Israel and Apartheid

First topic message reminder :


Mira Bar Hillel

Friday 13 December 2013


The lame excuses made up by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu for failing to go to Nelson Mandela’s memorial on Tuesday have raised eyebrows and wry smiles all over the world. Having insisted on a £150,000 refit of the plane he and his wife took for the five-hour flight to Lady Thatcher’s funeral in London earlier this year, the trip to Johannesburg would, he claimed, be “too costly”. This from a man who spends thousands a year – from the public purse - on pistachio ice-cream and scented candles.

However, it is quite possible that Mr Netanyahu may have been less than ecstatically welcomed in the new South Africa anyway, following revelations that the country’s apartheid regime was the Israeli defense industry’s biggest customer and sponsor.

For many years it was virtually a capital offence to use the word “apartheid” as an analogy to policies of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories. In 2007 my friend Danny Rubenstein, the venerated Arab Affairs analyst of Haaretz newspaper, was invited by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain to address an event. On his way he stopped to address a UN committee in Brussels, and used the word “apartheid” to describe Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinians.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night. He was eventually rescued by the New Fund for Israel and invited to a crowded gathering in a North London Reform synagogue.

But while Rubenstein was mainly concerned to warn the audience of the dangers of Israel following in the footsteps of the Afrikaaners, his interviewer – and most of the questioners - kept harping on what was constantly, if coyly, referred to as “the A-word”.

Yet it now emerges that for decades Israel supported the “A-word” regime and its military with advanced weapon systems at a time when Western sanctions meant no one else would. According to Haaretz editor Aluf Benn, the cooperation reached its peak in the late 1980s, the twilight of the apartheid regime.

In the summer of 1988, Benn says, Israel reportedly sold South Africa 60 Kfir combat planes in a hushed-up deal worth $1.7 billion. The planes were upgraded and renamed Atlas Cheetah and Israel’s involvement was played down because the US was party to the sanctions regime, according to Haaretz.

Israel joined the international sanctions in 1987 but said it would honour existing contracts so the deal went ahead anyway. A few weeks later, the Israelis launched the first Ofek reconnaissance satellite which Benn claims could only have been developed with South African funding. And only in 1991 was the US able to force the Israeli government to stop selling SA short and midrange missiles.

Maps which were only revealed in the past few days show how the Israelis plan to create bantustans for the Nomadic Bedouin in its southern Negev region. Tens of thousands of them would be forced into ghettoes to make way for new Jewish towns and military zones. A-word, anyone?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israel-and-apartheid-confused-you-will-be-9001321.html

The Israeli Government has got away with too much for too long. I got a communication from some Israeli peace protesters I am in touch with about Netanyahu's excuse for not going to Nelson Mandela's memorial. They had just heard about all this.

Sassy wrote:You know, with all that sand in your ears and eyes Didge, you should live either on a beach on in a desert.

Ben I rest my case again on someone continually goading!

 

Now let's address the issue again shall we?

Fine, though have to go, so will leave you with this:

Guardian prejudice aside, Israel is helping Bedouins
:
It is hard to believe that Julie Christie and the other 49 people, actors, writers, artists, musicians, who signed The Guardian letter really want the Bedouins to remain in squalor. Israel most certainly does not



Some of the usual suspects in the politically correct British company of Israel-bashers are at it again. This time, fifty public figures signed a letter in The Guardian on November 29, 2013 demanding that the British government protest what the letter called "forced displacement of Bedouin Palestinians" by Israel.

Not only should these automatic critics be ashamed of themselves for their insufferable ignorance and arrogance, but they are also espousing a politically reactionary, not progressive, point of view.

The letter was signed by "experts" on people, law, and conditions in the Negev in Israel, such as the actress Julie Christie, the film-makers Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, and members of Parliament, including Jeremy Corbyn and Lady Jenny Tonge.

Many of the signers have long exhibited their acute criticism or hostility on many occasions, having signed statements about alleged violations of something or other by Israel. It is less clear their "expertise" extends to mastery of the intricacies of Ottoman Land Law in the Middle East.

All can agree that the Bedouins, numbering 210,000 in the Negev, are the most impoverished group in Israel, and one with serious social problems.

They have a high birth rate -- 5 percent, one of the highest in the world -- and about 120,000 are under 18 years old. They suffer from a high poverty rate and also a high crime rate. To help them over the years, Israel has provided and still is allocating considerable resources -- about 1.2 billion shekels -- for development in the Negev in areas of employment, education, infrastructure, and personal security.

The tribal Bedouin population is still partly nomadic, as well as partly settled. To foster their development and integration into mainstream society, Israel has attempted their settlement with so far partial success. Between 1968 and 1989, Israel built seven townships, including Rahat and Hura, in the Northern Negev for Bedouins and provided housing, health, utilities, public services, and education.

About half of the Bedouins went there, and the rest remained in their villages.

As nomads, Bedouins have wandered across the area, and many in the Negev come from Arabia, Sinai, and Egypt. Slowly, they have been making the transition from animal husbandry to agriculture in the context of modernization and urbanization in Israeli society.

The Bedouins face problems of tension between tradition and change. Most important, the problem of Bedouin ownership of land and the settlements in which they live has perplexed Israel for many years.

Israel has been confronted with a number of issues: settling Bedouin ownership claims to land, ending the villages built illegally, fully integrating the Bedouins into Israeli society and economic prosperity, reducing the economic and social gap between the Bedouins and Israel society as a whole, and in general developing the Negev with emphasis on employment, education, and the rule of law.

Instead of welcoming Israeli efforts to deal with these complex issues, the uninformed and prejudiced letter in The Guardian criticizes the Israeli Prawer-Begin plan to deal with them. This plan was presented by a committee chaired by Ehud Prawer, head of the Department for Policy Planning in the Office of the Prime Minister.

