pehaps its not their ethnicity.....

its true that a particular group is living in illegal settlements in the negev, it is just that group. There are no christian, druze, jewish groups doing that...

so are you advocating that certain groups should be able to live where they want?....because they are of a certain group? only that group gets to ignore the law?

my my...seems to me, not much daylight between your view and the settlers. you should declare it:
_________________________
Certain ethnic groups should be able to live where they want and ignore the laws of land, unlike all other ethnic groups in israel....i think thats a good summary of your position is it not?


as far as why is the govt attempting to apply the law of the land now vs before? they 've tried and alway failed, perhaps its a health reasons, no plumbing and no running water, dogs running loose, no roads,no building standards, etc

[azurnoir]

11. why are these villages illegal what will be done with the land once the offending villages are gone?

[pelsar]

14. why are they illegal?...its call squatters

they not villages..they're random huts, (think cheap mobile homes with fancy pickups next to them) that families decided to make their home and they didnt exist in 48 or 67

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.421163.1332899075!/image/3547646030.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/3547646030.jpg

as far as what will be done with the land?...i havent seen the master plan of the negev, but what is the relevancy? are you advocating that certain groups have to right to break the law or not?

i think you are, and you base it on race....as far as I'm concerned that makes you no better than the settlers and and any other person who thinks race gives one special rights.
____________________________________________________

whereas i dont know the various options, and i know the bediouin have been screwed by the state, never the less, advocating that only they get the right to live where they feel like it because of their race is also wrong.

[delrem]

15. That is, singularly, the most racist statement I've heard in my life

[pelsar]

16. all citizens equal under the law doesnt not equal racism.....

no group, whatever their genes has superior rights over others....that is foundation for a just and fair democracy...start fiddling that basic right and you end up with no equality under the law

I guess you too advocate superior rights due to ones race (what is commonly know as racism)

[shaayecanaan]

21. Do you see anything racist in the following law?

1. All citizens, irrespective of race, are banned from circumcising baby boys, on pain of death.

Nothing racist in that, it applies to all people equally.

[pelsar]

22. no...how can it be racist...

its equality before the law..everyone...
____

if you want to argue that the southern bedouin get separate laws that the northern bedouin dont get, that the druze dont get, that the christians dont get, that the jews dont get...thats fine

but i believe a better description would be apartheid as opposed to equality, but lets hear your argument for their special laws......

i would suggest that your only argument is that justice is really not blind and there is no 100% equality before the law...and some groups are indeed favored over others......

[shaayecanaan]

41. What about...

1. All citizens, irrespective of sexual orientation, may only marry someone of an opposing gender.

Nothing unjust about that either?

[pelsar]

43. you losing me in your quest.......

and in doing so...your looking to find a way to show that the Southern Bedouin deserve a different set of laws from the other ethnic/religious/gentic groups in israel.

perhaps you should explain why they deserve such special treatment?

(as far as gender marriage goes, same thing, if you believe in 100% equality before the law and that justice is 100% blind than its a no brainer)....and that is my stance. (though in reality i recognize that justice is not totally blind....)

however, and you might as well as admit it, you want "justice" to peak under the blindfold and make judgements on things other than 100% blindness...i.e. not all being 100% equal before the law.

that is the stance of all progressives, so its not really a problem to admit it, its also the stance of all politicians and pretty much everybody.

your only real problem with it, is that it makes a clear mockery of you and your fellow progressives when you claim israel is an apartheid state, since you too are advocating special laws for different color people...i..e an apartheid state.

[delrem]

42. Unfortunately, Israeli law gives precedence to Jewish national rights.

[pelsar]

44. thats been discussed below...but thats not the point here...

we're also discussing, for those who are interested, and can stand up to the challenge, how those who claim that "all should be equal before the law"

are at the same time advocating that some groups get special rights while others dont get those very rights.
specifically in this case, that they ignore housing laws and build settlements where ever they choose..because of their ethnicity

apparently progressives push for special laws based on genetics...what they like to refer to as apartheid laws

[delrem]

47. But ho hum, you're just making shit up again...

Your statement:
"those who claim that "all should be equal before the law"
are at the same time advocating that some groups get special rights
while others dont get those very rights."

That's straight on bullshit.
Israeli law gives precedence to Jewish national rights. That isn't a law that's compatible with "all should be equal before the law". Nobody who truly advocates for the principle "all ought to be equal before the law" would advocate for special rights determined by "nationality" as Israeli law determines it.

This discussion is focused on Israeli Bedouin in the Negev, who you call "squatters", being booted off their land so it can be divided up by folk who are Israeli "nationals", which the Bedouin aren't allowed to be.

[pelsar]

49. you confuse the state with my own viewpoint

Israeli law gives precedence to Jewish national rights. That isn't a law that's compatible with "all should be equal before the law". Nobody who truly advocates for the principle "all ought to be equal before the law" would advocate for special rights determined by "nationality" as Israeli law determines it.

now you have to concentrate on what i 'm writing and not what you prefer to believe:

if the towns being made are open to all, then, i see no problem with the principle of removing illegal settlements for established towns.
____________________________________

however, you do....as i understand your belief is that some are more equal then others before the law, you are infact advocating for special righths determined by nationality
since as i understand your belief, you believe that the southern Bedouin should be able to live where ever they want to, whereas the northern Bedouin, the druze, the christians and jews, dont have those same rights.
_________________________

as per your history here, your not going to want to discuss how your view is in fact apartheid in character and will claim it has nothing to do with the OP, which is your right, so perhaps you shouldn't even answer this, unlike the others here.

