Talk:Negev Bedouin

POV

Am I the only one who sees the severe imbalance in this article? It basically says that Israel discriminates against the Bedouins and destroys their homes etc. etc. and only mentions in passing that the government provides education. However, the following points are either not clarified or not mentioned at all:

• Israel provides free housing to many Bedouins, many of whom refuse, but this isn't even a choice for most Jews who have to pay huge amounts for small bits of land/small apartments (except a minority eligible for shikunim - Amidar and such - also is underprivileged areas which are almost comparable to the poor conditions in Rahat etc.)
• Bedouin towns have very high crime rates, blood revenge is very popular there so there are a lot of murders, and the police is often afraid to enter these places. The Bedouin towns are generally anti-establishment, anti-law enforcement, etc. and this harms Israel's ability to help them.
• Because of the extreme high birthrate of the Bedouins, the government may have trouble providing many of them with basic services - this isn't just a result of discrimination (although I will admit that a certain degree of discrimination takes place)
• Most of the Bedouins who don't live in the permanent settlements (Rahat, Tel Sheva, etc.) and are not connected to electricty and water, do so out of choice, because they supposedly want to preserve their dignity. Some make temporary villages which are against the law (so they knowingly break the law), even though the government is actually interested in settling the Bedouins permanently, so it shouldn't be that difficult to acquire a permit to start construction.
• Some Arab MKs actively help Bedouins break construction laws and undermine the legal system in Israel, especially considering this is less of an issue of discrimination because neither Jews nor Arabs are allowed to just take a piece of land (in the Negev or elsewhere), settle on it and start building. This also severely harms the ability of the Israeli authorities to help the Bedouins.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is problematic. Tewfik^Talk 09:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a couple of your points. Why don't you add your points to the article?Vice regent 21:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

--I agree too: this article is worse than just a POV violation, it amounts to outright libel. I would like to invite anyone to come to the Negev and see what it going on: Bedouin live as they wish-- lawlessly, they take over territories with impunity, the have among the highest birthrates in the world-- meaning, no reasonable amount of social service provision by Israel will ever significantly break the cycle of poverty and raise their standard of living, they act in a parasitic fashion-- with very very high theft rates, services providers are afraid to enter their communities as they are very violent and often shoot outsiders, they engage in polygamy (they often have so many children that they do not know their own children's names), they steal steal steal: recently, in a shopping mall near Be'ersheva, they tied a truck to a metal electric pole, and dragged it away, to smelt it to sell the metal for profit (in one of many illegal such operations that the government is afraid to bust) they steal metal of memorials, they steal manhole covers, leaving them exposed, they desecrate, they destroy, they steal. Open any history book-- look at their history-- they sacked Jerusalem so many times as to render it uninhabitable and caused its population to empty. This is an important part of the truth that is just ignored in the article. They refuse to join Israeli society-- but they are only guests in Israel (nomadic squatters of lands that never belonged to them.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.192.98 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

- If anything, the article is biased in favour of Israel! Primarily because it omits any reference to the ongoing destruction of Bedouin villages and property. The above contributor makes the quite bizarre claim that "THEY take over territories with impunity" - but that is exactly what the Israeli government is doing! And phrases like "the have among the highest birthrates", "THEY are very violent and often shoot outsiders, THEY engage in polygamy", "THEY steal steal steal" and "they are only guests in Israel (nomadic squatters of lands that never belonged to them" are clearly full of hate and normally the sort of language associated with racists. Pretzelberg (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

-- From what I see here, one could hardly argue that any of this is libel. Thank you, Pretzelberg, for taking the time to dispute the above overtly racist comments, point by point -such language should not get by without comment (the comments in October 2007). YHockney - true, the Bedouin have problems, internal social problems as well as externally caused ones. I think one thing that should be clear though, is that Bedouin don't need 'help' solving their problems - they need to deal with their social problems themselves. However, their civil problems, and their political problems, are another matter. First, the civil problems: providing the services accorded to every other citizen, to the Bedouin, is not 'helping' them, it is simply acknowledging their inalienable rights, their humanity. Second, the political problems: acknowledging the right of Bedouin, like other citizens of Israel in Moshavim, the right to engage in agriculture, is also not about 'humoring' their need for dignity in the sense of 'Ard (honor), it is about not transferring as many as 40,000 IDF-trained human beings against their will. Want to push Bedouin to the edge? We're getting close. The Bedouin say they will not launch an intifada - I take that to mean that they do not want to. But if plans to move the Bedouin are executed, then things could change. I just think, why not let them be, 'let' them stay in their villages, betach, lama lo? It would be a lot less bloody, a lot less expensive, a lot more humane, better for Israel's soul. So, sure, you could see the above article as biased. Or you could see it as an understatement.Whynot25 (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

POV, take 2

This whole article is crap, and will be deleted if no one will rewrite it. Guy0307 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were to tell us what parts of this article you object to. I'd have thought the omissions were much more significant than anything included. There is mysteriously no reference to the fact that the Bedouin do not have "nationality" in Israel, rendering them excluded in theory (if not always in practice) from 93% of the land. PR^talk 10:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify - what do you mean by "nationality", as distinct from "citizenship?" Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Contesting proposed deletion

Guy0307, on what grounds? You say this is anti-Israeli, but you do not explain how, and I fail to understand why you do not then add in the balance you seek? I see you do not argue that the concept Negev Bedouins is not worthy of an entry. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose deletion of this article and consider Guy0307's calling it "crap" to be an indication of bad faith. This is a fairly well-referenced article on an important subgroup of the population of historic Palestine. This article must not be deleted and suggestions that it be deleted are totally absurd and unfounded. --Tirpse77 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well referenced? What a joke. This is practically an anti Israeli POV, and I'm not the nor last to say it. I don't have time to do major editing, but I would if I did. 124.190.26.180 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (guy0307)

Putting a proposed delete prod on this page was an abuse of that facility on so many levels. It is only meant to be used for pages which "obviously and controversially don't belong in an encyclopedia", for example non-notable people putting up vanity entries about themselves. A page about a significant national/social group obviously does belong here, and should not have been put up for deletion, especially via this method, just because you believe that - as currently put together - it is not referenced properly and/or is not written neutrally. In any event a quick scan suggests that it has a large number of references for an article of this length, most of which are academic sources or Israeli newspapers. To me that looks pretty well referenced. Whether it's then written fairly or not, I don't know - but just because it might criticise aspects of Israel's treatment of the Bedouins, that doesn't of itself mean it's biased or "anti-Israeli". Sometimes countries - Israel included, shock - do treat people living within their borders badly you know. If however there are genuine problems, these can be addressed by you or some other editor working on the content, with appropriate sources. That's how this place works. --Nickhh (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe I shouldn't have done that. I'll quote from the article: As Jewish immigration increased, unemployment levels in the Bedouin population reached record highs. As of 1958, employment in the Bedouin male population was less than 3.5%. Bedouins were generally discriminated against in employment, as preference was given to Jews. Bias bias bias. I'm going to medcab. Guy0307 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As an ex-resident of the south, i unfortunately have to agree (At least to some extent) with what guy says. this article emphasizes bad aspects and systematically ignores good ones. it imposes a palestinian nationalistic view on the bedouin population and life in the negev. i haven't had the time to invest to this article, though i did add about the glaring omission of the lehavim-rahat railway station. there are various examples of NGO cooperation (negev bar-kayma et al), there's a rise of bedouin lawyers and a bedouin has been appointed as a judge. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to provide a concrete example - in the 'main' bedouin article, dealing with bedouin sedentrization throughout the middle east, the process is described as a 'natural' one. in this article, the 'natural' reasons for sedentrization are thoroughly omitted, replaced by a nationalistic narrative. not to mention that the sources heavily rely on the works of known anti-zionist academics (e.g. Yiftachel). not that they're not RS, but wikipedia should balance between views even while considering RS sources. compare with this view [1] for example (hebrew only). MiS-Saath (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, so put that perspective into the article. Who will fight you? Not me, also a former resident of the South. Actually, all the Bedouin are sedentarized, both in recognized and unrecognized towns and villages, and much of this was by choice. But, sedentarization was just as much a forced as a natural process; thus I will contest deletion of the facts about forcible sedentarization. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: your other points:

• To detail the forced sedentarization process is not nationalistic in any way, as far as I can see. The article barely mentions the word "Palestinian;" although, I don't see anything wrong with using the term here.
• As far as Negev Bar Kayma -- aside from the fact that it takes funding from corporations for environmental regulation of corporations, and its work has come under fire for this reason -- its founder is on the Goldberg Commission, which is hardly seen as Bedouin-friendly. It should be noted that the fact that a body has one or two Bedouin associated with it does not mean that it is a body that represents Bedouin interests (often, it is true, Bedouin who get involved in this way do so because it works in their own interests); The Goldberg committee, which seeks above all to deal with the problem of the unrecognized villages, does not include a single representative from an unrecognized village. (An aside: In their work on the "Bedouin problem" in the past year, Bar kayma lists as one of their objectives is to help the Bedouin "To learn how to make intelligent use of natural resources." How do they think the Bedouin survived in the desert for thousands of years, except through making "intelligent use of natural resources?")LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Negev bar kayma has in their stated objectives a plan to aid bedouin development. see this [2]. i'll admit to not checking on how much they fulfill their plans. but back on to the subject - almost no sedentrization comes 'naturally'. but, whereas sedentrization of bedouins in the rest of the middle east is described as a 'natural' process, the article does emphasize a narrative that the israeli administration is 'attacking' the bedouin lifestyle because it threatens it and as part of an anti-palestinian agenda. i think it's irresponsible to make such a claim without comparison to sedentrization at other countries, which will also show patterns of relocations and arguments, but these have been presented otherwise. also on the missing side is affirmative action plans in BGU and in government branches, the appointment of a bedouin consul [3] and others. like i said, i don't have much time to work on it. but i really hope that someone with more time and without a strong I/P bias will take care to fix this article. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done any original research comparing the situation of Bedouin in Israel with Bedouin elsewhere, but I have done a lot of reading about other populations, especially in Jordan, where the kingdom is Bedouin-ruled. I am also a bit familier with the situation of Bedouin under Egyptian rule, in the Sinai - the oppression there is terrible. But this is an article about Negev Bedouins, and I think the reasons for suppression of the Bedouin way of life in this case is not the same as in Egypt or elsewhere. I definitely am not enough of an expert to bring in any cross-comparisons. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits suggested for NPOV

Let's begin a summary of requested edits below these headings:

1. More good aspects of Negev Bedouin life that should be mentioned

• Appointment of Bedouin to gvt. positions: [4];

2. Government perspective on Bedouin

• Add other sources: One example -

-Tal, Alon, 1960- Space Matters: Historic Drivers and Turning Points In Israel's Open Space Protection Policy

Israel Studies - Volume 13, Number 1, Spring 2008, pp. 119-151 Used

- Bedouin information, ILA, 2007

- "Off the Map: Land and Housing Rights Violations in Israel’s Unrecognized Bedouin Villages"; Human Rights Watch, March 2008 Volume 20, No. 5(E) (has a section on government rationale - obviously HRW is presenting a different view, but it considers the government perspective duly)

-[5]

I have decided to reduce the quotes I formerly posted here for readability. I have pasted the rest to unrecognized villages, where all this should be dealt with in more depth. I have selected a few of the most relevant quotes and inserted them below:

YNET on Edri comments - treat the Bedouin like settlers:

• "The Knesset must legislate a compensation/eviction law for the Bedouins in the South, similar to the compensation/eviction law for settlers from Gush Katif," Minister for Development of the Negev and Galilee, Yaakov Edri told Ynet.
• Relying on recommendations from the Goldberg Commission, headed by Judge Eliezer Goldberg (currently drawing up policy concerning the settlement of Bedouins in the Negev) Edri told Ynet "a precise timetable must be determined for evacuating the lands held by Bedouins. Afterwards, if they don't leave voluntarily, Edri suggested establishing a special unit of the police and military, the task of which will be to forcibly evict the Bedouins. Edri notes that "'we must prepare the enforcement officials, the police and army for implementation of the law, as we did with Gush Katif. One who does not agree to evacuate for compensation – we will treat him as we did with the settlers."

Ynet - Bedouin response - we are not settlers, we are indigenous people:

• Chairperson of the (Regional) Council of Unrecognised Villages in the Negev, Hussein Al Rafiya, said to Ynet in response to the proposal: "Instead of trying to evict us, Minister Edri should accept the fact that these are existing settlements and residents living on their lands."
• "These have been our lands, from prior to the establishment of the state, and I don't know why he offered this proposal, before we've even received the recommendations of the Goldberg Committee," said Al Rafiya.
• The Chairperson of Balad, Member of Knesset Jamal Zahalka, said: "Edri and his kind are dreaming of completing the work begun in 1948, to continue evicting people from their lands on which they lived a long time before Edri and those like him arrived here."

HAARETZ on Edri's comments - let's wait for the Goldberg Committee findings:

• Housing and Construction Minister Ze'ev Boim reprimanded the minister for the development of the Negev and the Galilee, Jacob Edery, for calling for a law to displace the Bedouin from their lands and compensate them monetarily. In a letter to Edery, a copy of which was sent to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Boim rebuked him for making these statement at a time when the Goldberg Committee is formulating recommendations on the future of Bedouin community life in the Negev.

What the ILA calls the government's "generous offer":

• "Although Israel owns the lands over which the Bedouins are dispersed, it is prepared to examine all Bedouin ownership claims in court. By law and according to all existing records, the State of Israel is the sole owner of the land on which the dispersed Bedouin live." "The state has filed some 170 counter-claims (regarding more than 110,000 dunams), and in every case where a ruling has been handed down by the court, it has ordered the land to be registered as state owned....Although the Israeli government insists that it owns the lands occupied by the Bedouin dispersion, the state is prepared to grant immediate financial “compensation” and sometimes even alternative land to Bedouin who withdraw their ownership claims."
• Starting ?????, and until December 2007, "A Bedouin who withdraws an ownership suit relating to 200 dunams will receive a state grant of approximately NIS 160,000. Bedouin who withdraw their ownership claims for 200 dunams of land (in the area covered by the masterplan for Bedouin villages) will receive a government grant of NIS 1,400,000. In addition to the cash grant, they also receive 40 dunams of agricultural land."p. 10
• Compensation for tribal lands includes: government services (accorded every other citizen),“Relocation Grants” of NIS 7,500 per family and NIS1,500 for each child (i.e. between approx.2,000$ and 6,000$), and an average of 800 meters of land. The government says "The compensation is many times the value of the illegal structures they leave" (but says nothing of the value of the land they reside on, plus the agricultural grounds surrounding, which is incomparable to the 'compensation' offered)
• The government's approach to investing in the Bedouin: "Israel is currently building 13 new villages or towns for the Negev Bedouin...The plans for the villages are based on statistical projections for the expansion of the Bedouin population until the year 2030."
• "Aside from building new townships for the Bedouin in the Negev, the Israeli government plans to invest more than NIS 1 billion in a multi-phased program to improve the infrastructure of existing Bedouin towns and to develop their public facilities...As part of its plan to expand the existing Bedouin towns in the Negev, the ILA will double the size of the Bedouin town of Rahat. This is the largest construction project — costing an estimated half a billion shekels — undertaken by the Israeli government in recent years"