The bill proposing the implementation of the plan was accepted in principle, after an impassioned debate in the Knesset, by 43-40 on June 13, 2013. It obviously will undergo revision on details before its final passage.

Land, appropriate settlement, and economic development are related. About 40 percent of Bedouins live in "unrecognized villages." These villages, 45 in the Negev, were built without official permission and therefore are not recognized or eligible for municipal services. More than 70,000 Bedouins live in homes that are not regulated, in buildings constructed illegally and with unresolved land ownership claims.

The Prawer plan would lead to decision on Bedouin claims to land ownership, based on land claims made according to the land survey in Northern Negev in 1971. In a general way, the Israeli plan is concerned with economic development and growth for all in the Negev, particularly focusing on employment, and education, including higher education.

Specifically, the idea is to expand existing towns and to build 41 new villages or towns, and to relocate about 40,000 Bedouins with compensation to designated towns from their "unrecognized" villages. In the new towns, the homes would be equipped with modern utilities, and the inhabitants would have title to about a quarter of an acre of land.

A major controversial problem is that of land ownership. According to the Land Law of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area for almost five hundred years, lands that were not registered as private were considered state lands.

Bedouins did not usually register, largely because of fear of taxation and military duties. Israeli law on the issue is derived from British Mandatory law, which incorporated Ottoman Law to a substantial degree.

Bedouin claims to land rights are hard to prove. Nevertheless, the Prawer plan does not disregard Bedouin property rights, nor does it fail to recognize appropriate land ownership or refer to Bedouins in derogatory terms. The plan for reform does not have as its objective discrimination and separation.

Critics of Israeli intentions hold that the tribal structures and agricultural way of life should be maintained in the Bedouin villages, and that the "unrecognized" villages, which cover less than five percent of the area of the Negev, should remain. It is true that Bedouins have their own culture, honor code, and code of laws.

But though the status quo may be sentimentally nostalgic, to fight for its existence amounts to a reactionary argument.

Not only is the claim of beneficial association of those "unrecognized" villages to historic ties overstated, but to honor it would also mean leaving Bedouins in a less developed, really backward condition, lacking basic services of water, electricity, telephones, roads, schools, and health clinics.

Do the signers of the letter know that some of the villages, which they implicitly sentimentally admire, presently consist of a few shacks made from corrugated iron?

It is hard to believe that Julie Christie and the other 49 people, actors, writers, artists, musicians, who signed The Guardian letter really want the Bedouins to remain in this condition. If they really do not approve the modernization and economic development of the Bedouins and would like to see them remain in squalor, they should say so.

Michael Curtis, author of "Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East", is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in political science at Rutgers University. Curtis, the author of 30 books, is widely respected as an authority on the Middle East. This article has also been submitted to The American Thinker, an American outlet we highly recommend. It is reproduced here with the author's permission

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4434/guardian_prejudice_aside_israel_is_helping_bedouins

The reason why the Bedouin villages are in such a state is because, even though the Bedouin are Israelis, Israeli has refused to allow them any services. It wants their land, that is what all this is about. So they are going to steal it and push them into going somewhere they don't want to go, take their land, not allow them any rights and not allow them to leave the land they are moved to. Don't give a shit about the above, it's complete wrong pure and simple. Israel wants the land to build on, even Israeli's say so. They are thieves and what they intend to do is apartheid.

Oh Please you are on to a no brainer here, the reality is Israel does want to help them it is how they help them which needs to be tweaked, you though as the post I printed would rather they stay in destitution it seems.

This is nothing in any comparison to Apartheid and to claim any such lie is disgusting and insults though who actually suffered apartheid.



South African MP Rev. Dr. Kenneth Meshoe wrote in the San Francisco Examiner, “As a black South African who lived under apartheid, this system was implemented in South Africa to subjugate people of color and deny them a variety of their rights. In my view, Israel cannot be compared to apartheid in South Africa. Those who make the accusation expose their ignorance of what apartheid really is.” Meshoe made this statement upon visiting San Francisco, where he was shocked to learn of posters posted within the city comparing Israel to the apartheid regime in South Africa.


I rest my case

Israel: Bedouin Facing Mass Evictions From Their Land
Draft Law Threatens Stepped-Up Demolition of Longstanding Villages
August 30, 2013


Israel has been shoving Bedouin out of their communities and into ever-shrinking space while encouraging and even helping Jewish Israelis to move in. Prime Minister Netanyahu should end the appalling discrimination against Israel’s Bedouin citizens, not support legislation that enshrines it.
Joe Stork, acting Middle East director

(Jerusalem) – The Israeli government should announce an immediate moratorium on demolitions of “illegal” homes of Bedouin citizens. The government demolishes Bedouin homes based on discriminatory laws and rules, and without respect for the Bedouins’ dignity or the country’s human rights obligations.

The government should also withdraw proposed legislation that would discriminate against Bedouin with harsh rules on land and property rights and authorize large-scale displacement of Bedouin from generations-old communities, while severely restricting their ability to appeal. Government officials have estimated that implementing the law would displace 30,000 Bedouin, while Israeli rights groups say the figure could be 40,000 or more.

“Israel has been shoving Bedouin out of their communities and into ever-shrinking space while encouraging and even helping Jewish Israelis to move in,” said Joe Stork, acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Prime Minister Netanyahu should end the appalling discrimination against Israel’s Bedouin citizens, not support legislation that enshrines it.”

According to government figures, 200,000 Bedouin live in the country’s southern Negev region, the majority in 7 government-planned townships, and several thousand more in 11 Bedouin communities that the government is in the process of “recognizing.” However, Israeli state planning documents and maps exclude 35 “unrecognized” Bedouin communities, where the government estimates that 70,000 to 90,000 people live.