[delrem]

51. Lemme start from the end of your offensive post:

1. "as per your history here, your not going to want to discuss how your view is in fact apartheid in character"

That's a stupid provocation. It tells me how much I should "believe you", which is not at all.

2. "i understand your belief is that some are more equal then others before the law, you are infact advocating for special righths determined by nationality"

Again, a stupid provocation, totally off the wall and unrelated to anything I said.

3. "if the towns being made are open to all, then, i see no problem with the principle of removing illegal settlements for established towns. "

Bull fucking shit. Using the term "settlements" to describe Bedouin communities. Then saying "illegal settlements" while running frantic from the fact that Israeli law gives precedence to Jewish national rights.

Offensive through and through.

[pelsar]

52. seems you skipped the whole concept....

if the towns are open to all, that are proposed, do you believe the bedouin "caravan type living societies" should be removed and replaced with legally built structures, where all can bid on the new housing?

or do you believe that the southern Bedouin should have special rights, different from those of other israeli citizens.

now try to worm your way out of those questions......
________________________

but you get two points for avoiding attempts at personal insults (though your not done yet are you..and yes i'm goading u)

[delrem]

53. I didn't "skip" anything, pelsar.

But you sure did.

[pelsar]

54. that was easy....

you just ignored everything.....i forgot, that too is major part of your "communication skill set."

[delrem]

55. Israeli law gives precedence to Jewish national rights

That's fact. That's the issue.
Now I raise you 100.

[pelsar]

56. actually its in the courts...continue reading down below

but you are advocating for preference for S.Bedouin rights.....thats the issue you seem to be avoiding, why?

[delrem]

57. I say: Israeli law gives precedence to Jewish national rights

That's a fact, pelsar. And yes, it's the bedrock fact upon which Israel justifies its treatment of the Bedouin, and the Palestinians in general. It's the fact that defines Israel as being a Jewish state.

[pelsar]

58. i already read that..now why are you avoiding such a simple question?

do you believe that the S. Bedouin should have to live within the laws of israel, like the other ethnic groups (specifically in terms of buildings).



why is this so difficult to answer?......perhaps you want to claim that israeli laws are illegal? and they have no right to impose them? Or the S. Bediouin have been discriminated against, hence they get to ignore israeli laws....

at least that is an answer, but at least try answering the question directly, come on its not so difficult

[delrem]

60. I'm going to leave this for anyone who's attuned to you to answer.

OK?
Because in my opinion you aren't honest.

[pelsar]

62. fair enough....

that is an answer i definitely respect.... (different cultures, different starting points or different experiences, can create large communication gaps)

[delrem]

67. In my culture

"Israeli law gives precedence to Jewish national rights" contradicts
"all persons are equal before the law in Israel".

The basic or fundamental laws that give precedence to Jewish national rights are in a very concrete sense the law of the *land*. This is why the JNF can be united with the ILA in a system of laws, with everyone shrugging. It's why the Bedouin can be fucked over, with hasbradists like pelsar saying they should be enjoying it.

[pelsar]

68. you blew it......

had you not answered...it would have been fine....

It's why the Bedouin can be fucked over, with hasbradists like pelsar saying they should be enjoying it.

of course BS is always BS and making up stuff remains the area of children....i'm just wondering why your such a believer in apartheid type societies.....
___________________________________

so were back to your inabilty to explain why the "indigenous southern bedouin" should have more rights than the indigenous northern Bediouin or the Jews in Safat, or the Druze in the North or the Arabs in the middle. Each one of those groups would love to walk over to state owned land and make a new home....but as i understand your answers you believe only the southern bedouin get the super rights to build wherever they want on state land

care to explain why you believe they have superior rights over the other ethnic groups in Israel

[Scootaloo]

77. For real?

[delrem]

84. That I am, that I am.

"squatters". \
It just fucken reeks.

[Scootaloo]

85. Especially when you consider the double standard he operates with

Par for the course, really.

[azurnoir]

17. how long have the Bedouin been as you put it "squatting " on Israel's land? n/t

[pelsar]

18. since the state was established.....

just as the arabs, jews, christians, druze, northern bedouin all had to adjust to the new laws...so too do the southern Bedouin.

i guess you too do not advocate "equality under the law" but believe some with certain genes have more rights than others.

so whats the problem, just write it out clearly;

you are a firm believer in racism, is that not the definition of what you believe?
or you dont believe in all being equal before the law (thats a nicer way of putting it)
or you dont believe that justice should be blind (hows that)

they're all the same, your "justice" is not based on equality, it based on race

[shaayecanaan]

20. so the American Indians were squatters in America...

the Aborigines were squatters in Australia, and the Blacks were squatters in South Africa?

[pelsar]

23. you tell me....what would the police do....

If a member of the Mohave tribe today went to a house in San Francisco and decided that it was his to live in...or better, decided to put his trailer down in public park to live there...

would you support his right to live there? bring in the extended family? and others and make it into their own "village"...

what would the police do?

[shaayecanaan]

40. They're not living in a house in San Francisco

they're living in a barren patch of the desert that nobody has wanted up until now.

I don't know the situation in the US, but since 1996, the policy of the Australian government has been to recognise the native title of the Aboriginal tribes to those areas where it has not been "extinguished" (or made incompatible) by later development.

This means that, if Australian law applied, the Bedouin would be recognised as having title to their unrecognised villages in the Negev, as:-

1) their presence there predates the existence of the state

2) no person is able to establish a better claim to those areas than the Bedouin residents

3) by dint of their continued presence in the unrecognised villages, the Bedouins' native title has survived the establishment of the State.

