Jump to content

Israeli forces take down protest huts at West Bank Bedouin village


webfact

Recommended Posts

Israeli forces take down protest huts at West Bank Bedouin village

 

2018-09-13T032814Z_1_LYNXNPEE8C083_RTROPTP_4_ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS-VILLAGE.JPG

Shacks which were erected by Palestinian activists to protest against Israel's plan to demolish the Palestinian Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar, are removed by the Israeli army, in Khan al-Ahmar, in the occupied West Bank September 13, 2018. REUTERS/Mussa Qawasma

 

KHAN AL-AHMAR, West Bank (Reuters) - Israel security forces on Thursday dismantled several shacks built by Palestinian protesters near Khan al-Ahmar, a Bedouin village in the occupied West Bank that Israel has slated for demolition.

 

Reuters witnesses said Israeli forces arrived at the village before sunrise on Thursday and began taking down the newly built protest huts, without touching the Bedouin encampment, the fate of which has become a focus of Palestinian protests and international concern.

 

An Israeli military spokesman said he did not have information to give at this time.

 

Khan al-Ahmar is beside an Israeli highway that runs through the West Bank from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea.

 

Israel’s plan to demolish the village and relocate its 180 residents - Bedouins who scrape a living by raising sheep and goats - to a site 12 km (7 miles) away, has drawn criticism from Palestinians and some European states, who cite the impact on the community and prospects for peace.

 

Palestinians say the demolition is part of an Israeli push to create an arc of settlements that would effectively cut off East Jerusalem from the West Bank, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and which the Palestinians seek for an independent state.

 

Last week, Israel’s Supreme Court rejected petitions to prevent the move, siding with the authorities who say the village was built without required permits. Palestinians say such documents are impossible to obtain.

 

The five new huts removed by the Israelis early on Thursday had been built this week by activists from several rights groups and the Western-backed Palestinian Authority in support of the Bedouin community.

 

(Reporting by Ali Sawafta; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-13
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think they are being publicly explicitly supportive of new settlements do you?


Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

There's a lot of terriroty between borderline supportive and explicity supportive. Isn't the US ambassador to Israel a gung-ho supporter of settlements in the West Bank?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of terriroty between borderline supportive and explicity supportive. Isn't the US ambassador to Israel a gung-ho supporter of settlements in the West Bank?
I do not believe that is current U.S. policy even under the current orange horror show president.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The manic said:

Bedouin Village? I thought Bedouins were nomads? Thus not having houses, or fixed villages.

"Traditionally, Bedouin were nomadic shepherds who moved freely around lands that are today controlled by Israel. But as Israeli towns and modern infrastructure spread into those areas, authorities increasingly pushed the Bedouin to live in permanent housing in prescribed communities."

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/0203/For-Bedouin-Arabs-guarding-Israel-s-borders-new-challenge-to-loyalty

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

There's a lot of terriroty between borderline supportive and explicity supportive. Isn't the US ambassador to Israel a gung-ho supporter of settlements in the West Bank?

 

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I do not believe that is current U.S. policy even under the current orange horror show president.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

 

U.S. ambassador breaks with policy: ‘I think the settlements are part of Israel’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/09/29/u-s-ambassador-breaks-with-policy-i-think-the-settlements-are-part-of-israel/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e65d6a38d11e

 

Ambassador Friedman: Israel Shouldn't Have to Ask U.S. Permission to Build in West Bank

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/friedman-israel-shouldn-t-have-to-ask-permission-to-build-in-w-bank-1.6464206

 

The current ambassador is a strong supporter of the Israeli illegal settlement effort, and quite often airs views which are to even to the right of Netanyahu, or at odds with official US policy and State Department statements.

 

To a moderate degree, some of what he's on about can be construed as almost acceptable even within previous policy parameters, but this would require ignoring a whole lot of other things he says, and how he conveys his views. A diplomat he is not, obviously. Nor were there any claims of being even-handed or objective.

 

As to US policy on settlement expansion in the West Bank - or rather, how the current administration goes about it, there an account from the horse's mouth in the second link. I think the difference vs. previous administrations is to do with both tone, and the amount of actual pressure applied. That said, I think the description is fully accurate - there were a few instances (more so earlier in Trump's term) where the objections and warning were less cordial than suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The manic said:

Bedouin Village? I thought Bedouins were nomads? Thus not having houses, or fixed villages.