Israel demolishes Bedouin homes in the Negev on the basis that they were built without permits, often in unauthorized communities. Israel has for decades refused either to legally recognize these communities or to allow their residents to gain title to ancestral land. The Israeli government has rejected or delayed discussion of proposed plans submitted by groups seeking authorization for Bedouin communities, making it impossible for residents to obtain building permits. In contrast, the government takes an active role in planning and expanding Jewish communities in the region, and has retroactively authorized construction there by Jewish citizens.

Bedouin have ancestral claims to lands on which their families have lived for generations. However, Israeli authorities do not recognize Bedouin land claims without official ownership documents, which few have. Israel claims state ownership of Negev lands that are not registered to individual owners. While Israel has frequently granted Jewish communities and individual Jewish farmers long-term leases to use “state lands,” including lands expropriated from Israeli Bedouin, it has largely refused to grant Bedouin similar use.

Human Rights Watch has long documented the Israeli authorities’ discriminatory practices toward Bedouin and the discriminatory demolition of their homes. Since March 2013 Human Rights Watch has documented demolition of 18 Bedouin homes and 11 other structures, including 8 tents where victims of previous demolitions were living.

Many of the demolitions have been in Atir, a community of about 500 people near Beer Sheva. Bedouin have lived in Atir since Israeli authorities relocated them there in 1956, but the authorities have refused to recognize the village or connect it to electricity or water networks, and plan to plant a forest there. Security forces demolished the homes of about 70 people there on May 16, and returned on May 29 and June 27 to demolish tents in which the displaced were living.

In one case, security forces demolished the home of a family with two children with disabilities without allowing their parents time to retrieve the children’s medication, hearing aids, and an oxygen canister. R., 26, said that an Israeli security official refused his and his wife’s requests for more time before their home was bulldozed and the rubble trucked away to a dump:

I tried to reason with the guy. My wife held out the form that said our kids are handicapped and asked to get some things from inside the house, but he threw it on the ground and said, “I don’t care.”

Israeli authorities contend that they are simply enforcing zoning and building codes and encourage Bedouin to purchase land and housing in seven existing government-planned Bedouin communities. Israel has allocated funding for an economic development program to benefit the Negev Bedouin, and designated Bedouin communities as among the “national priority areas” eligible for other subsidies.

Many Bedouin have rejected relocating to the townships because the government requires them to renounce land claims that they have passed down over generations. The townships, seven of the eight poorest communities in Israel, also have insufficient land for traditional livelihoods such as grazing livestock.

On June 24 the Israeli parliament approved the draft Law on the Arrangement of Bedouin Settlement in the Negev, prepared by the prime minister’s office, at its first reading. It will become law if approved at two further readings. The proposed law is intended to resolve the residency status of Bedouin in “unrecognized” communities. The law could regularize some communities that meet certain criteria, but creates administrative procedures that could fast-track demolitions in communities that do not. Currently, Israeli courts approve government requests for demolition orders against Bedouin homes individually.

Israel ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1991, requiring it to guarantee the right to housing. The committee responsible for interpreting the covenant has said this right means governments can carry out forced evictions only in “the most exceptional circumstances,” and then only in accordance with human rights principles requiring the government to consult with the affected individuals or communities, identify a clear public interest requiring the eviction, ensure that those affected have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the eviction, and provide appropriate compensation and adequate alternative land and housing arrangements.

International human rights law prohibits countries from discriminating against minority groups, including with regard to land and housing rights.Governments must demonstrate that any differential treatment negatively affecting a group is proportionate to a legitimate aim.

The government should fully compensate Bedouin whose homes and property it has destroyed in violation of the right to housing and non-discrimination, Human Rights Watch said. The government should allow them to return to their villages pending a final agreement with the displaced Bedouin that respects their rights under international law.

“The prime minister’s office has led the drive to push through this law that will forcibly displace thousands of Bedouin families,” Stork said. “Israel’s allies should tell the prime minister in no uncertain terms to shelve this discriminatory law.”
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/30/israel-bedouin-facing-mass-evictions-their-land

Ex-South African envoy says Israel built on ‘stolen land’
Ismail Coovadia, who served as ambassador in Tel Aviv until December, fumes about trees the JNF planted in his honor
By Raphael Ahren June 18, 2013, 11:36 pm 62
Writers
Raphael Ahren

Raphael Ahren Raphael Ahren is the diplomatic correspondent at The Times of Israel.

In a highly unusual move for a senior diplomat, the former South African ambassador to Israel accused the Jewish state of practicing apartheid and indicated that it is built on “stolen” land.


“I have supported the struggle against Apartheid South Africa and now I cannot be a proponent of what I have witnessed in Israel, and that is, a replication of Apartheid!” Ismail Coovadia proclaimed last week in a letter to a group of pro-Palestinian filmmakers.

The statement drew a harsh reaction from Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem, who said Coovadia was not acting like a diplomat and castigated his “uncouth” rhetoric.

Coovadia served as Pretoria’s ambassador in Tel Aviv until December. He made the statement to a group of filmmakers critical of Israel’s policies toward Bedouin communities in the Negev.


He was commenting on a gift sent to him by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which included the planting of trees by the Jewish National Fund in a forest in Israel. After Coovadia finished his term in Israel, the Foreign Ministry’s director general, Rafael Barak, sent him a certificate stating that 18 trees had been planted in his honor by the JNF.

“Regrettably, my permission was not sought to plant a tree/s in my or the name of a South African Ambassador on usurped land, the rightful land of the Palestinians and Bedouins. I reserve the right to the usage of my name with or without my permission,” Coovadia wrote.

Barak’s certificate is “nothing less than an offence to my dignity and integrity,” the diplomat continued. “I was not a party to, and never will be, to the planting of ‘18 trees,’ in my ‘honour,’ on expropriated and stolen land.”

The JNF only plants trees inside the pre-1967 lines, in what the international community recognizes as Israeli territory. Critics and human rights advocates claim that the JNF’s “Ambassador’s Forest,” north of Beersheba (where the trees in Coovadia’s honor were presumably planted) was built on the ruins of a Bedouin village called al-Araqib.