[pelsar]

45. so if australia has apartheid laws.....

they're living in a barren patch of the desert that nobody has wanted up until now.

do state rights, laws of equality have "time limits"?


your still advocating giving the Southern Bedouin special rights over the Northern Bedouin...furrther more your also advocating for the restriction of economic development of the negev because of the placement of several of those settlements limits some developments,.....thereby infringing on the rights of others for having a better life...
___________

having unrecognized villages "recognized" has happened before in israel, its not unknown, but thats a different argument....sincei it accepts that they have to live within the laws of the state and do not get any special treatment.

the settlers in the westbank use that as well....

[azurnoir]

24. squatters for 65 years? and the GoI decides to move them now just because, why again? n/t

[pelsar]

25. you just moved the goal posts.....

lets not avoid the core question here:

should the southern bedouin get special treatment, and not have to follow the same laws that the norther bedouin, druze, christians and jews have to follow

well?

[azurnoir]

26. I asked what purpose these "squatters" were being moved for, if any

is it just an exercise i9n law enforcement, or is there some plan for the land? That's not moving the goal posts it seems asking a question that begs an answer

[pelsar]

27. there is a master plan for the negev

.....it could be that after all of these years of talk the govt is actually going to attempt to develop the negev and bring in additional industry to uplift the poor economy, that would require in some areas moving some of the illegal settlements.

they been talking about since the 1950's and there has been some development though it remains the poorest area of the country....maybe now they plan on putting in more resources....otherwise there would be no reason to change the status quo

your turn: are the southern Bedouin above the law? or should they're be special laws for them

[azurnoir]

28. well that depends

is it special privilege for a citizens of a country to stay on land with-in that country where they've lived for 65 years , even if they are minorities

[pelsar]

29. that was not clear.....

the question that you do not want to answer is, but is the core of a democracy:

should they follow the laws like everyone else or not.

all countries have laws that pertain to use of public land, as far as the Bedouin go, they are not being shipped up north, the concept is to build them legal housing in defined areas as per the law.....

this is one of those yes or no type questions that your not going to answer, mainly because your advocating that israel
behave like an apartheid/racist country by giving special rules to a select group to create and live in illegal settlements

funny how your advocate of that.

[azurnoir]

30. and what about the 10 new towns the JNF is planning in the same area? eta

that has nothing to do with why these "squatters" (your name for them) are being moved after 65 years?

let's look at the JNF's purpose

In recent years, the JNF has again moved towards the development of towns to accommodate new Jewish immigrants, focusing on the Galilee and Negev regions, the two areas of Israel with a tenuous Jewish demographic majority. In particular, the JNF's 600 million dollar Blueprint Negev aims to attract and build infrastructure for 250,000 new settlers in the Negev desert, which accounts for 60% of the country's land mass but remains sparsely populated.[37] The plan has come under scrutiny as groups such as Bustan, Save the Negev, and Ohalah have expressed concern over the project's lack of transparency in light of the potential strain on ecological resources and the possible impacts on Bedouin communities nearby.[38][39][40][41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund#Reclamation_projects

[pelsar]

31. hmm legal housing

guess thats the plan....remove the illegal structures that are hazards and replace them with legal housing that meets the building standards..probably have running water and sewage as well.

really evil plan if i ever heard one

will there be laws that prevent the Bedouin from living in these new towns?

[azurnoir]

32. The JNF is building towns in both the Negev and Arab areas in Galilee for new Jewish immigrants

I added this to my prior post but will add it again here

In recent years, the JNF has again moved towards the development of towns to accommodate new Jewish immigrants, focusing on the Galilee and Negev regions, the two areas of Israel with a tenuous Jewish demographic majority. In particular, the JNF's 600 million dollar Blueprint Negev aims to attract and build infrastructure for 250,000 new settlers in the Negev desert, which accounts for 60% of the country's land mass but remains sparsely populated. The plan has come under scrutiny as groups such as Bustan, Save the Negev, and Ohalah have expressed concern over the project's lack of transparency in light of the potential strain on ecological resources and the possible impacts on Bedouin communities nearby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund

[pelsar]

33. will it be illegal for Bedouin and arabs to live in them....

is that not the question to be answered?

The JNF and contribute what ever they want, they can plan what ever they want, but they are not the "law of the land"

if these new towns follow the law of the land, in both spirit and fact, do you have a problem with these new towns?

they can expand their work
http://www.nif.org/issue-areas/israeli-arabs

[azurnoir]

34. The JNF stipulates that only Jews can buy, mortgage or lease JNF land.

The JNF stipulates that only Jews can buy, mortgage or lease JNF land. Article 23 of the JNF lease states that the lessee must pay compensation to the JNF if this stipulation is violated.[42] On 13 October 2004, Adalah, an organization and legal center for Arab minority rights in Israel, submitted a petition to the Supreme Court entitled Challenging the Prohibition on Arab Citizens of Israel from Living on Jewish National Fund Land.[43] Shortly afterwards, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and the Arab Center for Alternative Planning also filed a petition to the Supreme Court challenging the ILA policy as discriminatory.[44] The JNF responded to the two petitions on 9 December. In its response, the JNF stated:

The JNF is not the trustee of the general public in Israel. Its loyalty is given to the Jewish people in the Diaspora and in the state of Israel... The JNF, in relation to being an owner of land, is not a public body that works for the benefit of all citizens of the state. The loyalty of the JNF is given to the Jewish people and only to them is the JNF obligated. The JNF, as the owner of the JNF land, does not have a duty to practice equality towards all citizens of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund

[pelsar]

35. the JNF vs the State of Israel

so your claiming that the JNF has powers above the State of Israel?

wont be so easy....
http://adalah.org/eng/?mod=articles&ID=558

btw if the plan is to build towns that are "bedouin free" than i have no argument....