The ILA's response to critiques:

• The government explains the lack of service in unrecog villages thus: "These services can only be provided to those living in permanent housing, and the fact that the Bedouin are dispersed over an extensive area prevents the state from offering these public services."
• The government partially faults the Bedouin for hindering the government's provision of services, etc.: “In many cases, Bedouin lawsuits hinder the construction of new neighborhoods, the upgrading of existing village infrastructures, and the advantageous use of the land for the entire Bedouin population"
• The government explains the lack of services in recognized urban townships thus:"The percentage of homeowners in Bedouin towns who pay municipal taxes is problematically low. This makes it difficult for town councils to provide a decent level of services. When a sufficient number of residents pay their municipal taxes, the municipal authorities can substantially improve their services and thus improve living conditions for the Bedouin."
• "The Israeli government continues its generous policy towards the Bedouin population by meeting their ever-increasing needs in every possible way."

The ILA's view on land disputes

• "The Bedouin's claims are detrimental to the entire Bedouin population of the Negev"
• "Some elements within the Negev Bedouin population seek to establish facts on the ground and steal agricultural land. Despite the fact that Israel leases land to the Bedouin at a symbolic cost, the past few years have witnessed an increase in illegal squatting and land appropriation."
• Regarding Bedouin land claims (the total area of the unrecognized villages): "In recent years, some of the Bedouin residing in the dispersed areas have started claiming ownership of land areas totaling some 600,000 dunams (60,000 hectares or 230 square miles) in the Negev – over 12 times the area of Tel Aviv..."
• The ILA makes clear its threat to evict what it calls "callous lawbreaker" and "squatters", citing clause 18B of the Land Law: "Israel’s duty is to protect and defend its citizens. Israel cannot tolerate callous lawbreakers whose behavior is harmful to the law-abiding community. It is the state’s duty to evict squatters and restore the land to the citizens who leased it."
• On crop destruction: "The state fights squatters by plowing up the land. The land is plowed once the seeds sown by the illegal farmers have sprouted."

Issues raised by Ynhockey

• Information on high Negev Bedouin crime rates needs to be inserted, especially blood revenge and car theft (the main things the government is trying to fight, AFAIK) (Added by LamaLo - see p.33 from Kav Laoved about the Bedouin role in smuggling/human trafficking from Egypt - very sad) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Information on the government's battle (both in practice and in hasbara) against polygamy and extremely high birthrates of the Bedouin population

As far as I know, the government did nothing until a few years ago to even begin to address the polygamy issue, despite a good deal of talk.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The refusal of some Bedouins to move to permanent settlements despite offers by the government
• Treatment of women in the Bedouin sector

3. More info on relationship between Bedouin and government

• We need a good description of the Bedouin Administration, its history and its present
• We need a good description of the Goldberg Committee (does not include a single representative from an unrecognized village)
• We need a good description of the Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages
• We need a brief list of active organizations in the region, Bedouin and Jewish, working for reforms in government approaches to the Bedouin
• Funding issues - tax base and budget allocations: One -http://cmsprod.bgu.ac.il/NR/rdonlyres/718C7DB8-8BD6-47CD-9C2A-16E824166341/48052/BackgroundStudies1.pdf source] from Harvey Lithwick and Eran...
• An academic article which tries to represent the government view: Yahel, Havatzelet.

Land Disputes Between the Negev Bedouin and Israel Israel Studies - Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 2006, pp. 1-22 LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations - stats on pop., etc.

Just wanted to raise the issue of statistics/numbers, briefly. The RCUV still says there are 45 such villages. HRW has started to say 39. The RCUV says half of the Bedouin live in unrecog villages while the ILA says only 40%. This is largely due to the fact that several of the villages now considered part of the recently-formed Abu Basma Regional Council are still unrecognized, in a strange yet unsurprising turn of events. Thus the RCUV has continued to include the unrecognized villagesd within the Abu Basma Regional Council in its count (until the former unrecognized villages within the council receive services and the remaining unrecognized villages receive final recognition of their village lands) and estimates the population higher due to high birth rates as well. This should somehow be included in the article, but I lack a citation at present. Also, we need stats for much of the article, especially government stats - anyone ready to get to work?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So sorry, I put this citation in today to support this statement: The report described polygamy in the Bedouin sector a “security threat” and advocated means of reducing the birth rate in the Arab sector. Canadian Monkey rightly removed it. The report did indeed say that, but the cited source says mnothing of the sort. Again, apologies!LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources for crime problem

Note: I am adding all this hoping that editors who come to this page will respect the delicacy of this issue. I ask that people use this information in a humanistic way, keeping in mind that there is 95% unemployment in many unrecognized villages and around 30% in urban townships. It also goes without saying that this data does not apply to the majority of Negev Bedouin. Finally, it should be noted that while the Bedouin population as a whole has been severly demonized as "criminals," as is evidenced below, Bedouin lawbreakers often work in cooperation with Jewish mafia who it is clear do not experience the same demonization (I can't prove the demonization is worse towards Bedouin, but it is pretty obvious if you live in Israel):

• Kav LaOved report, p. 33: Smuggling people into Israel across the Egyptian border: "Over 70% of migrant workers in Israel entered the country with a legal working permit.91

Others arrived as tourists or were smuggled in, having paid large sums of money to smugglers. Smuggling workers has increased in recent years following the tightening of controls on entry through Ben-Gurion Airport and Haifa Port, and the steady increase in the numbers of people refused entry to Israel.92 In most cases smuggling follows a path used until recently only by traffickers in women, drugs, and arms. The workers land in Egypt, are transported to the Sinai Desert, where they meet Bedouin guides who lead them in an arduous journey, mostly on foot, through the desert and across the border into Israel. According to data gathered by volunteers of the Hotline for Migrant Workers in the prison, the fee charged for smuggling a worker across the border into Israel ranges from $3,500 to $4,000.

IDF troops patrol the Egyptian border in an attempt to catch the migrants, but with very little success due to the length of the border. In an article published in Haíaretz, Uzi Havshush, a commander of an IDF reserve force assigned to patrol the border and prevent the entry of contraband, provided a list of products and people regularly smuggled across the border: ìJuly 22: three bags of marijuana. July 24: six bags. July 24: 25 prostitutes. July 26: ten prostitutes. July 28: ten prostitutes. July 30: two jeeps heading to meet each other changed course after being identified. July 31: four Egyptians got into a vehicle awaiting them on the Israeli side. Not far from there the crossing of four foreign workers and one woman was recorded.î93

Despite the security risks, from the Israeli point of view, the authorities are doing very little to prevent the smuggling from taking place, but instead prefer to concentrate on catching the people who have crossed the border.

