Israel demolishes Bedouin village

[Ken Burch]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/2010727133151458970.html


________

Israeli authorities have demolished the homes of about 300 Bedouins in a village in the southern Negev desert.

The entire village of al-Arakib was bulldozed on Tuesday, with many of the former residents' cattle, trees and belongings lost.

Al-Arakib, which had about 40 homes, is one of 45 Bedouin villages not recognised by Israeli authorities.

Haia Noach, director of the Negev Co-existence Forum, was present at al-Arakib during the demolition and said that at least five Israeli bulldozers arrived around 5:30am (0230GMT).

"It took them about three or four hours to destroy all the houses," she said, describing the scene as "appalling."

________

Yeah right...there was "no choice" It "had to be done". Right.

[xchrom]

1. Of all people -- the Bedouin. Nt

[Ken Burch]

3. These people were not terrorists...the existence of their village harmed no one

Their lives are lives of peacefulness and benign coexistence with their neighbors.

No decent human being could possibly defend the Israeli government on this one.

Being nonviolent should be ENOUGH to guarantee you the right to have the state leave you alone.

[Shaktimaan]

7. wait... WHAT?

Being nonviolent should be ENOUGH to guarantee you the right to have the state leave you alone.

Does this apply to everyone or just to Arabs? I don't understand. As long as someone refrains from violence they shouldn't be required to pay rent on the land they're living on? I'll admit that this is a very sad situation, but it appears that the ILA tried to work with them for quite awhile before demolishing the village.

I like to think that there could have been a far better resolution to this than demolishing the whole village, but I disagree that merely being non-violent is enough to let the state allow you to do whatever you want. You're supposed to follow the law AND remain non-violent.

[shaayecanaan]

10. Would you defend the use of bulldozers against any other indigenous people?

There's a few Aborginal settlements scattered about the desert in this country. I'm pretty sure they don't pay any rent on their land. I think they have this crazy notion that they've been here for 40 000 years, long before white people even existed, and therefore they shouldn't fucking have to.

I take it you'd be fine with running a bulldozer over their tin sheds as well? After all, I'd hate to think this was some kind of blind and reflexive defence of Israeli actions.

[Shaktimaan]

16. Give me a break dude.

I took issue with the idea that they should be rewarded merely for remaining non-violent.

If there was a reason that these Aboriginal natives should not be living on land that does not belong to them, lets say the owner decided to develop it for some reason or would face legal issues by allowing them to stay, then I believe that they should have to go. In cases like this I obviously think that every effort should be made to prevent such a terrible thing from happening. The reports of people enjoying the razing is nothing short of despicable.

Ideally I think they should have just paid the stupid rent. It was clearly a token amount, probably for some legal reason. I can't understand how a solution couldn't be reached after so many years.

And no. This had nothing to do with it being Israel or whatever. I did mention that I'd like to see the government get on razing hilltop settlements with this kind of zeal.

[shaayecanaan]

18. I think the point was that they *DO* own the land...

they have inhabited the land since time immemorial, and in many cases have title deeds dating back to the Ottoman empire. They continue to inhabit the land today as they have done since the creation of Israel.

By any reasonable moral, legal or practical basis the land is theirs.

"If there was a reason that these Aboriginal natives should not be living on land that does not belong to them, lets say the owner decided to develop it for some reason or would face legal issues by allowing them to stay, then I believe that they should have to go.

I think this is one of the most fascistic things I have ever read on this board.

[Shaktimaan]

21. What are you talking about?

What makes you think they own the land or have lived there forever or have title deeds dating back to the Ottomans? The demolition happened specifically because they don't own it. According to the ILA the Bedouins arrived in 1998. There was a court order preventing them from being there issued in 2000 which is when they began planting trees and building structures. This fight wound its way up to the Supreme Court before the village was demolished. It seems unlikely that the land is legally theirs.

On what grounds are you deducing that by all rights this land should belong to them? By my understanding the Bedouins were nomadic people who traveled all around that area. Yes, they've been there forever, but does that mean they collectively own the entire Negev? Or do you just think they should have the right to build villages at will, with an implied automatic transfer of property ownership to them once they do? Explain how you think this should work. After all, there are Druze and Jewish families that have also lived in Israel for countless generations. Should this fact impart them all special consideration regarding property sales?