[azurnoir]

36. No not at all BTW here's the ruling it's umm interesting

According to reports in the media, in response to the petition, the AG ruled in 1/05 that the ILA cannot discriminate against Arab citizens of Israel in the marketing and allocation of the lands it manages, even lands belonging to the JNF. Adalah's position is that there are two sides to the AG's ruling: on the one hand the decision is positive, since the AG concurred with Adalah's argument that the ILA's policy of marketing and allocating JNF-owned lands through bids open only to Jews is discriminatory. However, on the other hand, the AG also decided whenever a non-Jewish citizen wins an ILA tender for a plot of JNF-owned land, the ILA will compensate the JNF with an equal amount of land, a process which Adalah opposes as it involves the transfer of state-owned lands to the JNF, an institution which publicly acknowledges that its land policy is discriminatory. To date the AG has not submitted his response to the petition.

http://adalah.org/eng/?mod=articles&ID=558

so the state of Israel is in essence rewarding discriminatory behavior

[pelsar]

37. its not done yet

The Israel Lands Administration, et. al. (case pending).

i would assume (or i would rather like to assume) that the JNF will lose....
____

but i congratulate you..you managed to steer the discussion away from my basic question: should the bedouin be made to follow the law...obviously if they're being kick off for "jew only housing, then the whole exercise is mute, and they should just stay put.

[azurnoir]

38. more about how JNF is dealing with this

he JNF owns 2.6 million dunams, or 13 percent of the land. The ILA owns almost all of the rest. According to this solution, the reservoir of JNF land was never depleted by allocations to non-Jews.

Leket told the Post that the ILA recently decided to unilaterally halt the arrangement. When the JNF protested, the ILA published the notice that according to the agreement between the state and the JNF, it could not market 26 plots of land in Karmiel to non-Jews.

Leket said that unlike Mazuz, he was not convinced that the state would have lost the case in the High Court of Justice. But he indicated that he preferred a non-confrontational solution. In fact, he told the Post that the JNF had gained from the attorney-general's decision. Mazuz established a committee to devise the arrangements which would satisfy the High Court without injuring the JNF. Until now, the agreement between the ILA and the JNF had been an informal one. Now it would have the formal backing of the attorney-general, he said.

Mazuz wrote that in the wake of the High Court's landmark decision in 2000 declaring that the ILA may not discriminate against Israeli Arabs when it allocates land for housing, the state would not be able to win the petitions regarding the JNF-owned lands

.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/2897/jnf-smart-solutions-can-be-found.html

[azurnoir]

39. No I simply clarified exactly what we are speaking of here

so in a nut shell your idea of equality under (Israeli) law is Arabs (Bedouin) being moved from places where they've lived for 65 years to make way for Jewish villages

Now as for your West Bank settlement comparison there is a difference the land that the settlements in West Bank are located on is not Israel's land, it is not actually a part of Israel, however Israel is transferring it's citizens onto this land and transferring the inhabitants that were already there off of the land

[pelsar]

46. i dont advocate apartheid type laws...

apparently the progressives here do:
if the new towns are open for all, including the bedouin, arabs, jews etc, then i'm all for it. If not, then they have no right to build them and remove the Bedouins illegal settlements.

i believe that is a clear statement of my beliefs;
_____

now its your turn to state something equally clear:

do you believe the Southern Bedouin should have a different set of rights and laws to live by then the other ethnic/religious groups in israel and ignore israeli building laws?

[azurnoir]

48. I believe that citizens of a country living somewhere for 65 years with in that country

gives them some rights to remain or at least should and that the JNF is allowed to decide where Israeli citizens can live based on their religious/ethnic group is at the very least discrimination

[pelsar]

50. not clear.....no spin necessary

gives them some rights to remain
more rights than a druze up north who decides to make a new village on the state park bordering his town?, how about the jews in safed, they've been there for hundreds of years, can they too just build a few new houses on the state land next to the city? They've been there just as long as the S. Bedouin


the fact that the JNF is discriminatory has nothing to do with the principle, if they lose in court and the towns to be built have to be open for all, will you still be against the illegal settlements being destroyed?

[azurnoir]

59. apples and oranges you're going on about various Israeli groups

building on or claiming land that they did not previously inhabit. whereas in this case we're people are being removed from land they've been inhabiting all along, there in lies the difference

[pelsar]

61. those Bedouin settlements are 10-20-30 years old.....

the Bedouin stopped being nomads way before 65 years ago.....the illegal settlements they're now living in have only popped up recently...they did not "inhabit the wider swaths of land."

that "land" that is surrounding them is the same type of land thats been surrounding the druze villages, up north or the same type of land that was surrounding the Northern Bedouin. the difference is that the S.Bedouin (and obviously the state ignored it) instead of enlarging their villages, simply moved a "few kilometers" outside and made a new one...

its was not some kind of ancient "hunting ground" or burial ground, its the open state land that was not occupied.

[azurnoir]

63. when I asked about how long the Bedouin had been in these villages you stated since Israel began

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=43558

[pelsar]

65. then u get a correction.... a more precise answer

they've been around...but natural growth is what it is.....and has added to them and they have expanded. I 've noticed larger growth in the last 20 years (nothing exact just an impression)

[azurnoir]

64. more over the Israeli government were the ones that relocted the Bedouin to where they are now

The Bedouin who remained in the Negev belonged to the Tiaha confederation[19] as well as some smaller groups such as the 'Azazme and the Jahalin. They were relocated by the Israeli government in the 1950s and 1960s to a restricted zone in the northeast corner of the Negev, called the Siyagh (Arabic: السياغ? Hebrew: אזור הסייג?, an Arabic word that can be translated as the "permitted area&quot made up of relatively infertile land in 10% of the Negev desert in the northeast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Bedouin

but now it's JNF land?