A Ghanaian national who wished to give information on Israeli and foreign citizens who, he claimed, were involved in organizing illegal migration across the Egyptian border, was held in prison for over eight months after being arrested for being in Israel unlawfully. His lawyer informed the Attorney-General that his client was prepared to give evidence on this matter, and the Hotline for Migrant Workers approached the Commissioner for Foreign Nationals at the Ministry of Internal Security and the head of the Immigration Administration in this regard.94 Police officers came to take the Ghanaianís testimony several months ago, but nothing was then done about it, and he was eventually deported. This fact attests to the attitude of the authorities who prefer to ignore the organizers of the human contraband.

Footnote 93: Avihai Becker, "Chase" Haaretz Weekend Supplement, August 9, 2002."

From another report, Trafficking in women: "IX. Corruption Within the Police Force: Collaboration between traffickers and policemen exists in two manners: a passive manner where policemen visit the brothels as clients, and an active manner which involves cooperation with traffickers and tipping off of police raids." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting info about Bedouin polygamy here. This is an official report by a government organization so it could be interpreted as representing the state (although it's an inter-office report, not a government statement to the public or anything). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Police brutality against Bedouin

Now, in conjunction with the 'criminal image' of the Bedouin also come high death rates among Bedouin engaged in theft and many times, mere traffic violations. I have data on this and will insert it as soon as I get a chance.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the deaths from traffic violations are in traffic accidents, but maybe that's not what you were talking about. I have a couple articles somewhere with the police claiming that Bedouins are reckless drivers and often kill themselves and other people as a result. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mossawa Center has documented dozens of killings of Arab citizens of Israel by police, the majority of them Bedouin. Sometimes police have killed Bedouin while chasing them down for suspected criminal activity. However, in various cases, police have shot and killed Bedouin when they failed to immediately stop their cars upon request. The essential point is that the police are not so trigger-happy with Jewish citizens, and that if 38-something Jews were shot in such circumstances, there would be investigations. In the case of the killings of Bedouin, as far as I know, no action has been taken.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. My only hope is that police statements exist for notable killings like you mention (if indeed they happenned), because I'd hate it if the Mossawa Center was our only source for these claims. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there are police statements saying essentialli that "such-and-such Bedouin man" failed to stop at a traffic light at 3:24, July 24th and "such-and-such police officer" was forced to shoot him. But how would you get access to such records? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ber Seba

It would be good to have a short section dealing with the relevance of Beer Sheva as a regional trading site throughout hundreds of years. Also should be noted that the regional mosque there has been off-limits for prayer, transformed several times into secular uses and such.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Women's status

I added this section today - we need a bit ,more info, with more citations, dealing with polygamy and other issues. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Employment: Some 5% of Bedouin women work outside the home.

Polygamy

It's not all on the government, but until 2005 the government had done nothing to rectify the problem (and thus how can the government complain about the polygamy problem?) Another Amnesty quote:

"Polygamy is forbidden by Article 177 of the Penal Law (1977) and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. However, no polygamous husbands are known to have been prosecuted for the offence, and polygamy continues to occur among Israeli Bedouins. Precisely because it is a punishable offence, the extent of the phenomenon of polygamy is not known. According to survey carried out amongst Israeli Bedouin women in the Negev region in 1999 by the Nazareth-based Arab Association for Human Rights, 40% of Bedouin women were living in polygamous households.

Often Bedouin men formally marry their first wife and subsequently unofficially marry a second or a third woman. In some cases the man formally divorces from his first wife in order to formally marry a second wife; in such cases the divorce is a purely administrative procedure and the couple remains "informally" married. Situations in which the divorcees continue to live in the same household are common amongst Israeli Bedouin in the Negev region.

In the Bedouin community in the Negev region, the combination of high level of poverty, very conservative social structures, and stringent logistical constraints, which make it impossible to build additional houses, prevents women from starting new independent households away from their former spouses and families. In addition to the practical problems of lack of financial resources, and children’s custody, it is socially more acceptable for a woman to be in a polygamous marriage than to return to her family as a divorcee. Hence in most cases the only option is to remain in the house of the former spouse.

Certain government policies compound the problem of Bedouin women living in polygamous situations, rather than assisting women to get out of such situations. The authorities do not prosecute men for violating the law forbidding polygamy, but often penalize divorced women who live near their former spouse by denying them the single mother benefits, even in cases where the women are no longer living with their former spouse.

The authorities are currently in the process of amending the Penal Law. The authorities’ explanation of the proposed amendment, which passed the first reading in the Knesset in March 2005, is that the phenomenon of polygamy has increased among the Bedouin population and that "the tool in usage for circumventing the legal prohibition is ‘apparent’ divorce from the first wife, when in actual fact she continues to live in the husband’s house or in proximity and continues to take care of the children and the household while this is full polygamy".(127) The proposed amendment would extend the definition of polygamy to include divorced women who live "close to" the former spouse.

The adoption of this amendment in its current form would have widespread and detrimental financial consequences for all formally divorced women who continue to live near their former husbands’ home – which applies to many divorced Bedouin women because they want to be near their children and continue to take care of them, and/or because their parents home is in the same area (in the Bedouin society marriage between relatives is very common). The fact that the proposed amendment does not define the term "in proximity/close to" widens the scope for denying single mother benefits to divorced women on the grounds that they live "near" their former spouses." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The facts in the first paragraph are correct, and it's all about spin. If you read the MMM report I posted earlier, it says the exact same thing, except that the lack of punishment for polygamy is presented as being considerate to the Bedouin population, which cannot be expected to change their customs overnight. So at least part of the facts are not disputed. The other paragraphs are more up for debate, I hope that other sources are provided to balance the claims, also we may want to examine Amnesty's footnotes which may provide a wealth of new information. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how we could get across the complexity around this issue, but, I know that many Arabs who are against polygamy do view the government as complicit in the continuation of this practice which really has no rational place outside a nomadic context. The reason many look upon the government's 'delicate', as in almost nonexistent, handling of this issue with cynicism and frustration is that somehow the government has not been too worried about upsetting the delicate balance of Bedouin life as far as self-subsistence agriculture or land rights go, and has been plenty strict about enforcing the law in such a way as to severely curtail the Bedouin way of life as desert 'wanderers'(they were never really wanderers), but has never been too keen to curtail the aspects of Bedouin tradition which harm women and thus hold back Bedouin society asd a whole. Furthermore, the end of semi-nomadism severely hurt Bedouin women's status in the family - today they have far less of an economic role, and with the lack of jobs around, obviously they are not going to enter the workforce and compete with their unemployed husbands. Clearly, outside government intervention to combat a deeply rooted cultural practice would be difficult, and Bedouin themselves are primarily responsible for this matter. However, don't you think if the government had gotten started on it in the 50's onward, there would be progress? We have seen what the government can when it wants to confiscate Bedouin lands, impose State ownership, and evict what it calls 'squatters' etc. - so we know it is capable of orchestrating huge transformations. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Health

Amnesty Notes:

• Very few health care facilities are available in the unrecognised Bedouin villages in the Negev, mostly basic mobile clinics or caravans,(114) and according to the Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights (PHR-Israel) the number of doctors is a third of the norm.(115) Thirty-eight villages have no medical services,(116) and ambulances do not serve the unrecognized villages, denying residents ready access to emergency health care.
• The State has provided no water infrastructure for the unrecognized villages. In some villages residents have managed by buying containers of water, and, more recently, pipes have been installed to bring water into some villages. Due to the high desert temperatures, fungi, bacteria and rust develop very quickly in the plastic containers or metal tanks, leading to numerous infections and skin diseases (e.g. scabies).
• In 2003, the infant mortality rate (IMR) was 13.3 per 1,000 births in the Negev, when it was 3.9 among the Jewish population and 5 among the Israeli population at large.

LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting information, although I believe that 90% of it should go to the unrecognized villages article, because these statistics do not appear to apply to Bedouins in permanent towns like Rahat and Tel Sheva. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it in before I saw your comment. We'll have to figure out what will go into each article. I don;t think all data on the unrecog villages should be separated out. My view is that the unrecog article should mostly deal with the specifics of the land dispute issue, and have a section on services, with an edited down history section, and maybe edited down environment and demography sections.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am ambivalent on this issue, leaning more towards including info about unrecognized villages only in its main article. However, because these villages are central to the Negev Bedouin subject, most of the info (especially statistical) could be included here as well. However, it should be included in a NPOV manner, i.e. distinction should be made about recognized vs. unrecognized villages when detailing access to utilities and services, because there is usually a clear statistical difference. You can't just provide statistics for unrecognized villages and claim that they apply to all Negev Bedouins. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Education

Amnesty Notes:

• For example, there are very few education facilities for the population of the seven unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Abu-Tulul al-Shihabi area near Beer Sheva and Dimona, and the right to education of the population has been overlooked for years.(110) The nearest high school for a population of 12,000 is 15 kilometres away. This has had particularly negative impact on girls who account for 77% of the drop out rate.(111) Such situation is particular to the Bedouin villages; by contrast and the Israeli authorities have promptly provided much smaller Jewish villages in the Negev region and elsewhere in Israel, as well as Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, with road networks and education and other facilities. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this part is disputed, and Amnesty's report is much more neutral than the Wikipedia article, in that it provides the facts (this is suprising, coming from the anti-Israel Amnesty, but that's for another discussion). The Amnesty article doesn't claim that the Bedouins in unrecognized villages get no education, just that it's hard to get, and far away (although we should clarify that the length matters because of transportation, not actual distance, because 15 km is really not much). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, 15 km. not that much. FYI - I just posted all these quotes here for future reference, was not expecting a dispute:) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved a lot from Unrecognized villages

Hi there, I moved most of the Unrecognized villages article here, since it all belongs here anyway; I will be editing down the other article and adding in other info. Don't be afraid - I will be cutting out some of the SYNTH in the next day or so. I've run out of time today! Sorry. Trust me, I'll go back and edit things down somewhat. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Will try to get to it today...LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

National identity/relations with Palestinians

See this article: "In Israel, the Negev Bedouins are often presented and perceived both by Jews and Arabs alike as a group of “loyal and obedient” citizens of the State. Like the Druze, they are viewed as being completely different from the rest of the Palestinians of Israel.1 Their relationships to the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are considered inexistent. This commonly held opinion is often buttressed by reference to their “cultural specificities” and in particular to their “nomadic culture”. Additionally, their political behavior is also cited, and is too frequently reduced to their voluntary enlistment in the Israeli army, and their low level of political militancy hostile to the State of Israel as compared to other Palestinians with Israeli citizenship or more simply, their reticence in presenting themselves as Palestinians. The idea that the Negev Bedouins are an isolated and a specific group is clearly also rooted in the words and deeds of the actors involved. This idea is further strengthened by direct or indirect support from researchers who have investigated this group. To date, the studies dealing with the Negev Bedouins have cast them solely in a binary relationship with Israeli society.2 Although some of these writers note the ties Bedouins have maintained with their relatives and neighbors in the West Bank and Gaza3 over the last fifty years, none have found it relevant to examine this issue more deeply. From January 1998 to July 2000, while I was conducting research on this group, I was struck by the recurrence and the regularity of meetings and cross border exchanges involving Negev Bedouin and their relatives or neighbors living in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or in the Sinai. Occurring as ‘non-events’, these activities cast doubt on the accepted view of relationships between the Bedouins of the Negev and their Palestinian neighbors and call for a renewed approach to this group and its status within the Israeli-Palestinian space."

Border guards, precedent ( I don't know where my citation for this is, but it is interesting): After being forced off land from the Shoval area of the Negev by the Israeli military in the early 1950s, the State settled the Abul Giyan Bedouin clan in Attir. In 1956, the government strategically placed the Abul Giyan near Israel’s border with Jordan, and these Bedouin internal refugees turned into border guards. The military provided guns to the Abul Giyan Bedouin, and instructed them to shoot Arabs sneaking across the border into Israel. In 1970, after Israel’s conquest of the West Bank erased the Jordanian border near Attir, the government confiscated the weapons previously distributed to the Abul Giyan for purposes of policing the border and preventing the movement of other Arabs. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Demolitions/land confiscation

I believe that the Unrecognized Villages article should be the center for such info, however there should be a short section included here as well.

• Creating a timeline of demolitions over at Unrecognized villages would be fantastic (Unfortunately, I have not been charting demolitions over the years, and it would take loads and loads of work.)
• Another thing - it needs to be clear that 85% of the Negev (which is 60% of the country) is off-limits to Bedouin, and that 90% of the former Bedouin range has been confiscated from the Bedouin. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It should also be made clear that these restrictions only apply to certain applications. For example, it is fully legal and possible for a Bedouin to acquire a home in Mitzpe Ramon, or Tel Aviv for that matter. Your statement implies otherwise. Other than that, I agree about the content being in the other article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Guardian quote: .6% of health ministry funds for developing Arab facilities

This was deleted today, citing a partisan source: "As yet the Israeli government has not seen fit to address this disparity through equitable budget allocations: in the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 0.6% of its 277 m-shekel (£35m) budget (1.6 m shekels {£200,000}) to develop healthcare facilities." Love it or hate it, the Guardian is the Guardian, the NYT of the UK, reputable and citable. You may kind of hate Chris McGreal, and hate the point he is making in this article especially, but the citation refers to the statistic he mentions, not to his larger point. I think deletion of this vital bit of info (not Mcgreal's opinion) is not going to fly. I'm not re-inserting as yet, awaiting discussion. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not about the Negev Bedouins, or even Israeli Bedouins in general, but about Arabs in Israel. As such it does not belong in this article. Please find sources that explicitly and directly discuss Negev Bedouins. When you do, please make sure their claims are inserted into the article in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, rather than McGreal's polemic one.Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To what Canadian Monkey said, I'd also like to add that the statistic could use examination, preferrably in a document detailing the health ministry's budget. Unless I'm missing something, development of healthcare facilities doesn't comprise the bulk of the health ministry's budget (additionally, according to Yediot, about 20% of the health budget is not even allocated anywhere), so 0.6% of the total budget could be a much larger percentage of the facilities development budget. Just a thought. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is that Arab cities don't have any high-tech expensive hospitals, and most Israeli Arabs are treated in hospitals located in Jewish cities, without discrimination. As such, there isn't much reason to allocate huge funds for development of healthcare facilities in the Arab sector. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Abu Basma and unrecognized villages