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem reacted with disbelief and indignation at Coovadia’s statements. “These utterly uncouth words are not those of a diplomat. When he served in Israel, Ambassador Coovadia’s language was diametrically opposed to what he is saying in this letter. The insurmountable gap between his discourse and attitude in Israel and those expressed by his letter can only be explained by himself,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told The Times of Israel Tuesday.

The diplomat’s statement are “just as absurd and immoral as it would be to deny South African any legitimacy because of its blood-soaked history,” Palmor added.

In a response to a Times of Israel query, the JNF stated it that “has never banished a person from his or her land, nor has it planted a single tree on land that does not belong to it or to the state.” The planting actions of the JNF throughout Israel “are carried out only under the direction of the Israel Land Administration, on land that is owned by the State of Israel or owned by the JNF itself — in accordance with the law.”

The South African Embassy in Tel Aviv did not respond to requests for comments.

Relations between Jerusalem and Pretoria have been frosty for years, but reached a low point in 2012 when South African Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ebrahim Ismail Ebrahim discouraged his compatriots from visiting Israel. “Israel is an occupier country which is oppressing Palestine, so it is not proper for South Africans to associate with Israel,” he said.

Tensions flared again this year when the South African government obligated retailers to attach special labels to goods imported from East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Coovadia served as South Africa’s envoy in Israel from March 2009 until December 2012. He was replaced on February 28, 2013, by Sisa Ngombane.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/south-african-diplomat-says-israel-built-on-stolen-land/

hello all

Tricky one

Being as the majority of bedouins don't actually register their land (for various reasons), then according to the law, it belongs to the state.  However imo, forcibly removing these people from their homes is diabolical.  They claim they do it ''for their own good, for progression'' etc etc and yet why can't they modernise these villages and improve their standard of living without the need to destroy the houses and force them to move somewhere else?.

this is just plain wrong, in my eyes, regardless of the law, and  trying to cover up/justify it with all the above hogwash sucks.

i can't understand why more people aren't comdemning this.  How can there be hope for peace with this sort of thing going on?? It will cause anger and resentment to say the least.  Perhaps some of them may well be glad of the opportunities offered, but it would surely be nice to have some kind of choice???????

Hi Geli,

Exactly. But this isn't just done to the Bedouins, it has been happening to Palestians for years, which is why the land that was officially Isaeli when Israel was set up, has more than doubled now.

gelico wrote:hello all

Tricky one

Being as the majority of bedouins don't actually register their land (for various reasons), then according to the law, it belongs to the state.  However imo, forcibly removing these people from their homes is diabolical.  They claim they do it ''for their own good, for progression'' etc etc and yet why can't they modernise these villages and improve their standard of living without the need to destroy the houses and force them to move somewhere else?.

this is just plain wrong, in my eyes, regardless of the law, and  trying to cover up/justify it with all the above hogwash sucks.

i can't understand why more people aren't comdemning this.  How can there be hope for peace with this sort of thing going on?? It will cause anger and resentment to say the least.  Perhaps some of them may well be glad of the opportunities offered, but it would surely be nice to have some kind of choice???????

The point is they are not being forced as the plan was shelved Gelico, and doing nothing is not going to resolve the problem and it was some they wanted to relocate to get them out of poverty.
Seriously what is the bigger evil here?

PhilDidge wrote:

gelico wrote:hello all

Tricky one

Being as the majority of bedouins don't actually register their land (for various reasons), then according to the law, it belongs to the state.  However imo, forcibly removing these people from their homes is diabolical.  They claim they do it ''for their own good, for progression'' etc etc and yet why can't they modernise these villages and improve their standard of living without the need to destroy the houses and force them to move somewhere else?.

this is just plain wrong, in my eyes, regardless of the law, and  trying to cover up/justify it with all the above hogwash sucks.

i can't understand why more people aren't comdemning this.  How can there be hope for peace with this sort of thing going on?? It will cause anger and resentment to say the least.  Perhaps some of them may well be glad of the opportunities offered, but it would surely be nice to have some kind of choice???????

The point is they are not being forced as the plan was shelved Gelico, and doing nothing is not going to resolve the problem and it was some they wanted to relocate to get them out of poverty.
Seriously what is the bigger evil here?

And you have already been shown TWICE that although it was shelved it's been started again.

And they are living in poverty because the Israeli Government refused them services, even though the Bedouin are Israeli.

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

The point is they are not being forced as the plan was shelved Gelico, and doing nothing is not going to resolve the problem and it was some they wanted to relocate to get them out of poverty.
Seriously what is the bigger evil here?

And you have already been shown TWICE that although it was shelved it's been started again.

And they are living in poverty because the Israeli Government refused them services, even though the Bedouin are Israeli.

Yes because these people need help to get them out of destitution, it seems you would rather them be left there on lands of which they may not even have a claim to be on in the first place. What was poor was your comparison to apartheid when as seen these people are protected under the law as Israeli Citizens.
Please spare me your Israel hatred as seen they are trying to help and it is how they try to help which you are trying to hinder as per usual!

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:

And you have already been shown TWICE that although it was shelved it's been started again.

And they are living in poverty because the Israeli Government refused them services, even though the Bedouin are Israeli.

Yes because these people need help to get them out of destitution, it seems you would rather them be left there on lands of which they may not even have a claim to be on in the first place. What was poor was your comparison to apartheid when as seen these people are protected under the law as Israeli Citizens.
Please spare me your Israel hatred as seen they are trying to help and it is how they try to help which you are trying to hinder as per usual!