[pelsar]

66. the state is implicit ...they are not innocent here

they've also let it go..and they've moved them around....

....but at sometime or another the state has to apply its laws equally across the board, no matter what the history is, otherwise you get what your always complaining about: apartheid

consider this a correction and whether or not it MAY hurt a segment of a society it remains a step toward all being equal before the law.....seems to me, that is your standard arguement against israeli society, and here you are arguing for continued preferences for a certain segment because of their history...(you do see the irony i assume)

[azurnoir]

69. so let me get this straight here

demolishing Bedouin homes to make way for JNF settlements and forced relocation (again) by the Israeli government is indicative of Bedouins equality, yes Orwell wrote about that kind of equality too

[pelsar]

70. equality before the law is another way of putting it

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 02:01 AM - Edit history (3)

in the past posts, you've always proclaimed that any non equality before the law by any 'group" (though always jewish israelis) is an example of apartheid laws (you have very general wide definition)

well guess what? that is what your proposing........

I believe that citizens of a country living somewhere for 65 years with in that country gives them some rights to remain or at least should

"some rights" ....why dont you right it out clearer: more rights than the other ethnic groups in israel, perhaps superior rights is a better description.

_____

your simply not for the concept of "equality before the law" which actually fits what I've learned. "Justice" is a better description, correct? a very fluid concept that as we see here can have "apartheid" characteristics to it when applied to certain groups and not others....but any consequences were never a factor for your "justice"....even if it means to aid in the creation of a state based on "apartheid type laws"

different laws for different ethnic groups is what your proposing....and thats not orwellian

(btw Lebanon/syria are good examples of what happens when one ignores equality before the law and gives different ethnic groups different rights..what your advocating)

[delrem]

71. Israel puts the rights of Jewish nationals before all others. Period.

[pelsar]

72. and?.......two wrongs make a right?

go on.....justify special laws for S Bedouin and not of N. Bedouin.

explain how the S.Bediouin get to build on state land while the arabs dont have that privilege....
how about the Druze? why cant they build where ever they feel like it without the state coming down on them

even the jews need permission to build..,,
____

so your obviously pro special laws for specific ethnic groups.......but not for other specific ethnic groups
_______________________________

this is where you don't have an answer, so your either call me a name or write some kind of irrelevant one liner

[delrem]

73. I'm just pointing out a "wrong" that exists in law.

If you want a solution then you fix the bloody law. You don't engage in games of semantics.

[pelsar]

74. its in the courts....

israel has a very slow court system.....

and i was just pointing out how your pro apartheid type laws....different ethnic groups get different laws......

[delrem]

75. yah yah, as if Israel's laws were "mine, delrem's".

The absurdity of that assertion is the exact reason that I know you're essentially dishonest, here.

[pelsar]

78. your the one that believes in apartheid type laws.....

You've made it clear that you believe that the S. Bedouin should not have to follow the same building laws as the other ethnic groups do in the state of israel

if i'm wrong, then clarify.....

[delrem]

83. Israel puts the rights of Jewish nationals before all others. Period.

I don't know what you're talkin about, fella, but it isn't honest.

[azurnoir]

79. Once again your idea of equality is removing a minority group

from land that the GoI forcibly moved them to, in order for the majority group to make use of that same lans, which is being overseen by a group that bases it's leases on the religious/ethnic group to which one belongs?

and no I am not proposing different laws for different ethnic groups I am suggesting that the JNF is discriminatory in it's policies while the GoI is helping the JNF enforce those policies

[pelsar]

80. JNF is discriminatory thats why they are being sued

do you know if the towns planned will have discriminatory laws or are you assuming they will?

and they lost
http://972mag.com/court-reverses-decision-prevents-eviction-of-palestinian-family-by-jnf/45202/

________

[azurnoir]

81. The Israeli government is acting as JNF's enforcer

as to the towns are you now claiming that they will be open for all? Or that we'll just have to wait and see?

[pelsar]

82. they still lost in court

since when can you read the future? how do you know that these towns will have discriminatory laws...

i'm claiming that the citizens of israel have to obey the laws of the land...whether they are just or not is the reason they're are courts and the freedom to demonstrate....to up turn illegal and unjust laws. Thats how democracy works.

whether or not these new towns will have discriminatory "laws" by the state or subtle "acceptance rules" (a way of getting around the non discrimination laws of the state) I dont know, but hope not as i am against them

(by the way my i once looked in to living an nearby arab village, where i was told i wouldnt get past the "acceptance committe as they dont accept jews)
_________

is that clear enough?
they still are living their illegally.....if you want to claim that the S.Bedouin get exceptions because of israels discriminatory laws (as i believe you are), i just wonder why others can't claim the same...and then everyone can pict and choose which laws to follow....

[azurnoir]

86. as you said a couple oe days ago "it's not done" or it's still pending

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=43579

in this case the Israeli government is acting as the JNF's enforcer, to attempt to play this as some sort of equality by rule of law is to be very polite disingenuous

[pelsar]

87. the politics of the state interest me far less...

than the more personal stance of people...

as of now, we actually have no idea what will be rules/laws that govern the particular towns that planned to be built. The govts position as per your claim is nothing more than a claim since nothing has been settled, nor built yet.

which puts us back to the original statement and i do believe you made yourself perfectly clear....that the S.Bedouin should have special laws for themselves and not for the other ethnic groups in israel

we'll take your definition of apartheid as you've stated many times...which makes you a clear backer of apartheid in israel

you've made yourself very clear, call it justification, call it excuses.....it remains apartheid in character.
__________

option 2? accpeting that life in the I/P conflict is not black and white, and simplistic definitions dont really fit the real lives of how people live....it may be apartheid as per your definition but perhaps its the better of bad options.