The Abu Basma Regional Council article very clearly says "the creation of the Abu Basma Regional Council involves the recognition of villages that were previously under threat of demolition". The list you refer to at the end of that article does not appear to be sourced - and is very dubious. For example, it lists Drijat as one of the unrecognized communities - yet we have a source in this article that documents the fact that the Israeli Ministry of the Interior has installed a world's-first solar power system for the entire village - which would indicate that this village is recognized. Please provide sources for the claim that the villages that are part of ABRC are still unrecognized.Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the lower section is unsourced. On the other hand, saying that five of the villages are as yet unrecognized is not inconsistent with the statement: "the creation of the Abu Basma Regional Council involves the recognition of villages that were previously under threat of demolition". The rest of the villages on the list were formerly unrecognized and now have been fully recoghnized. The other five are in the process of recognition. However, the list could well be out of date, and you're of course right, needs to be sourced; for instance, I believe Abu tlul should be official by now. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to other pastoral communities

It is interesting to compare the negev bedouins to other pastoral communities. you may wish to read more about Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan, another bedouin population for example. i'd be happy if you could provide more examples for comparison so we can start to make a decent comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiS-Saath (talk • contribs) 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As interesting as it would be, I can think of nothing trickier than making comparisons of this sort, and while I have a lot of background on the Negev Bedouin in Israel today, I am less knowledgable about the mostly unwritten history of the Bedouin prior to 1948, and simply do not have the kind of expertise necessary to see where the Negev Bedouin do and don't compare with Bedouin in other regions prior to, and after, 1948. Very complicated stuff. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion and views of Israeli leaders

In response to the complaint that there are not enough official Israeli viewpoints, I added some material on Ben-Gurion's view of the need to expel the Bedouin and take their land in the Negev. I am not fully satisfied, however, as there is a lot more material on this and I do not have time to do more now, nor do I have all my books at my current location. Also, I think there needs to be a separate section on the expulsion that lays out the bare facts and timeline. I will do this in a few weeks when I get home and have all my books at hand.--Tirpse77 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you've done so in good faith, but this version does not adhere to Neutral point of view and uses highly opinionated and emotional language. since you've replaced a well-referenced section with another one, i see no harm in reverting. in particular, this is not what i thought needed addressing, and benny morris is not a spokesmen for the israeli government or a representative of it. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The language is quoted almost exactly from the source material. Please do not simply delete sourced material just because you do not like it. First you complain that official Israeli views were not included, now you complain that they are too included. If you have specific suggestions about how to make the material more NPOV I would welcome that, but it is a total violation of WP practice to delete RS material simply because you do not like it. The source is impeccable, the material is directly relevant, hence there is no grounds for deletion. You can however make some suggestions for how to improve it. While Benny Morris is not an Israeli government spokesman, he is citing Israeli government documents and quoting Israeli officials. Are you arguing that Morris is not a reliable source? Please be clear about what your problem is with the material. --Tirpse77 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record MiS-Saath, I did not "replace a well-referenced section with another one." I did not remove ANY sourced material. I added additional sourced material and references and you had absolutely no grounds to remove it. If you revert again without engaging in discussion and showing why the sourced material is inappropriate I will assume that is an act of bad faith. --Tirpse77 (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i thought you had replaced the Lustik referenced text with morris' text. i misread the diff. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the cited reference (Morris, Benny, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p.166) I can’t see anything remotely like the claim that the Bedouins were expelled “as part of a premeditated plan, in the words of David Ben-Gurion to "conquer" the Negev”. The only mention of Bedouins on the page is “Villagers were expelled and villages were blown up or burned, as happened to Al-Muharraqa on 16 August, and to the small Bedouin villages and encampments east of the line Al-Imara-Ze’elim in the last days of September and the first days of October”. Accordingly, I have removed this statement. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The references were accurate based on what I originally wrote and which another editor objected to. The plan in question is of course Plan Dalet, which I mentioned when I first inserted the section. In any case, I will rewrite this section comprehensively in a few days using multiple sources so there can be no doubt. Will that satisfy you? --Tirpse77 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are planning a comprehensive rewrite, I suggest you place your proposed changes here for discussion, before putting them into the article itself. This will prevent the kind of source misrepresentation that plagued the previous contribution. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Canadian Monkey's suggestion/request. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to do that as long as everyone else agrees to do the same. There was no source misrepresentation at all. If you check all the original references I used and page numbers they all referred to specific facts.--Tirpse77 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to cooperate on this, and will happily submit any comprehensive rewrites I might propose in the futiure to this talk page for review before making them in the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and edit-warring

It seems that there are editors who wish this article -- by their own admission -- to reflect Israeli government viewpoints. They are engaged in tendentious editing and edit-warring, removing sourced material and refusing to engage in any discussion about that material. I urge them to stop their aggressive edit-warring and engage in peaceful discussion about the actual material, which they have refused to do.--Tirpse77 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A single revert per editor does not make an edit war. please keep to your cool. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My sourced material was reverted wholesale twice without either editor engaging in substantive discussion or suggesting alternatives. I am glad that you have decided to engage in discussion and have some respect for the work of others.--Tirpse77 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see what's wrong with having the article also reflect the israeli government's viewpoint. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The key word is "also." Some people -- and perhaps I do not mean anyone here -- believe "only" is the appropriate standard. Thankfully you do not agree with that. Please be advised I will be adding material from Ilan Pappe's book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine as the forced expulsion beginning in 1948 was a major traumatic episode that shaped the life of an entire community for the past sixty years and deserves more than one or two sentences in an encyclopedia article. I really think Expulsion and Flight deserves its own section, followed by a separate section "Under Israeli Administration." I hope you are ok with that?--Tirpse77 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that Ilan Pappe is not a reliable source per WP:RS. About your comment about expulsion and flight, I think what you're doing here is WP:SYNTH. If Benny Morris claims that there was in the past a pattern for the expulsion of Bedouins, that can be inserted, but you can't put other cases of perceived maltreatment under the same heading without violating WP:SYNTH (unless Morris or another reliable source explicitly links the events to a central pattern).

Really??? And on what basis do you claim that an internationally-recognized, peer-reviewed historian and an Israeli scholar is not an RS? I must say I can't wait to hear this one. And you have clearly misread Wikipedia:RS. In any case, there is plenty of evidence. --Tirpse77 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

