26 thoughts on “Israeli Bedouin Kills Border Policeman Ethnically-Cleansing His Village – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. “No attempt has been made to consult with Bedouin about any of this…”

    Richard. You know that there were court proceedings. You know the residents petitioned the Court to prevent the demolitions and that the petitioners lost their case before the Israeli Supreme Court. The residents asked for, and received due process. Most court cases are settled, not tried in Court and appealed.

    By having a trial, the residents chose to play a zero sum game. Their alternative was to negotiate an equitable settlement between the parties.

    “The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts,” —Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein in the majority opinion.

    You should be decrying this gross violation of the rule of law rather than trying to find ways to excuse wanton, premeditated murder.

    1. So like the Trail of Tears in the US.

      European colonizers coveting the land of the five civilized tribes. And voila… the courts come to the rescue and the land theft is accomplished. The Xhosa and Zulu of South Africa have their history with European settlers’ land theft, too.

      1. Poul: Your hasbara handlers aren’t do a very good job, bud. Genocide against other native groups doesn’t justify similar Israeli Jewish treatment of Bedouin. Or is that your argument?

        This is a perfect example of an off-topic comment having nothing to do with my original post. Consider yourself warned–read the comment rules, carefully.

        1. I am not talking about genocide but the use of the courts to removed people from lands those in power covet.


          The Indian Removal Act was passed by the congress and hence law. And upheld by the courts. But was it just and moral or an abuse of power?
          You cannot rely on judges to be impartial or fair. They’re part of the political culture of a country. Why else do Americans put so much importance on who is appointed to the Supreme Court

          You can take the same problem property rights nowadays in South Africa with the new Expropriation Act regarding white farmers and their land. The people in power, ANC, are now in position to do something similar to what we saw in Zimbabwe. Again based on law but the question of justice and morality is once again a key issue.


          I don’t see Bedouins having their property rights protected in Israel. An problem unavoidable linked to political views of those in power in Israel and their views of what Israel should be like.

          And yes I better read those comment rules.

          1. @Poul: despite the atrocious treatment afforded Native Americans, they have been accorded special rights as indigenous peoples which other Americans are not afforded as a form of compensation for injustices done them. Bedouin receive no such consideration from the State.

            Whites are in a far more tenuous position than indigenous peoples in Africa. since It was whites who first disenfranchised their ancestors. I will never justify their mistreatment or expropriation of white farms. But there is a context to it. There is no context or justification for such treatment of Bedouin.

          2. @ poul: You’re boundless cynicism marks you either as Israeli or someone aping Israelis.

            You cannot rely on judges to be impartial or fair.

            Whoops, there goes the entire basis of western democracy and jurisprudence. I beg to differ. Here in the U.S. we do indeed rely on judges to be precisely that. Of course, not all judges attain those standards. Or perhaps some of their rulings do & others don’t. But that IS the standard and everyone judges and those who appoint them strive for it.

    2. @ Ben: Court proceedings are not “consultation.” Not to mention that the Israeli legal system privileges Jews and endorses theft of indigenous non-Jewish groups. That is not justice. So there is no reason for Bedouin to feel that their grievance has been addressed, let alone redressed.

      There is no way to negotiate an equitable settlement, as you put it, when the State is simply stealing your patrimony & land. The only equitable settlement is for the State to take its filthy hands off your property which was awarded to you by the same state decades earlier.

      The State no more “owns” this land than the Bedouin do. In fact, since Bedouin settlement predated the State, if anything the Bedouin have a greater right to title than the State.

      1. @Richard

        “your property which was awarded to you by the same state decades earlier.”

        Incorrect. The State licensed the Bedouin to live there, after these Bedouin voluntarily moved to el Hiran subsequent to a dispute they had had with another tribe.
        Only the State can only issue you a driver’s license and only the State can take that license away from you. Neither your driver’s license, nor the el Hiran land was ‘awarded’. See Chief Justice Rubenstein’s decision, quoted supra.

        1. @ Ben: Nonsense. The State didn’t “license” them to live there. The IDF placed them there. Then it washed its hands of them. The State only returned when the land became valuable to them as a prospective Jewish settlement.

          Indigenous rights are not equivalent to a driver’s license.

          You are done in this thread.

  2. [comment deleted: you have already argued the court case justified state theft of the land. This comment duplicates your earlier one. Duplication or using the same argument twice is a comment rule violation. I reject the notion that this theft can be justified in any way; and find your attempts to be offensive.]

      1. @ Elisabeth: That’s right. Not to mention the trial of Joan of Arc, the Salem Witch trials, the Japanese internment, and the British hanging of the 1916 Irish volunteers. How about trial by drowning–if you floated you were innocent; if you sank you were guilty. That was a great medieval judicial concept. All totally kosher trials in strict legal terms of the day. But ones which held the prevailing judicial system up to ridicule for centuries to come. That’s the company that Ben, and Israel keeps.