No Didge, I would rather them be left of the land that belongs to them and them have lived on for hundreds of years, although Israel refuses to recognise their land rights, and Israel does what it is supposed to do and gives them the services the rest of the Israeli's get. And then Israel doesn't steal their land!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes because these people need help to get them out of destitution, it seems you would rather them be left there on lands of which they may not even have a claim to be on in the first place. What was poor was your comparison to apartheid when as seen these people are protected under the law as Israeli Citizens.
Please spare me your Israel hatred as seen they are trying to help and it is how they try to help which you are trying to hinder as per usual!

No Didge, I would rather them be left of the land that belongs to them and them have lived on for hundreds of years, although Israel refuses to recognise their land rights, and Israel does what it is supposed to do and gives them the services the rest of the Israeli's get.   And then Israel doesn't steal their land!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Israel did not recognize their "claims" to land rights they would have been moved, so again you are wrong and again they are claims, but thanks for proving you would rather they were left in destitution! How is it stealing their land when they are offering compensation to give them lands in places that are not run donw shacks but buildings to live in, where they have a decent roof over their heads. It is pride that is stopping the Bedouins here, nothing more, as they can move and have legal binding rights to new lands in proper towns.
I fail to see what is so wrong with that and the Bedouin should want to look to bring their community out of poverty!

Sassy wrote:Hi Geli,

Exactly.   But this isn't just done to the Bedouins, it has been happening to Palestians for years, which is why the land that was officially Isaeli when Israel was set up, has more than doubled now.

hi sassy - been a long time, hope all is good with you

as you know, i've long been a supporter of israel and have always fully appreciated the danger they face, constantly, from all sides and fully understand the need for constant vigilance and their defence of themselves when showered with rockets. however i just feel that what is happening here is just outright wrong. lack of ''municipal funding'' over the years has allowed the ''appalling squalor'' that everyone is suddenly concerned about. why not allow them to register the land and pay whatever taxes but up the funding in order to improve and regenerate those areas?? why just force them out?? i can't possibly see how this can be justified. The only reason it may have been shelved is due to pressure. The desire and intent was still there and will probably go ahead anyways.

not technically apartheid as such but still,,,,,,just so wrong

  

Oh bless you Didge!


                                                 


On that note of total stupidity I'll go and prepare the tea, laughing so much at the inane post!

gelico wrote:

Sassy wrote:Hi Geli,

Exactly.   But this isn't just done to the Bedouins, it has been happening to Palestians for years, which is why the land that was officially Isaeli when Israel was set up, has more than doubled now.

hi sassy - been a long time, hope all is good with you

as you know, i've long been a supporter of israel and have always fully appreciated the danger they face, constantly, from all sides and fully understand the need for constant vigilance and their defence of themselves when showered with rockets.  however i just feel that what is happening here is just outright wrong.  lack of ''municipal funding'' over the years has allowed the ''appalling squalor'' that everyone is suddenly concerned about.  why not allow them to register the land and pay whatever taxes but up the funding in order to improve and regenerate those areas??  why just force them out??  i can't possibly see how this can be justified.  The only reason it may have been shelved is due to pressure.  The desire and intent was still there and will probably go ahead anyways.

not technically apartheid as such but still,,,,,,just so wrong

  

Not bad thanks Geli. Hope all well with you.

Got to go for the moment, tea to prepare.

Sassy wrote:
Oh bless you Didge!





On that note of total stupidity I'll go and prepare the tea, laughing so much at the inane post!

More insults (rest my case again Ben), oh well, I am all for helping the Bedouin, as seen you want them left in destitution.

And again Gelico you are wrong as the Israeli government has tried to help them and they keep hindering any help.








The long-standing legal disputes between the state of Israel and the Muslim Arab Bedouin minority regarding landownership in the southern Negev Desert seems to be the usual story of David and Goliath in majority and minority relations in the Middle East. The relationship between Israel and its Bedouin community, however, is more universal and also more particular than most cases. It is universal because it touches on the difficult interactions between a modern welfare state and a patriarchal traditional society that insists on retaining its traditions, and particular because it has to do with very specific Bedouin nomadic tribal traditions of landownership.

The universal idea of liberal multiculturalism speaks to the equal value of traditions and the need to respect them, even when they are vastly different from those of the majority. What should a country do, however, when its laws clash with the traditions of some of its inhabitants? Where should lines be drawn?

Israel, like all countries, has laws regulating proof of ownership for dwellings. The Bedouin, nomadic tribes, have developed their own oral traditions of recording “landownership.” The lands in question were never officially registered or recognized as privately owned during the Ottoman Empire or the British mandate, which controlled the area before the establishment of Israel. They, therefore, were not recognized by Israeli law as privately owned lands after the creation of the state.

Israel has, for decades, tried to negotiate with the Bedouin to reconcile tribes' oral claims of landownership into a recognized modern framework. I, myself, can attest to the impossible complexity of the issue. As a member of the Knesset, serving on its Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, I was often approached by Bedouin constituents to appeal to the state on their behalf. Over the last three years, against the backdrop of the Goldberg report, on the Bedouin land issue, and as the Prawer-Begin bill moved forward in addressing the relocation of Bedouin settlements, I sat with Bedouin in their villages, pouring over maps and trying to understand how to help their cause. The more questions I asked, the more complicated I recognized the situation to be.

The tribal traditions of landownership are nearly impossible, if not truly impossible, to untangle. Even though a village might sit on a vast expanse of land, and within the village itself there might be large swaths of empty land, no villager would agree to allocate certain tracts for public purposes, such as schools or community centers, for the Bedouin communities. The reason is because in their oral tradition, which is not recorded by hand, these tracts are known to belong to another part of the tribe. If it were to be allocated for public purposes, a blood feud would erupt.

In my experience, the only thing the different Bedouin leaders could agree on is that the state of Israel should allocate public lands from its own inventory to them. Not only could they not agree on what areas to allocate, and where services were actually needed, Bedouin leaders were also unable to reach consensus on the building of roads, electricity grids, and other public infrastructure that required allocations of land. Thus, the question remains: How far should a modern state tolerate local traditions? At what point should the state say, enough is enough, and use its coercive powers to override traditions, in this case so Bedouin villages get schools, electricity, water and other services? How far should the state go in accepting undocumented claims of landownership based on local traditions, when no other citizen can claim private ownership on the same basis?