About the government's viewpoint, I think you should go back to the reason why this whole discussion was started in the first place. I added a POV tag to the article, and it was generally agreed that in order to make the article NPOV, it required the government's side on the contentious issues. Adding more and more insinuations made by fringe 'historians' like Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky (a linguist), etc. doesn't help the matter in any way. Remember that the ultimate goal is to make the article NPOV, not insert as much info as you can from any source you can find. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not added anything by Noam Chomsky, and it is not necessary to launch ad hominem attacks on Pappe to try to discredit him by calling him "fringe." He is "fringe" in Israel, a country largely in denial about its past (for good reason), but completely mainstream in contemporary historiography of the region. We are not citing his political views here anyway, but his peer reviewed scholarship which more than meets WP:RS. I am also happy to dispense with Pappe and cite only the original documents he uses. Also we can use Benny Morris (2004), Nur Masalha, Walid Khalidi and others. I realize that for some people no level of proof is sufficient because belief in Israel's "innocence" is an article of faith not susceptible to evidence. --Tirpse77 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's a policy called WP:RS, which excludes fringe historians like Pappe or Khalidi. Morris, however criticized, has been agreed on as a reliable source on Wikipedia, however. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I am not familiar with this "policy" of excluding Pappe and Khalidi (which of the many Khalidis are you talking about? Please show me where these exists.--Tirpse77 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pappe is not "maintream", his extreme views are a minority even within the minority which is the group of so-called "New Historians". Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid these sorts of ad hominem attacks might be good enough for internet forums but won't do here. Can you show me any peer-reviewed journal articles that have challenged the reliability or methodology of Ilan Pappe's work on the expulsion of the Palestinians?--Tirpse77 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't really need us for that, just read the article on Ilan Pappe and look at the references, especially for the Katz controversy and the critical assessment section. For example, Seth J. Frantzman of the reputable journal Middle Eastern Quarterly, said that Pappe's work is "a cynical exercise in manipulating evidence to fit an implausible thesis." Benny Morris, a much more reliable and well-known historian, loved and hated by both 'sides', also heavily criticizes Pappe's work. And this is just from the Wikipedia article. There are many more examples, if you look beyond Noam Chomsky, Walid Khalidi and John Pilger (after whom, by the way, a word was named (to pilger), meaning 'to tell lies'). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronological error

I've temporarily removed the following text from its location: "Another major source of employment were regional mines and the Ramat Hovav toxic waste facility and its factories, all very hazardous occupations. Bedouins were generally discriminated against in employment, as preference was given to Jews, and as of 1958, employment in the Bedouin male population was less than 3.5%." This cannot possibly be mentioned together with the 1950 employment problems, as ramat hovav was founded in 1975 according to its page. please help me to put it in its right location as i can't seem to access the reference it points to. MiS-Saath (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you should have removed the material. You could simply have added a tag so that another editor will know there is a discrepancy and look for the material. If it is removed to the talk page that is less likely. I am sure you do not want the matter ignored. Have you checked the source or otherwise determined that there were no facilities whatsoever prior to 1975? WP is not a source for WP articles so please restore this material and add the appropriate tag. --Tirpse77 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the ramat hovav municipality website. you can readd it with the tag if you like, i just hate to leave pages in process with known problems. it's not an immensely important thing so that its temporary removal makes for any significance. i'm not sure though what's the employment rate of bedouins compared with non-bedouins in the facilities. but anyway if it bothers you, feel free to re-add it. perhaps you could access the source, i can't see it for some reason. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some disputed changes should go under the dispute resolution process, i.e. discussion before editing. However, I'm not sure how it helps to dispute a clear-cut case like this. It doesn't hurt the article to remove anachronistic info. Keep in mind that edit histories are preserved, so if we 'lost' a sourced paragraph in an edit, which was made in order to make the article more accurate, the sourced text can always be re-added in the appropriate location. As Mis-Saath says, it doesn't help to keep content tagged forever if the issue can be resolved quickly and easily. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for catching that MiSSaath, Ramat Hovav was created later. This sentence was left over from a time when the article was organized differently. On the other hand, this sentence could easily go further down, in the "today" section; it would have been easy enough to move it down there, no? (As far as edit summaries go, although we do our best to summarize every edit, when a lot of changes are made, they cannot all fit in the edit summary.) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you cut both sentences, i.e. not just the hazardous occupations sentence but the one about 1950s employment discrimination. I cannot imagine why, simply because one sentence is identified as improperly placed, the one after it (which is properly placed) would have to be deleted? Thank you for bringing it to the talk page, but next tim when you do so, please don't leave behind the citations (there was a citation for the 3.5% quote earlier). Nuanced editing is a must when editing out or editing down sections.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, i stand corrected. i thought this was already mentioned earlier. But i see it's fixed now. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Drijat

It appears that this article and the Drijat article contradict hebrew wikipedia. hebrew wikipedia states that 'In particular, the people of drijat are NOT bedouins, they differ from them in descent and culture, and have come to the area in the 19th century from the south hebron hills'. the drijat website itself does mention that they're fellahin, but says nothing to either assert or negate their bedouiness. i believe that the omission is more telling, coupled with the fact that they do assert that they come from south hebron hills and not desert nomads. therefore i'm removing the word 'bedouin' from both this article and the drijat article. maybe we should even remove its entire content from this page, but that's not something i'll do 'just like that' without prior talk. MiS-Saath (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right - I cannot believe I did not take notice of that. I will make the edit. (Just to be clear, I was not the one who added Dreijat - I would not have).LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Demolitions, development and demographics

I am thinking of creating several subheadings here:

• Ownership disputes: State land or indigenous rights?
• The State response (with two further subheadings - Eviction, demolition and uprooting, and Construction, development and concentration)
• The Bedouin response (with two further subheadings, perhaps? - Self-subsistence on agricultural settlements, and Investment in urban development (not sure these subheadings will be necessary, we'll see)
• The demographic issue

LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections, go for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

actually, before you do that, can you make sure the unsourced statements in this section, which have been tagged for a while, are either sourced, or removed? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. Go for it. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I haven't had time of late, and may not for a few days. When I manage to get to it I will look for citations, too. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am, too, busy with another topic, vaguely related. but when i have time, i'll come to revisit your work here. MiS-Saath (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

POV in the Exodus, population transfers and Israeli administration section

This section actually has some very interesting info, some of which I didn't previously know. However, that's not the point. The section is written with a decidedly pro-Bedouin and anti-government POV, mentioning only in passing that the Bedouins didn't register their lands on purpose in order not to pay taxes, and have in essence been breaking the law and illegally settling on state land (Ottoman, British and later Israeli) since 1858. The section also makes wide use of the word 'confiscate', even though it's contradicted by other text in the section, which states that the Bedouin didn't legally own most of this land. How can you confiscate illegally-settled land? It seems that the main POV problem of this entire article is downplaying the vast lawbreaking in the Bedouin sector (otherwise it's a fine article, really), and displaying the Bedouins as supposed victims of Israeli oppression and expulsion. Further proof is that the paragraph that mentions Israeli contributions to Bedouins education and healthcare is tiny and pushed down to the bottom of this important section. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. And thank you for bringing this to talk. For the moment, I'll start with a perspective I think you may agree with (and I'll get to your other points later): The Ottomans were foreign rulers. The Ottomans did not reside in the Negev (except for maybe a tiny tiny eency weency group of temporary administrators in Ber Seba), while the Bedouin did. The Ottomans did nothing for the Bedouin, and offered them nothing whatsoever in exchange for taxes. Thus there was no reason whatsoever for the Bedouin to pay taxes to these foreign rulers who offered nothing in return for taxation. The Ottomans knew this, and understood that coercing a land registration process in the Negev was futile; they did not really make an effort to register Bedouin lands. Indeed, because the desert region had almost no resources, charting the Negev was not really in the interest of the Ottomans. Again, while the Bedouin were the original --and sole -- inhabitants of the desert for hundreds of years prior to the period of land registration carried out by outside conquerors, neither the Turkish nor the British conquerors inhabited the desert. Thus, to call Bedouin residence on the land during the period of land registration, illegal, is beyond comprehension. And to suggest that tax evasion in the context of citizenship (i.e. full Israeli citizenship, in urban townships) is the same as tax aversion under foreign rule (i.e. under Turkish rule, in the absence of voting rights or services), is absolutely erroneous. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, a perspective you may not agree with -- not historically so much as ethically based -- regarding your premise, and the government's, that the Bedouin are squatters: It is because they were an oral people, like most indigenous peoples, that they never registered their lands - it was because their way of life was not one of bureaus and drawers and legalese, but instead one of customary law, and their map was not on paper, but rather consisted of the lay of the land itself, a map of pure topography - the most real and tangible map. The written word has been a curse for the Bedouin and all indigenous people, the basis of the 'confiscation' of their lands, the reason that 90%, then another 8%, and even more, of the land they once called their own, has been stripped from them. Thus, to call Bedouin residence on the land after the period of land registration, illegal, is to fail to understand that the immensity of the adjustment to the sudden imposition of the written world of law (i.e. within a span of four or five years) for a traditionally oral (i.e. non-literate) people. Sigh, and sigh again, because it really does make me sad that simply because the Bedouin were not a people of paperwork, that their land claims in this written world of today, are untraceable. They were never written, as so they are invisible, they were never written and so they are erased. At the risk of repeating myself, their 'crime' was that they were a people of the word, not the pen, a people of the land, not paper, and the idea of registering their lands made no sense for the Bedouin when the Turks and British passed idly through. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, your last point: the fact that the description of Israeli contributions to Bedouin education and healthcare is so minimal is not intentional, I assure you. I simply am not as informed about the positive aspects of Israeli rule as the negative aspects. The contributions of anyone who has more positive information are welcome - I certainly will not reduce any additions of substance. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