The Israeli government owns almost all of the land in the state. Individual citizens generally can't buy land themselves, they can only lease it from the state. In this case the village was offered an opportunity to rent the land for a very small sum of money, the demolition could have been avoided.

I think this is one of the most fascistic things I have ever read on this board.

Really? Fascist, you say? Over that? Hm. Let me ask you something. Let's say that the land inhabited by these natives was actually owned by a developer who decided he wanted to build a housing block there. Do you think the native people have the right to stay due to the fact that they're native? Or should the same rules and laws apply to everyone, regardless of how long their families have inhabited the continent? Let's say the developer offered to let them stay if they paid a nominal fee for rent and the natives refused. Should the owner have the ability to evict them?

It would stand to reason that the government should set aside tracts of land specifically designated for the natives, like reservations in the US, rather than giving Aboriginals land rights that supercede and could conflict with everyone else's rights.


edit: I just read the CNN report... Police evicted 200 Bedouins from their homes in a southern Israeli village on Tuesday and demolished their dwellings, an act decried by residents who said they are on ancestral land...

Villagers said they've lived in the region for years back to the Ottoman days before Israel was founded, and have original deeds to the land.

So I see where you got the whole deed/ancestral land thing. Yet, while they do say those things they also fought the case up to Israel's supreme court, so it isn't as though their rights were ignored or their claims weren't investigated. Obviously there's a HUGE difference between people living on their ancestral lands that they have a 100 year old deed to and people building a village on land they don't own a mere ten years ago. I clearly don't have enough information to tell you what's the real story, but the fact that this case went all the way to the supreme court means that neither side's claims were baseless.

[shaayecanaan]

28. Most western democracies do recognise Aboriginal land rights...

"rather than giving Aboriginals land rights that supercede and could conflict with everyone else's rights."

Most post-colonial western states (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) do recognise aboriginal land rights, or native title as it is commonly called in Australia. If the Australian government were to drive bulldozers over the top of a remote Aboriginal settlement it would be illegal as well as mean-spirited.

I would think that, like yourself, Israel is a long way from such recognition. Indeed, for a country that views itself as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy the notion of recognising the moral right of Bedouin to their ancestral lands is a poisonous concept. Which is why, I suppose, Israel devotes such energy into making their marginal and insignificant lives just that little bit more miserable. I suppose it is just another reason why principled leftists have a hard time accepting the claims of hasbarados that Israel is a model social democracy.

"Let's say that the land inhabited by these natives was actually owned by a developer who decided he wanted to build a housing block there."

I think the point is that it isn't. No one else beside the Bedouin have even the slightest legitimate interest in the land. The claim by the JNF that they would like to "forest" the land is laughable.

The attempt by Israel to force the Bedouin out of their ancestral lands and into towns (a goal called "sedentarisation") is based less on any desire for their land (which is barely fit for sheep) and based more on wanting to curb the high fertility of the unrecognised villages (in which one woman can have 10 children or more).

Most wealthy Christian communities had their property rights respected during the foundation of Israel. Indeed the Greek and Armenian patriarchates still own much of the land around Jerusalem, including the land on which the Knesset stands.

Some other Arab Christian communities got lucky because they lived in towns that were religiously significant (Nazareth, for instance). And it goes without saying that any prior title held by Jews was assiduously respected.

[Ken Burch]

11. BY "left you alone" I meant "Not destroy your town for no reason"

Not "do whatever you want"-obviously, I meant do what your doing so long as it doesn't hurt anybody?

You make it sound like this village HAD to be wiped out.

Why did it even MATTER to the Israeli government that this village existed? Why couldn't they say "Ok, this is harmless", and just not go there?

Why couldn't it be enough that the effect on life in Israel of this village coming to life was innocuous?

[Shaktimaan]

15. I know what you meant.

The whole thing sounds very weird to me, honestly. I just can't understand how another option besides this wasn't figured out. I agree with you that this seems like the kind of thing that shouldn't be too hard to work out.