 

Bedouins, all over the ME, can generally be said to be going through  transitional processes from nomad to urban. A lot of factors involved - nation states coming about, borders and fences becoming a thing, rule of law becoming more of a norm, economic and environmental changes taking their toll on old ways.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Demolishing the village is plain wrong, and relocating the population raises further legal issues - even without taking into account the unacceptable intended locations for re-settlement. This is obvious to the degree that even a group of Israeli settlers from the nearby (and about to be expanded) town joined the Supreme Court motions and petitions on behalf of the Bedouin neighbors. On the other side of the coin, one of the Supreme Court judges involved is himself a resident of another illegal settlement.

 

Other than inflicting this on the residents, there are also wider implications as to prospects of future Palestinian territorial continuity. I don't think that the specific case is quite the make or break moment, but rather another step in the wrong direction.

 

Without taking away from the  Bedouin residents' complaint and situation, it ought to be made clear that they do not actually own the land in question and never did. When they moved to the area, back in the early 1950's (after being driven off from what became Israel's south - about 70-80 km away), an agreement of sorts was reached with Palestinian local landowners regarding grazing and settlement rights. And its not exactly like locals were all too keen about the newcomers or made life easy for them either.

 

Some Palestinian politicians' and activists' painting it as part of the "national" struggle is rather hypocritical, considering how Bedouins are generally perceived by their supposed non-nomad brethren.

 

And lastly, IMO, to the degree that foreign involvement was meant to promote the resident's welfare and improve their situation, some of the foreign involvement became too confrontational. This may have scored points for the "struggle", but didn't play all too well as far as the residents are concerned.

 

I don't know if the decisions regarding demolitions and the forced eviction of the residents will be fully averted or overturned. One may hope, but reality is what it is. Things getting further delayed and the situation remaining in limbo, with small steps taken back and forth is a distinct possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Bedouins, all over the ME, can generally be said to be going through  transitional processes from nomad to urban. A lot of factors involved - nation states coming about, borders and fences becoming a thing, rule of law becoming more of a norm, economic and environmental changes taking their toll on old ways.

 

 

 

A specific challenge nomadic peoples face in establishing their rights within these modern structures to which you refer is that the demarcations of nationality and ownership/fencing of land are both at the same time alien to the nomadic peoples’ culture while forming the structure within which settled societies assign rights.

 

This challenge was recognised as far back as Rousseau ‘On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Rights’ and is an example of where the State flips the exchange of authority such that the state validates the Citizen rather than the individal surrendering sovereignty to validate the State.

 

Nomadic peoples are, in this sense, the last people to maintain their individual sovereignty.

 

Their true fight is to maintain their sovereignty.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A specific challenge nomadic peoples face in establishing their rights within these modern structures to which you refer is that the demarcations of nationality and ownership/fencing of land are both at the same time alien to the nomadic peoples’ culture while forming the structure within which settled societies assign rights.

 

This challenge was recognised as far back as Rousseau ‘On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Rights’ and is an example of where the State flips the exchange of authority such that the state validates the Citizen rather than the individal surrendering sovereignty to validate the State.

 

Nomadic peoples are, in this sense, the last people to maintain their individual sovereignty.

 

Their true fight is to maintain their sovereignty.

 

 

 

Quite the romantic rendering. In reality, though and with regard to the area in question, the quest for "individual sovereignty" was manifested as levying taxes for safe passage (aka robbery, thuggery and whatnot), and in lean years taking what was needed by force. Over time, when the going got tough, this changed to smuggling, drug and human trafficking. To be clear, not meant as a general tarring of all Bedouins. Different times, different cultures, different concepts. 

 

It's also worth pointing out that this romantic view leaves out the strict patriarchal character of Bedouin society, and its general oppressive treatment of women (that is a general comment though).