While I am prepared to concede about the part regarding Turkish and British rule (after all, this isn't what the discussion is all about), I disagree with you about Israeli rule. There is a Hebrew legal phrase (which probably exists in other languages), saying that "Ignorance of a law does not exempt you from it". It's true that the imposition of Israeli law on the Bedouins sector was rather sudden (perhaps because of their failure/refusal to accept Turkish and British law), but the way I see it, the consideration given to the Bedouin sector by the Israeli government in this area has been enormous. For example, while polygamy has been illegal for years, no Bedouins have been put in jail for this crime. A government recommendation report linked to somewhere in this article clearly states that this is out of consideration for the Bedouin way of life. In addition, illegal Bedouin land occupation has generally been allowed, and the government turns a blind eye. This is not so for the Jewish sector, where if you build 1 sqm outside of your owned land, the new structure will be destroyed within days.

Moreover, the Bedouins by now have had about 50 years to adjust to Israeli law. At this point, I don't think that their illegal activities should be downplayed in any way. I agree that discrimination should be covered in this article, but so should the Bedouin outright refusal to accept a new way of life. Interestingly, their is no Bedouin campaign for an independent Bedouin state, nor there an all-Bedouin party in the Knesset. This further undermines the opinion that their illegal activity is the result of 'years of Israeli oppression'. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to be away for a few days and am heading out the door, so I will briefly respond to several points:

• "Ignorance of a law does not exempt you from it": The Bedouin never had an opportunity to abide by Israeli law regarding land ownership, because they were never given the opportunity to register their lands under the new Israeli system.
• Polygamy is one area the government has not intervened, while the government does indeed readily go about demolishing Bedouin homes - Here, what Negev Bedouin argue is that enforcing the law against polygamy would actually lead to the advancement of the status of Bedouin society, while demolishing Bedouin homes is no way forwarding the status of Bedouin society. The polygamy case, at any rate, is a completely and utterly different matter than the matter of land rights. It is very convenient to equate the two issues, but to do so is to fail to grasp that while many Bedouin oppose polygamy, all Bedouin feel that the land was stolen from beneath their feet. Those who readily concede that the polygamy tradition needs to change are often the same people that, with regard to the land issue, it is not the Bedouin, but the Israeli 'tradition' of dismissing Arab land claims and casting Bedouin as trespassers, that needs to change."
• "This is not so for the Jewish sector, where if you build 1 sqm outside of your owned land, the new structure will be destroyed within days." I beg to differ - there is much evidence that demolition policy is unevenly applied, with preference towards Jews, not Arabs by any means. I can get the stats if you would like. For illustration, consider the fact that hundreds of individuals like Shai Dromi illegally squatted on state lands (otherwise known as former Bedouin range) to build his single family ranch, and illegally engaged in animal husbandry, yet the issue never came up in the courts and hardly at all in the media during the furor around his arrest for killing a Bedouin goat thief and wounding another.
• "the Bedouins by now have had about 50 years to adjust to Israeli law": Again, the Bedouin never had an opportunity to abide by Israeli law regarding land ownership, because they were never given the opportunity to register their lands under the new Israeli system. Thus for the Bedouin, if you look at it from their perspective for a minute, an hour, a day, a year, the 'law of the land,' i.e. land laws, have been illegitimate to begin with and continue to be to this day. There is no reason for the Bedouin to accept the premise that they are squatters, when in fact that they were native inhabitants and only retroactively termed 'trespassers'.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are looking at the issue from a humanitarian point of view, instead of a legal point of view. It's true that most Negev Bedouins didn't legally own any land in 1948, because of the reasons discussed above (Ottoman and mandate land registration). Jews who did not have legal tapus to their land prior to the state's founding also had to rent land from the state (you can't buy land in Israel), for which they had to pay. In short, Jews didn't get the chance to register previously unowned land without paying for it either. This is one reason I oppose the wording 'reverted to state land' for any Bedouin land, because they never owned it.

The above created a tough situation for the Bedouins, who automatically lost most of the lands they grazed in, although their land claims were vast and expansive, covering a lot of land which they never owned, lived or grazed on (same as how the Palestinians are claiming vast unused land today as their own, without any legal proof of ownership). Because of these extraordinary claims having little to do with reality, the Bedouins also refused to lease state land like their Jewish counterparts, which forced the government to act against their illegal land occupation and restrict the areas where they could live. As the years passed, the Bedouins still refused to pay any money (or taxes) for land, thus refusing to acknowledge Israeli land ownership laws, again as a result of extraordinary land claims with zero legal proof. In the end the two sides reached an impasse and the government, which you blame for all the Bedouins' problems, went out of its way to help this sector for free by building a series of towns for housing the Bedouins. The towns were meant to house the majority of Negev Bedouins, but due to polygamy and an average of 6 (surviving) children per family, this didn't really help, and today these towns constructed in the 1980s aren't enough to house any more than 50% of the Bedouin population in the Negev.

Now, I never said that the humanitarian point of view and the vast Bedouin claims should not be represented, but you imply that you also oppose including the legal/government side of the issue, which created a huge slant in favor of the Bedouin claims, which many believe are largely unfounded.

As for Shai Dromi, I never heard anything about him illegally owning/building a ranch. Do you have related articles? Even if true, it wouldn't indicate a trend of illegal Jewish land squatting, but it would be interesting in any case.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am on the road and do not have time to answer, but, no the above is not a humanitarian argument, but a legal one. My view rests upon the fact that under Israeli rule the Bedouin never had a chance to stake their rights to the land, on paper, by legal means, within the Israeli legal system. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

LamaLo, there's also documented (at least according to the ILA) attempts to encroach on land where there is no record of either presence or claims, monitored by aerial photos. the bedouins (to my best of knowledge) never recorded their oral land ownership agreements for making future claims. i am not aware of any list that says "plots X,Y and Z are ours but we were never allowed to file for them". you know it, "Al Badya fok al Kanoon". we're only left to hypothesize what would have happened if such a claim was indeed made. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)