Another example of such a dilemma is the tradition of polygamy among the Bedouin tribes. As in other developed countries, polygamy is outlawed in Israel, but the Bedouin have found ways to circumvent the law and continue their polygamous tradition. One such maneuver is to get married and then divorced. A Bedouin man will marry a very young woman, and she will bear several children. He will then divorce her. Since there is no law forbidding ex-spouses from living next to (or with) each other or doing whatever they want with each other, the ex-wife will continue to live next to her former husband and bear even more children with him. Moreover, now that she's a single mother, she will receive welfare support for herself and the children. Her ex-husband will then marry a new woman and have children with her, only to divorce her later, and so on. All of this is perfectly legal and in addition to perpetuating polygamy, puts the Israeli state, health services and the liberal ideology of multiculturalism in the position of aiding and abetting it.

Before passing judgment, one must ask how far a liberal multicultural society should go in tolerating values of different communities and traditions when those values are intolerant and destructive to the communities. The question is not simple. Just as all married women deserve to live in an equal union, children are deserving of nearby schools, and mothers and fathers are deserving of nearby clinics and places of work. After decades of legal disputes, the state of Israel, through the Prawer-Begin Plan, is trying to finally put the Bedouin communities on a path of state-recognized landownership that would allow them to live properly and own assets that they can then use toward their own development. The plan is far from perfect, but it is far reaching. No modern state can fully and completely accept the local traditions of its minorities, especially when it is detrimental to the welfare of the community. At some point, a limit has to be set.



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/originals/2013/12/prawer-bill-israeli-bedouin-multiculturalism-minority.html##ixzz2obI8YJM6

Israel has for decades tried negotiate to block the Bedouin rights to the land, which is why it has provided them with no services, working on the hope that it would get so bad they would move so Israel could build on it. They underestimated the resolve of the Bedouin, so now they are trying to take it by force.

Sassy wrote:Israel has for decades tried negotiate to block the Bedouin rights to the land, which is why it has provided them with no services, working on the hope that it would get so bad they would move so Israel could build on it.   They underestimated the resolve of the Bedouin, so now they are trying to take it by force.

Gobbledygook, as seen you would rather children stay living in destitute living conditions, over some of them moving to better accommodation whist on a thread in the UK you are complaining about a lack of Government help for those destitute, showing you have no idea what you are on about!

No, I would rather Israel gave them the services they are supposed to get and that all other Israelis get, which they have refused to do for years and years and years, which is why the Bedouins are in the state they are in. Pretty good idea on the Israeli part, refuse services until they are in dire straights and they you can move them pretending you are doing it for their own good and not because you want their land.

Sassy wrote:No, I would rather Israel gave them the services they are supposed to get and that all other Israelis get.

Which is what the Israeli Government has been trying to do for decades, the only people holding this up every time are the Bedouin themselves, who already have the same rights as all other citizens, something which escapes you, the only thing in questions is over lands rights, none of which has ever been recognized, which they are trying to resolve.

No they haven't, they have been refusing to recognise their land rights and refusing to give them services.

OMG, so why give them land in the offer? That makes no sense when at present they have no legal right to some of the land DOH. The reality is many are living in abject poverty which could help prevent children suffering and it is not always affordable to lay industries to every shack miles from anywhere, when it is better to give them land which gives them better accommodation, which is a won situation for them, they are the only ones being stubborn over some desert which provides them with little life qualities, it really is a no brainer not to move for some of them and lets say again this is for some of them, not the majority of them

Because they don't want the land on offer and it gets the Bedouins out of the way.

Sassy wrote:Because they don't want the land on offer and it gets the Bedouins out of the way.

Then they are idiots, because they are placing their stubbornness over what is best for their community with a better future for their children, sticking stubbornly to patches of dessert with claims of land when they are being offered better patches of land ones where they can live in way better health. Again the plan also looks to develop existing towns, but to try to run industries, electricity etc out to isolates shacks, is a no brainer and would very costly.

But it's not going to be costly when it comes to the people they are going to settle there.

Sassy wrote:But it's not going to be costly when it comes to the people they are going to settle there.

As I see this Sassy, this was a no brainer argument from the start, it was never apartheid, it was a good plan to help those over decades of disputes over ownership to land and now stubbornness is stopping them having a better life, which I find daft!
Sometime we all have to swallow some pride!

No, they want a better life on their own land and the services they are supposed to have, which will be given to the Israelis who move there once the Bedouins have been forced out.

Sassy wrote:No, they want a better life on their own land and the services they are supposed to have, which will be given to the Israelis who move there once the Bedouins have been forced out.

Which would be too expensive, so again they are being daft, as they are not asking all to move, in fact many are in towns developed by the Government and they are sticking their heads in the sand over sand?
That is daft, when they are being offered land that will not be disputed and theirs for life and to be passed on to their children, again it is a no brainier for them not to move!

So its ok to give the settlers who are going to move there services, but not the Bedouin? You are ok with that?

Sassy wrote:So its ok to give the settlers who are going to move there services, but not the Bedouin?   You are ok with that?

I see no evidence of that what so ever, no doubt you will pull out some link making claims, but no evidence as per usual!

OFGS Didge, its already been posted. You never read anything that might prove you wrong.

Sassy wrote:OFGS Didge, its already been posted.   You never read anything that might prove you wrong.

Yes you posted speculative bullshit, I did read it thanks!