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Quite the romantic rendering. In reality, though and with regard to the area in question, the quest for "individual sovereignty" was manifested as levying taxes for safe passage (aka robbery, thuggery and whatnot), and in lean years taking what was needed by force. Over time, when the going got tough, this changed to smuggling, drug and human trafficking. To be clear, not meant as a general tarring of all Bedouins. Different times, different cultures, different concepts. 

 

It's also worth pointing out that this romantic view leaves out the strict patriarchal character of Bedouin society, and its general oppressive treatment of women (that is a general comment though).

I like your use of a gross generalization of Bedouin history followed by ‘To be clear, not meant as a general tarring of all Bedouins’ and then a swift switch to ‘patriarchal’ and treatment of women.

 

Your accusation of ‘romantic’ is perhaps a failure to understand the idea of a ‘social contract’.

 

But don’t feel down about it all Morch. I broadly agreed with three posts you made today, in succession too, a forth was too much to hope for.

 

——

There’s been a bit of a fuss lately over Saudi Arabia permitting women to drive. I chuckled over this since throughout my time in Saudi I frequently came across Bedouin women driving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Yeah, expected one of them routine nothing comments. You may actually want to get a clue as to local Bedouins history, visit a few of the older households, hear stories of times not that long ago told without much embarrassment etc. But hey, much easier to play the faux PC angle.

 

You're welcome to your comments about Saudi Arabia - even though this topic here refers to another region (and this was mentioned in my post). If you imagine Bedouins are the same all over, good luck with that. Kinda silly when complaining about generalizations, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Yeah, expected one of them routine nothing comments. You may actually want to get a clue as to local Bedouins history, visit a few of the older households, hear stories of times not that long ago told without much embarrassment etc. But hey, much easier to play the faux PC angle.

 

You're welcome to your comments about Saudi Arabia - even though this topic here refers to another region (and this was mentioned in my post). If you imagine Bedouins are the same all over, good luck with that. Kinda silly when complaining about generalizations, though.

I wonder why you become so emotional when people disagree with you?

 

If the Bedouin are nomadic, and historically they were, how do you argue the Bedouin in Saudi Arabia are not culturally the same group as Bedouin elsewhere in the Middle East?

 

Their nomadic lifestyle predates the national boundaries across the region.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder why you become so emotional when people disagree with you?

 

If the Bedouin are nomadic, and historically they were, how do you argue the Bedouin in Saudi Arabia are not culturally the same group as Bedouin elsewhere in the Middle East?

 

Their nomadic lifestyle predates the national boundaries across the region.

 

I wonder why you feel the need to add bogus personal commentary when replying to posts. Seems to reflect your own state of mind more than anything else. As for getting touchy about people not accepting you point of view - may want to have another look at your own reaction.

 

I did not "argue the Bedouins in Saudi Arabia are not of the same cultural group etc...". That's your own addition and spin.

 

While Bedouins may share similar traditions, the pace, impact and nature of changes described above were not necessarily similar. Conditions and circumstances related to the effects of available territory, population density and the rate at which urbanization/central government became a thing, were different. This was further effected by national borders and urbanization processes making traditional connection between tribes residing in different areas more complicated.

 

That the Bedouins's nomadic lifestyle predates national boundaries is irrelevant with regard to how things changed with them boundaries introduced and becoming the norm, or with regard to various groups of Bedouins experiencing change at differing levels of impact and pace.

 

Even within a relatively small area like Israel/the West Bank/Gaza Strip (never mind adding the Sinai peninsula or Jordan), there are differences between various Bedouin tribes. These could relate to the level of urbanization, integration in society, social acceptance, and the extant to which traditional patterns and ways are retained. Drawing conclusions from experiences in Saudi Arabia is nice, but not necessarily adequate for drawing conclusions or clear insights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"Traditionally, Bedouin were nomadic shepherds who moved freely around lands that are today controlled by Israel. But as Israeli towns and modern infrastructure spread into those areas, authorities increasingly pushed the Bedouin to live in permanent housing in prescribed communities."