Obviously I don't know why the village had to be razed. I'm sure there's some kind of reason, even if it's as dumb as a squatters rights law kind of thing like what we have here in the US. (If you live somewhere long enough without paying rent you gain some rights to it.) Or maybe they were just afraid of it setting a precedent of some kind. They did make the village an offer to pay some absurdly inexpensive rent that appears to have been more of a legal thing than a way to generate capital. (2 NIS a dunum.)

I also can't figure out why it was so impossible for the village to just pay the damn rent. They export crops, they have the money. The whole thing makes no sense.

[ixion]

2. And people wonder why I call Israel a rogue state...

I mean, is there REALLY any doubt?

[Shaktimaan]

8. Give me a break.

This sucks, but it isn't any different than things that happen in the first world all the time. Look at what Robert Moses did for instance. Eminent domain is hardly the mark of a rogue state.

Honestly it's quite a bit better than eminent domain. The villagers DID have the option of paying rent on the land and staying.

I only wish the government were as direct in dealing with hilltop settlements.

[ixion]

17. No, sir, I cannot.

I would make such a claim about any nation state that did such a thing, including, but not limited to, the US.

Oh, and eminent domain? Israel speaking of eminent domain, after it's stolen land for decades. Whatever.

[Shaktimaan]

22. But hasn't every state

done something similar to this at one point or another? After all this isn't exactly very out there stuff. I don't see why you've zero'd in on this as "rogue state" kind of behavior.

Israel isn't invoking eminent domain here, I was just using an American example of it as a comparison. In Israel's case the state actually owns the land in question and the village was warned not to build or plant trees on the site. What Robert Moses did was far worse regarding individual's property rights.

Israel speaking of eminent domain, after it's stolen land for decades. Whatever.

Riiiight, Israel's a rogue state stealing all of the surrounding Arabs' land decade after decade. That's the narrative, right? The thing is, when I think about the history of the region, not to mention the history of almost every state that gained independence around the time that Israel did, the only thing that seems to set Israel apart regarding war, ethnic strife, land disputes, occupations and so on is that Israel is Jewish and their actions garner far more attention than everyone else's.

[lumpy]

25. A million wrongs don't make a right.

Israel is not right in their wrongs.

[shira]

26. But neither is Israel anymore 'wrong' than any other nation (Western or not). N/T

[Chulanowa]

32. Yes, most states have done the same

Past tense. Done.

Should we hold Israel to a lower standard, Shaktimaan?

"The thing is, when I think about the history of the region, not to mention the history of almost every state that gained independence around the time that Israel did, the only thing that seems to set Israel apart regarding war, ethnic strife, land disputes, occupations and so on is that Israel is Jewish and their actions garner far more attention than everyone else's."

Then you don't know very much about post-colonialist history, Shaktimaan. Read a book or something, it'll help.

[ladjf]

4. Thugs, out of control nt

[shira]

5. Some background info.

The ILA said the Bedouin invaded the area, which is state land, in 1998 and in 2000 a court order was handed down banning them from entering the area. But the tribe moved in and planted trees. The ILA offered to rent them the land at a price of NIS 2 per dunam, but they refused to pay. The ILA received a court order to evacuate the residents in 2003 and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/police-destroy-dozens-of-buildings-in-unrecognized-bedouin-village-in-negev-1.304443

It's still sad, however.

[shaayecanaan]

9. Invaded my arse...

The Bedouin tribe in that area is the Okbi tribe. They have inhabited that region for about 7,000 years. After receiving assurances in 1948 that they could stay, they were expelled by Israel in 1951. However, to Israel's dismay no one else wanted to live in their desert, so they kept coming back. No doubt in a few years time the great and gallant Israeli government will be forced to repel another such "invasion" with nightsticks and bulldozers.

From CNN:-

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/27/israel.bedouins.demolitions/index.html?hpt=T2#fbid=hUIMVq7eOpR

"Witnesses told CNN that the Israeli forces arrived at the village accompanied by busloads of civilians who cheered as the dwellings were demolished. They said armed police deployed with tear gas, water cannon, two helicopters and bulldozers."