From the previous page:

Yaron Ben Ezra, the director of the World Zionist Organization's settlement division, told TheMarker in 2011 that the purpose of the plan for new Jewish communities in the Negev is “to prevent the continued invasion of state lands by the Bedouin and to prevent the creation of Bedouin or Arab [territorial] contiguity.” A month before this admission, the Prime Minister’s Office, crudely intervening in a professional decision by the National Planning and Building Council, denied recognition to two Bedouin villages in the Negev, one of which was Umm al-Hiran (the other was Tel Arad).

To enable the establishment of Hiran, which is earmarked for Jews from the religious Zionist community and will be one of several Jewish towns being built in the area, the state has categorically ignored the existing residents. Currently, 500 non-Jewish citizens of the state are supposed to be expelled to another community (Hurra) for the benefit of these Jewish citizens.

Sassy wrote:From the previous page:

Yaron Ben Ezra, the director of the World Zionist Organization's settlement division, told TheMarker in 2011 that the purpose of the plan for new Jewish communities in the Negev is “to prevent the continued invasion of state lands by the Bedouin and to prevent the creation of Bedouin or Arab [territorial] contiguity.” A month before this admission, the Prime Minister’s Office, crudely intervening in a professional decision by the National Planning and Building Council, denied recognition to two Bedouin villages in the Negev, one of which was Umm al-Hiran (the other was Tel Arad).

To enable the establishment of Hiran, which is earmarked for Jews from the religious Zionist community and will be one of several Jewish towns being built in the area, the state has categorically ignored the existing residents. Currently, 500 non-Jewish citizens of the state are supposed to be expelled to another community (Hurra) for the benefit of these Jewish citizens.

Hilarious, so a Zionist claims this to be the plan, like I said speculation, funny how you don;t believe many things a Zionist says, then believe them here, priceless. Sorry I don;t believe the word of a Zionist at any time, because I stand opposed to them
Of course you have plenty to back his claims from credible sources now do you?
My you are gullible!

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:OFGS Didge, its already been posted.   You never read anything that might prove you wrong.

Yes you posted speculative bullshit, I did read it thanks!

Didge you really should show respect to those who research more than you ,sassy (and Irn)are two of the most savvy posters on subjects I know....( and I hope I don't embarrass them saying that), so your not even ruffling feathers chief, but if you really do believe you are the plod on, but to say sassy has posted bullshit is nonsensical.

Joy Division wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes you posted speculative bullshit, I did read it thanks!

Didge you really should show respect to those who research more than you ,sassy (and Irn)are two of the most savvy posters on subjects I know....( and I hope I don't embarrass them saying that), so your not even ruffling feathers chief, but if you really do believe you are the plod on, but to say sassy has posted bullshit is nonsensical.

Walk on sonny, you offer nothing to the debate accept trying to goad, jog on!
I do plenty of research thank you and have a vast knowledge of history, your view of them is to me irrelevant, I have great respect for Irn and have no respect for Sassy as she is easily gullible to things she reads and ignores extremist movements, which I think is both naive and dangereus, so you have now my views on both, now either post something about the debate or as I said jog on!

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:From the previous page:

Yaron Ben Ezra, the director of the World Zionist Organization's settlement division, told TheMarker in 2011 that the purpose of the plan for new Jewish communities in the Negev is “to prevent the continued invasion of state lands by the Bedouin and to prevent the creation of Bedouin or Arab [territorial] contiguity.” A month before this admission, the Prime Minister’s Office, crudely intervening in a professional decision by the National Planning and Building Council, denied recognition to two Bedouin villages in the Negev, one of which was Umm al-Hiran (the other was Tel Arad).

To enable the establishment of Hiran, which is earmarked for Jews from the religious Zionist community and will be one of several Jewish towns being built in the area, the state has categorically ignored the existing residents. Currently, 500 non-Jewish citizens of the state are supposed to be expelled to another community (Hurra) for the benefit of these Jewish citizens.

Hilarious, so a Zionist claims this to be the plan, like I said speculation, funny how you don;t believe many things a Zionist says, then believe them here, priceless. Sorry I don;t believe the word of a Zionist at any time, because I stand opposed to them
Of course you have plenty to back his claims from credible sources now do you?
My you are gullible!

You are really strange, he is saying that because that is what the Israeli government has earmarked the land for and that is what is happening.

'Last week saw another round in the dispute between the Garin, settling community, slated to move to Hiran and the Bedouin residents of Umm al-Hiran. The former have lived in the midst of the pastoral green forest for the past three years, eagerly awaiting their final resettlement. The latter have lived in endless sand dunes among acacia trees since the 1950s. Now both groups await a Supreme Court decision that will rule whether the Bedouins may continue living on the land they received from the government or be transplanted from the site in order to serve the ideology of others.

Since 2008, the Hiran Garin has been seeking to settle in the Negev and held contacts with the Ministry for Development of the Negev and the Galilee. “The common denominator among all the settling communities is a search for meaningful Zionist action,” says Shmuel Bezek, one of the garin. The garin grew by word of mouth and through the distribution of pamphlets in synagogues, common practice in groups of this type. Still, the government told the group that no land was found to allocate to them.'

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.558206

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hilarious, so a Zionist claims this to be the plan, like I said speculation, funny how you don;t believe many things a Zionist says, then believe them here, priceless. Sorry I don;t believe the word of a Zionist at any time, because I stand opposed to them
Of course you have plenty to back his claims from credible sources now do you?
My you are gullible!

You are really strange, he is saying that because that is what the Israeli government has earmarked the land for and that is what is happening.

'Last week saw another round in the dispute between the Garin, settling community, slated to move to Hiran and the Bedouin residents of Umm al-Hiran. The former have lived in the midst of the pastoral green forest for the past three years, eagerly awaiting their final resettlement. The latter have lived in endless sand dunes among acacia trees since the 1950s. Now both groups await a Supreme Court decision that will rule whether the Bedouins may continue living on the land they received from the government or be transplanted from the site in order to serve the ideology of others.