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/0203/For-Bedouin-Arabs-guarding-Israel-s-borders-new-challenge-to-loyalty

The historical reality is that Bedoiun raiders were bribed with houses sand settlements to settle in the area incorrectly referred to as Palestine. More gathered around Israel as the UN charities,  aids missions and so called relief agencies poured more money to create Arab communities where there was none before. Traditionally Bedoun, own nothing other than what they can carry and are happily itinerant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the Bedouin inhabitants Khan al-Ahmar were ethnically cleansed from the Negev in 1952 by the IDF. So they resettled in the West Bank, leasing the land that they now live on from a private Palestinian landowner until it was expropriated and declared State land in 1975 by the new illegally occupying Israelis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_al-Ahmar

 

Now history repeats and along comes the IDF yet again to ethnically cleanse them to make room for Israeli Jews in the neighboring illegal settlements, on any number of pretexts, err..declare it a closed military zone ...err..too close the highway (that did not exist till the Israeli occupiers came)..err..usually building without a permit..a permit from the illegal occupiers!..which are near impossible to obtain if you are not Jewish.

 

OP..
"Palestinians say the demolition is part of an Israeli push to create an arc of settlements that would effectively cut off East Jerusalem from the West Bank, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and which the Palestinians seek for an independent state."

 

But once the Bedouin have been cleared there will be building permits galore for the illegal Israeli Jewish colonists, to be able to complete the arc of Jewish settlements cutting off the illegally occupied East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.

 

Pure racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The manic said:

The historical reality is that Bedoiun raiders were bribed with houses sand settlements to settle in the area incorrectly referred to as Palestine. More gathered around Israel as the UN charities,  aids missions and so called relief agencies poured more money to create Arab communities where there was none before. Traditionally Bedoun, own nothing other than what they can carry and are happily itinerant. 

 

Reality as in you either made it up or read it in some dodgy partisan website. There were Bedouins living in the area way before the time frame referenced. The efforts to form Bedouin "communities" conforming to nation-state standards and ways were not all that appreciated or willingly accepted by the target crowd. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@dexterm

 

The Bedouins in question were not warmly received by local villagers after being driven away from Israel. That "leasing" of the land bit you make sound straightforward was a process that came about gradually, and involved a measure of communal strife. Lands "leased" (or de facto, taken over) were not all owned by locals villagers as well.

 

As for bleating "racism", that's all very well - if one is honest enough to acknowledge that Palestinian attitudes toward Bedouins (and vice versa) exhibit such as well. Or if one wanted to be even more accurate, such issues exist even among different Bedouin clans and tribes. It isn't as if the village enjoyed much by way of facilities prior to the Israeli occupation, or that the Palestinian Authority cared about it much up until it became a handy PR issue. If you imagine that under an imaginary Palestinian state they wouldn't be evicted as well, you live in fantasy land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

The Bedouins in question were not warmly received by local villagers after being driven away from Israel. That "leasing" of the land bit you make sound straightforward was a process that came about gradually, and involved a measure of communal strife. Lands "leased" (or de facto, taken over) were not all owned by locals villagers as well.

 

As for bleating "racism", that's all very well - if one is honest enough to acknowledge that Palestinian attitudes toward Bedouins (and vice versa) exhibit such as well. Or if one wanted to be even more accurate, such issues exist even among different Bedouin clans and tribes. It isn't as if the village enjoyed much by way of facilities prior to the Israeli occupation, or that the Palestinian Authority cared about it much up until it became a handy PR issue. If you imagine that under an imaginary Palestinian state they wouldn't be evicted as well, you live in fantasy land.

You are off topic deflecting.


The OP is not about Palestinan attitudes towards Bedouin.


It is the Israelis who are doing the evicting purely on the grounds that the inhabitants of Khan al-Ahmar are not Israeli Jews. That's racist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

You are off topic deflecting.


The OP is not about Palestinan attitudes towards Bedouin.


It is the Israelis who are doing the evicting purely on the grounds that the inhabitants of Khan al-Ahmar are not Israeli Jews. That's racist.

 

Sorry if reality makes it harder to fully co-opt this story to fuel your rants. If you'd bother reading my posts - they included a condemnation of Israel's decision regarding this. That doesn't mean there any obligation to embrace your warped take on things, nor do your one-sided views alter the complex nature of the situation. If you wish to cast the residents of Khan al-Ahmar as poster boys for your crusade, expect being called out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...