Truly, a bastion of liberal democracy in the middle East for all to behold.

[Ken Burch]

12. The people who arrived in the buses to cheer the destruction of this village

cannot be considered anything but heartless, inhuman scum. They had no right and no reason to hate the Bedouins. It's not evil just to start a village.

[lumpy]

24. Israel's out and out hatred towards Arabs is turning nations

into hatred towards Jews.

[Chulanowa]

30. It is when it's Arabs starting that village

And I regard those people on the buses as victims. Victims of a different sort, but still victims. No different from the poor, deranged sons of bitches who showed up to celebrate a lynching.

[ConsAreLiars]

13. 'busloads of civilians who cheered"

This, as many previous news reports, documents the descent into darkness and depravity that has been the recent history. Even the best of original intentions as spun by the best of the spinners, even the wailing appeals to the sort of cowering fear that excuses every atrocity, must face the fact that whenever "they" get killed, have their homes destroyed, get denied basic human rights. those of the "us" klan cheer. ("Clan" would be more precise, but "klan" carries something with it that is real -- busloads of civilians who cheered").

[shaayecanaan]

14. CNN video of the incident:-

http://vodpod.com/watch/4112826-israel-leaves-200-children-in-the-desert-with-no-food-no-water-and-no-shelter


Good to see there are still a few decent journalists left at CNN. I guess they try and play this stuff around 3am or so.

[ConsAreLiars]

20. Thanks, never saw it on the TV, but glad they put the report together and

maybe broadcast it once.

"There are no rights for the Arabs."

Hard to see it as anything but state sponsored sadism. Collective punishment against the less-humans whose mere existence is an offense.

[shaayecanaan]

27. No, I can't exactly see Wolf Blitzer throwing to a story like this...

Truly, CNN must have been thrilled to bits to get a red hot scoop like this. I imagine the journalist involved is in intensive discussions with management regarding his book deal which will no doubt go to the top of the bestseller list.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. That's the same as trying to claim indigenous Australians invaded areas here...

I wonder if any DUer would find it acceptable to talk like that about other indigenous people?

[Chulanowa]

31. I've seen some pretty atrocious things stated about my people

I've long figured that the three groups that it's okay to express overt racism about on DU are Arabs, Mexicans, and Native Americans, because it seems to happen constantly, and never gets a repercussion harder than maybe a deleted post.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. More ethnic cleansing.

[delad]

19. it isn't ethnic cleansing

because they left 300 people in the desert without food, shelter or water

[polly7]

34. Sure it is. It's not an isolated incident by far. Decades of the same

towards Palestinians clearly shows it's just a continuation of it, which will go on until the Security Council isn't controlled by those with a vested interest in arming Israel and its welfare army.

[Raksha]

23. That's friggin' insane...not to mention inhuman. WHY???

[polly7]

33. No empathy or compassion. The Bedouins are obviously just

more of the 'inferiors'. So much inhumanity, it makes your stomach churn.

[hayu_lol]

35. Didn't HAMAS just do this very thing in Gaza?

Seems as if a week or so ago, HAMAS bulldozed over a hundred squatter's homes in Gaza to make room for a mosque. The squatters had been there for some time illegally. Not a peep in here about that bulldoze job...even when housing is supposedly so scarce in Gaza.

HAMAS did not resort to the courts(if they actually have any)to get permission...they just brought in the dozers.

[polly7]

36. There were lots of peeps here. n/t.

[azurnoir]

37. Israeli police raze rebuilt Bedouin village

Hundreds of Israeli police stormed an unrecognized Bedouin village Wednesday, less than one week after it was razed to make way for Jewish National Fund forest, witnesses said.

Residents, who remained in the Negev-area village to rebuild, said clashes erupted with police, sent to clear the Bedouin who had not left the area.

The dwellings were rebuilt following a decision by the Higher Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel, the online news site Arab48 reported. The decision was made following the demolition of the buildings on 27 July.

Witnesses said bulldozers tore down the new structures, prompting the clashes, in which five people sustained injuries, including Palestinian member of Israel's Knesset Taleb As-Sana, as Israeli police tried to remove him from one of the sit-in tents.

http://maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=305184