[azurnoir]

88. your attempting foist this off as equality but that is disingenuous

if it were Israeli Jews rather than Israeli Bedouin living on the same land would they be removed especially after making it clear they wanted to stay, would we even be having this discussion?

in this case they are being removed because they are Bedouin, you can say it's equality till the cows come home, but the basis this is being done on is not 'equal' in any respect

[pelsar]

89. you just want to believe it.....

in this case they are being removed because they are Bedouin

i know you believe that, because you do, because you want to .....turns out the Druze are also building illegally up north and yet no demolition is being ordered....maybe the druze are "jews"?

and since when do 2 wrongs make a right....do you also believe that?

but thats not really the issue, the core issue is that you believe the S.Bedouin dont have to follow the laws of the state...to put it simply. you believe one ethnic group gets to have different laws applied to it because they belong to a specific ethnic group....something you've called apartheid in the past and now you promote it.
______


just for fun...lets say two army friends, one Bedouin from the city of Rahat (bedouin city) and one from Tel Aviv, decided to move to the hilltop above the city of Rahat...each brought their extended family along as well as their pickups. The police came to remove the structures and families. From what your claiming, the police should let the Bedoiun stay and eject the jews....i believe thats a good summary of your view of subject....very apartheid of you.

[azurnoir]

90. so now you claim the Druze are building illegally in the North? is it on land held by JNF?

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

if so they probably will be removed if such a case even exists

now for even more fun let's take on your 'example'

just for fun...lets say two army friends, one Bedouin from the city of Rahat (bedouin city) and one from Tel Aviv, decided to move to the hilltop above the city of Rahat...each brought their extended family along as well as their pickups. The police came to remove the structures and families. From what your claiming, the police should let the Bedoiun stay and eject the jews....i believe thats a good summary of your view of subject....very apartheid of you.

first off the land we are speaking here was not inhabited by anyone to be taken over from, in fact the Israeli government 'relocated' a number of Bedouin to that land, so that the land they were on originally could be utilized by the majority population, so there was no removal of anyone to make way for the Bedouins, it is in fact the Bedouins who are being removed again

[pelsar]

91. yes the Druze are building illegally.....

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Group-charges-massive-illegal-building-by-Druse-in-Golan
The Druse community in Majdal Shams, in the northern Golan Heights, is illegally building new neighborhoods covering an area of hundreds of dunams, some of which is national parkland, while the law enforcement agencies are doing nothing to stop it, the Regavim and Green Now organizations charged Wednesday in a High Court petition

.
and apparently they are not be 'removed" unless of course you can read the future, can you?... Perhaps you believe that the Druze like the Bediouin should not have to accept Israeli law because they belong to special ethnic groups

are the Druze also exempt? are they're other ethnic groups in Israel that have the right to ignore the state law? How many groups does your apartheid belief include?

_____

first off the land we are speaking here was not inhabited by anyone to be taken over from
do you really want to go with that argument? that "land that is not inhabited is free for anyone to move in and take over and make their home?...just need to confirm it
_____

example still stands, A bedoiun and jew moved to an empty hill top in the negev with their families (state owned land). You aparthied belief means that the jew should go and the bedoiun stays (I really dont care what your excuse is for such racism: racism is racism)..do you dispute that this is what your saying?

[azurnoir]

92. Interesting the case you site is from 2010

and appears from that article to be still pending, more over it was brought by Regavim a rather interesting outfit itself

as seen here

Whether in Area C of the West Bank, in the Negev, the Galilee or the ‘mixed cities,’ Regavim has one clear goal: the selective implementation of planning and construction laws, encouraging the state to demolish Palestinian homes or public buildings.

http://bedouinjewishjustice.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html

however your example has no meaning here unless your equating parkland with ones home being forcefully removed

[pelsar]

93. the example has meaning its about state land and apartheid

are you now saying that anyone can move in on "empty state land"...is that your latest argument be it jew/arab/bedioun
or just Bedouin and not Jews?

so now its ok for just Bedoiuni and Druze(?)to move on to "empty" state land....unless of course its a 'park" than its illegal?

is that your stance..seems your apartheid view has a few interesting twists,

[azurnoir]

94. once again in the case of the Bedouin we're speaking of one group being removed

from their homes, so that another can move in, not 2 groups asking for land on which neither of them live which is what your example appears to be and one being chosen again it's apples and oranges

[pelsar]

95. did u forget the law once again........(its more convenient that way)

once again, one group has decided to move onto "empty" state land and make their homes there...the state has decided to use that land for housing for it citizens (as of today, you do not know if it will be jew only, which is illegal in israel, and is in the courts you can only "believe it, since you believe israel is a racist state, any kind of "correction" in your eyes is apparently wrong.

and you also believe that one single ethnic group in israel, just one as far as I know, so far has rights that other israelis dont not get, something in the past you have condemned as apartheid..well now we find you supporting apartheid for a specific group so infact you also want israel to be a racist state and you believe that is just!!!! (you justifications are so similar to the settlers that its amazing)

______

btw removing homes that are built on state land, when the state decides to use that land is considered, not just legal, but standard across the world of all countries, israel doing it, is simply meeting the standards of the world (unless you want to say "two wrongs dont make a right...in which case i assume you will see your own hypocrisy in such a claim)