Since 2008, the Hiran Garin has been seeking to settle in the Negev and held contacts with the Ministry for Development of the Negev and the Galilee. “The common denominator among all the settling communities is a search for meaningful Zionist action,” says Shmuel Bezek, one of the garin. The garin grew by word of mouth and through the distribution of pamphlets in synagogues, common practice in groups of this type. Still, the government told the group that no land was found to allocate to them.'

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.558206

Again a claim, that is not evidence and proves my point how gullible you are

PhilDidge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Didge you really should show respect to those who research more than you ,sassy (and Irn)are two of the most savvy posters on subjects I know....( and I hope I don't embarrass them saying that), so your not even ruffling feathers chief, but if you really do believe you are the plod on, but to say sassy has posted bullshit is nonsensical.

Walk on sonny, you offer nothing to the debate accept trying to goad, jog on!
I do plenty of research thank you and have a vast knowledge of history, your view of them is to me irrelevant, I have great respect for Irn and have no respect for Sassy as she is easily gullible to things she reads and ignores extremist movements, which I think is both naive and dangereus, so you have now my views on both, now either post something about the debate or as I said jog on!

Oh right.  

I'm not in the least gullible, especially were right wing idiots who refuse to face facts are concerned. That is what the plan is, to get rid of the Bedouin and put the Garin in their place, providing them with all the services they need.

You can deny it until you are blue in the face, but thems the facts sunshine, and all the bluster in the world won't change them.

Sassy wrote:I'm not in the least gullible, especially were right wing idiots who refuse to face facts are concerned.   That is what the plan is, to get rid of the Bedouin and put the Garin in their place, providing them with all the services they need.

You can deny it until you are blue in the face, but thems the facts sunshine, and all the bluster in the world won't change them.

There is no facts Sassy, they are claims, end of story, you really need to read something real for a change.

On that I wish you good luck!

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

And no-one else has either but in future do not call me a liar again.

You did lie Irn and all can see so being as there is no reasons behind why you think it was wrong for him not to go other than stating you think it is shameful. I suggest you take some lessons in decency Irn and this is nothing personal, just stop telling porkies. I think you just don't like being caught out, that is your issue, not mine, as don't make claims to saying something, when you have not. I think more than anything this thread had nothing to do with anything about Mandela but once again a platform to promote a vie to bash Israel, as seen little debate has been had on the actual issue!

Enjoy your Chritsmas, maybe Santa has gotten you Pinocchio.

 :D

No I didn't and you all you are doing here is trying to smear someone with whom you are having a debate with and you are doing it because you lost the argument, lost the plot and lost control. It's a common tactic used by people who's argument is exposed as wrong and boy do you fit the bill exactly.
Your meltdown came right on the back of a post made that the the relocation plans were indeed going ahead whilst you were telling anyone who would listen that they had been shelved. You blew the nut, blew a gasket and that's when the lying claims started. It's all there in black and white.
I hope the latest release of the Life and Times of Walter Mitty was in your stocking - you remind me so much of him

Rock on laddie.

Joy Division wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Walk on sonny, you offer nothing to the debate accept trying to goad, jog on!
I do plenty of research thank you and have a vast knowledge of history, your view of them is to me irrelevant, I have great respect for Irn and have no respect for Sassy as she is easily gullible to things she reads and ignores extremist movements, which I think is both naive and dangereus, so you have now my views on both, now either post something about the debate or as I said jog on!

Oh right.  

Don't worry about JD. It's a smear campaign that backfired on him.

PhilDidge wrote:The UN has a delegate from Iran and china on its board of human rights committee, I do not think they are in a place to judge anything.

So all this money and development on a people who live already in abject poverty is not trying to help them and with wanting to only move some, I guess the cost aspect might have slipped your attention.

My error here in not researching earlier, but as seen this is far from what is being claimed in regards to apartheid, that is nonsense as seen

Job done

I see you have said on another post that you made an error in not carrying out enough research. You are right - you didn't and you've done it again.

Who told you that Iran had a delegate on the committee?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

You did lie Irn and all can see so being as there is no reasons behind why you think it was wrong for him not to go other than stating you think it is shameful. I suggest you take some lessons in decency Irn and this is nothing personal, just stop telling porkies. I think you just don't like being caught out, that is your issue, not mine, as don't make claims to saying something, when you have not. I think more than anything this thread had nothing to do with anything about Mandela but once again a platform to promote a vie to bash Israel, as seen little debate has been had on the actual issue!

Enjoy your Chritsmas, maybe Santa has gotten you Pinocchio.

 :D

No I didn't and you all you are doing here is trying to smear someone with whom you are having a debate with and you are doing it because you lost the argument, lost the plot and lost control. It's a common tactic used by people who's argument is exposed as wrong and boy do you fit the bill exactly.
Your meltdown came right on the back of a post made that the the relocation plans were indeed going ahead whilst you were telling anyone who would listen that they had been shelved. You blew the nut, blew a gasket and that's when the lying claims started. It's all there in black and white.
I hope the latest release of the Life and Times of Walter Mitty was in your stocking - you remind me so much of him

Rock on laddie.

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Lost the debate, hardly, you get for pages left dumbstruck without an answer when I used the method of the way forward being as Mandela did with reconciliation, and as far as I am concerned you lied, just because Ben and other lefties agree with you does not mean you did not Irn.
So no meltdown either, as seen I have been debating my points of and as seen you are proving my point to Ben with all your goading comments as well, quite amusing since I like debating a wee bonny lad!

Again, joke value only Didge.   They are the facts, like it or not.

I'll keep you posted on the new settlers and the services they get.

Sassy wrote:Again, joke value only Didge.   They are the facts, like it or not.

I'll keep you posted on the new settlers and the services they get.

All you have is claims, and your view it was apartheid was appalling, in fact beyond contempt to say and making a mockery of the victims of apartheid. You can keep me posted did you say, I read your left wing propaganda ever day and laugh