[azurnoir]

96. The Bedouin didn't 'just decide' to move into the Negev

some were already there and other were forcibly relocated there by the Israeli government, the land was at that time empty, now the JNF has decided that it wants the land, so the Bedouin are being forced out again, period

you keep going as if the law here treats all parties equally except it does not at least bnot were the JNF is involved

[pelsar]

97. of course the law is not fair...most are not fair

Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2013, 06:42 AM - Edit history (3)

but that doesnt mean we get to "pick and choose" which ones we adhear to, or are you advocating that as well

so this is now your argument:

the land was at that time empty,

would you like to confirm that, this give the Bedouins (and just the Bediouins and no other israeli citizen) the right to make their home anywhere they want as long as "its empty"

btw, why dont the druze up north have this same right? isn't a park also empty land? or are the Bedouin somehow better than the Druze?

At least defend the Druze right to build on "empty land" as well...that would at least be consistent (then i'll find some Israeli arabs that do, and you can defend them, and then i'll find some Israeli jews that do...and ?????)

[azurnoir]

98. well now we're getting somewhere however review the thread title

it doesn't say the law is illegal, it says it's immoral, which is distinctly different however during this conversation you have again and again defended this law, in fact went so far as to say it is proof that Bedouin are treated equally under Israeli law, even though the law as it is being applied here and on the organization on who's behalf it is being enforced itself is discriminatory.

now a for the Druze village you introduced here, what was the final outcome, do you know? Also I have some questions about this parkland when was it declared to be a park, who declared it a parkland and were the Druze allowed any say in the decision making?

[pelsar]

99. and your advocating ignoring the law

i'm not arguing whether the law is or is not immoral....Israel has had and has many immoral/ discriminatory laws. I am defending the concept that whether or not a law is moral or not, how you are proposing that just one ethnic group gets to ignore specific laws...and get special treatment (what you have defined as apartheid in the past)

and if them, why not other groups....

and now i see, with your expanded post, you apparently believe that each law should be decided if its "discriminatory and if so OTHER ethnic group gets to decide whether or not if they should ignore laws that they "dont like."

that apparently is why you want to know if the Druze up north should also have the right to ignore israeli building laws.
____

so, your all for the S. Bedouin ignoring laws, your sugesting the Druze should as well, i assume this goes for the Christians and Muslems...

how about the haredi jews? can they ignore the laws which to them are immoral?..do all groups get this privilege,including secular israel jews? or are they going to be the one group that you dont grant this "privilege."

[azurnoir]

100. as I said earlier it's your country and you seem quite comfortable

even self righteous as to how Arabs and Jews alike should follow those laws equally, and I can not help but be reminded how in the US's past there were some that were equally as concerned about how laws in certain areas of the US should be followed equally by all no matter what race they were, but progressives and leftists won out and those laws were kicked aside, so I commend you on being a law abiding Israeli, and showing such concern for Israel's civic future

[pelsar]

101. I am uncomfortable with "apartheid" type laws..and those that support them

changing laws is what democracies are all about, via public protests etc, and that is what happened to change the US south (i do believe the republicans had a large part in that while the democrats were quite busy trying to keep the discriminatory laws in place- democratic societies do change peacefully, via the public protests.) You might remember what MLK was all about, and why i'm against not just apartheid type laws but creating and supporting theocratic dictatorships (which you are for....)
_______

i just wanted to clarify your "anti and pro apartheid views. Your for it, when you want to be, and then your against it, when you want to be.

i believe you clarified that in the beginning when you were clear that the S. Bedouin do deserve special treatment because they belong to a specific ethnic group, i just wanted to know how far your pro apartheid (as per your own definition)...i believe you are now considering the Druze also as deserving special laws.

[azurnoir]

102. the problem is that I asked some questions about the Druze

such as when was this area they are supposedly illegally building declared a park, who declared it park, under who's land was it prior to being a park , and lastly did whoever declared this land a park consult with the Druze villagers prior to do that declaration.
Your answer was to to make accusations that I was applying different laws in fact apartheid laws, which leads me to believe that either you don't know and or hadn't thought of it, or do know but don't want to answer

now as to the Bedouin in the Negev, you feel that it's equality under the law for Israel to remove them from land that some of them were forcibly move on to by that same government in an earlier time, on the behalf of an organization that being JNF who intends to build villages or settlements on that land but by it's owm word only leases it's land in those villages to Jews

[pelsar]

103. my answer was based on your previous views..

that laws declared "immoral" as long as you belong to a specific ethnic group, can be ignored. I dont really care about the politics involved in declaring the park, whether it was 'empty" state land or not, nor for the purpose of this discussion do i care whether some crazed left wing anarchist "blew the whistle" on the druze building illegally.

state laws are to be followed, immoral or not, that is why democracies have this unique ability in character to protest the immoral laws. (hint, thats why i dont agree that one should support the creation of additional dictatorship- they tend to be rigid in their laws)

Your answer was to to make accusations that I was applying different laws in fact apartheid laws, which leads me to believe that either you don't know and or hadn't thought of it, or do know but don't want to answer

you've already made that clear, that you are for apartheid laws, i 'm just wonder how far you'll go with it

___

and the Bedoiun in the south..the govt has made a multitude of mistake with them, some out of neglect, some for "state purposes." The state has made mistakes with the Druze, with the immigrating jews and every other ethnic group that exists and will make future mistakes as well.... Clearly your proposing that either all or some get to have special laws in place for each one or at least some of them

and here, because i guess you need to call israel an aparthied state so that you can justify your own aparheid view,
you need to claim you can read the future....

JNF who intends to build villages or settlements on that land but by it's owm word only leases it's land in those villages to Jews

and you know for a fact that in the future, when they are actually built that the state will ignore its own laws to make jew only towns....you know this for a fact?

[azurnoir]

104. I'm actually mystified here

how am I for apartheid laws, you've been claiming this all along , to me it's just been a slogan, a sound byte, but now I must ask for an explanation because I am not seeing how saying that it is immoral for the government of Israel to act as enforcer for an organization that openly and quite proudly declares that it bases who it allows to live on it's land is based on the persons religious/ethnic group

and moreover just when did this land become under the auspices of JNF, especially seeing as how the Israeli government did indeed forcably relocate some of the Bedouin that are again being removed to that land in the first place?

[pelsar]

105. per your definition of apartheid....

in the past when asked to define apartheid, since you believe israel, a democratic state with a foundation of basic laws of equality for all, is in fact an apartheid state. Your definition rests upon either immoral or in the inequality of the actual application of the laws...something all countries have.

to right this wrong, you believe the Bedoiuin (and apparently others ethnic groups as well) should have special laws that superseded the base foundation laws of equality to give them "super rights." and this is because they have been "wronged" by the state.

I am not claiming that if the govt of israel makes jew only towns, that this is moral, nor am i claiming that the bedouin have been treated morally....

i am against in principle in making special laws for specific ethnic groups..you have declared such things "apartheid" in the past.

You may believe its moral for the S.bedoiun to have special laws just for them because of the evil done to them in the past,( thats clearly on the agenda for the blacks in the states), i'm against it and believe its same principle that drives every an all the variations and flavors of racism, no matter what side of the line your on, that ethnicity gives one greater rights......that is wrong in my opinion. and two wrongs do not make a right

[Israeli]

5. yes they are ....

... second class Israeli citizens would be the polite description .

we've been told that Israel doesn't discriminate against it's Arab or Bedouin citizens must be some mistake .........

You have been told fairy stories , see :
http://972mag.com/israeli-government-to-back-law-allowing-discrimination-against-palestinians-ultra-orthodox/73778/

[azurnoir]

6. as I understand it some of the Bedouin that are being expelled from their homes were

moved there by the Israeli government decades ago and are now being told that these homes are unrecognized and they must once again leave.

[Israeli]

9. If you wish to learn about more ...

I suggest reading the research done by Prof. Oren Yiftahel.

This is his web site :
http://www.geog.bgu.ac.il/members/yiftachel/index.html

Rabbis for Human Rights is probably the best place to read for in depth facts about the Bedouin and where you will find an answer to your questions .

See :

We are pleased to present the facts based on research studies and a position paper of Prof. Oren Yiftahel, each of which relies on primary sources.

Say No to a Dangerous Plan that Would Push Agrarian Bedouin Society into Towns of Unemployment, Economic Distress and Despair

@
http://rhr.org.il/eng/2013/05/against-begin-praver-all-the-facts-about-bedouin-settlement-of-the-negev/

[delrem]

10. Thank you very much.

A lot of his stuff is written in Hebrew, so inaccessible to me.
Not all, I read his short article
Colonial Deadlock or Confederation for Israel/Palestine?
Oren Yiftahel
http://www.geog.bgu.ac.il/members/yiftachel/shorts/Colonial%20Deadlock%20or%20Confederation%20for%20Israel.Palestine.pdf

This was a very good read and I like Oren Yiftahel.

From the beginning I did notice a bias. For example, it's some Palestinians who're said to be "terrorist", nobody else. This denotes a lack of empathy. A lack of a common sense of proportion.
At a point in his essay Oren Yiftahel was describing as generically "Israeli" what in fact only applied to "Israeli Jew".

Although Oren Yiftahel mentions the occupation and siege, he doesn't seem to take it seriously and presents "Palestinians" as somehow partners with "Israeli Jews", so out of this concentration camp they could agree on a "confederation".

Read this:
"Finally, as noted in the suggested principles, a stable resolution requires changes
within Israel, particularly in regard to the deprived status of the state’s large
Palestinian Arab minority, now totaling 1.4 million. Here the democratization of
majority-minority arrangements is needed to prevent the eruption of internal conflict
that has torn apart states the world over. Such arrangements would have to allocate
Palestinian citizens acceptable collective rights of autonomous communal
management, as well as proportional share of the state power and resources."

If I were an advocate for the Palestinian people I wouldn't agree, not at all.
I would say that because Israel, in law, deprives its minority "nationals", it is in the wrong.
Period.
Israel can't fix this by instituting *apartheid*. By allocating resources etc. according as some notion of "nationality", as distinct from a common Israeli nationality.

What this means is that universal standards of human rights apply to *individuals*. Not "nationalities" or "sects" or "orientations" or whatever generality.

[azurnoir]

12. Thanks for my part

this program resembles the system of moving Native Americans to reservations, that took place in the US

[delrem]

13. I'm Canadian. What's fucking awful about it is that it continues to this very day.

[Israeli]

19. agreed ..

coincidence ... I've just started reading " Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee " by Dee Brown .
Cowboys and Indians ... the myth of the American West .... its as relevant today as the myth of Judea and Samaria ... or as we prefer to call it .... The Wild West Bank .

There was once a great computer game that compared our Wild West Bank with your Wild West ... tried to find it but looks like all traces of it has gone .. this is all I could find :

http://www.digitalartlab.org.il/ExhibitionPage.asp?id=399&path=level_2

[Scootaloo]

76. Very good book, that n/t