        1. So, “eminent domain” is theft? interesting giving that it is allowed (and practiced) in the USA. is the same thing- forced evacuation with “just” compensation so the land can be cleared for public use. In this case the public use is creating a new town in which thousounds (instaed of the current 500) people could live. And yes, anyone could buy a house there including Bdeween.

          Moreovrer, your claim means rejection of the concept of legal ownership (which the inhabitants in this case did not have).
          I am sure you know how many people in the USA got evicted from their houses, in which they livedmany years, because they couldn’t pay their morgagae anymore. The fact they lived there for years (and paid already a lot of money) count for nothing and they find themselves evicted without any financiel compensation or alternative housing given them for free.

          1. @ Amico: No, it’s not eminent domain. The State settled them there. In cases of eminent domain, the State seizes private property. The Bedouin hardly even recognize the notion of private property as they are a tribal society. Once the State settled them it no longer had any right to move them without their approval to the move.

            The State certainly has no right to determine that the Bedouin are less valuable residents of that land. It has no right to privilege Jewish settlers over the indigenous Bedouin.

            As for “legal ownership,” that is true. The Bedouin predated the State. So it is up to the State to figure out a way to respect Bedouin rights to live where they lived for centuries before a State ever existed there.

    1. [Comment deleted: read the comment rules! If you don’t, and don’t respect them, you will be gone here. I don’t explain or justify editorial decisions. But on your case I did explain why I deleted your comment. You didn’t like the explanation. That’s not my problem.]

    1. The brave soldiers seem to have cause the death of one of their own colleagues with their usual trigger-happy behavior.

  3. “I simply cannot call his act unjustified”

    So if a settler runs over a yassamnik during a destruction of an outpost, will you also be unable to call it unjustified? If not, what are the differences between the two situations?

    1. @Ephraim Khantsis: well, if it isn’t a wannabe settler terrorist! I salute you for having the guts to publish terror scenarios in your own name.

      As for murdering a Border Policeman, I’m sure if you did you’d get off somehow. Your Honenu lawyer, with millions of tax-deductible U.S donations, would get you off.

      As for whether it would be terror. Sure it would be. What are you protesting against? That your government, which already has dispossessed Palestinians of most of their land, hasn’t done the job thoroughly enough?? You protest that instead of stealing only 80% of Palestine, they should steal 100%?

      As I noted in my post, you & your Judean buddies are terrorists. If the shoe fits, wear it!

      1. So if I understand your position correctly, both would be terror, but a settler running over a yassamnik is unjustified because settlement, is unjustified, while a Bedouin running over a yassamnik cannot be called unjustified because his village is not morally problematic.

        1. @ Ephraim: No, actually the Bedouin driver didn’t intend to strike anyone as new video evidence proves. He was, in fact, shot before he posed any danger to anyone. Nor could police when they fired on him have known he planned a terror attack. IN other words, the terror was from the State. Your State (though I realize you don’t recognize it as yours, since it’s not a Davidic monarchy).

  4. “ethnic cleansing”. Really?
    We are talking about 500 people asked to move 5 miles from the improvised village they live in without any property rights to a nearby neighborhood in which they will have ownership over their land without having to pay a dime. And in which, by the way, most of their tribe is living in anyway. And they will receive substantial financial compensation. Most of them agreed to the deal. Few didn’t because they wanted more. Oh, and by the way, if they want to they can buy a house in the new neighborhood that is going to built there (Hiran), just as Arabs can (and do) buy a house in any such town. The family of the guy who ran over the policeman is a good example of a family that can surely afford that, at least as much as I can afford it. Just like the Arab families that by homes in Nazrat Elit or Carmiel.

    Calling this “ethnic cleansing” severely trivializes the concept of “ethic cleansing”.

    As for your weird definition of “terror”. “Terror” is not about being oppressed or not, or having justified grievances or not. Terror is about the means you use to fight your rival. If you choose to use violence but direct it against your rival’s army, police or strategic infrastructure than it is not terrorism. It is terrorism when your goal is to put fear (i.e. “terror”) into a civilian population in order to force it to give up to your demands or dominance (As did Robespierre during the French revolution) , whether directly or indirectly by making them put pressure on their government to give up. As the idea is to spread fear, the violence will be directed mostly towards civilians. So, the USA armies was indeed engaged in terror when it deliberately bombed civilian population in Germany and Japan in WW2. Hezbollah was not acting as a terror organization when attacking Isreali troops in Lebanon.
    As for the specific case here- even if the running over was a deliberate action (and i am not yet convinced that it was) I am not calling it “terror” as he directed his attack against a police force doing its work. I still see it as murder but not every murder is “terror”.

    1. @ Amico: All this is beside the point. I don’t care if there are 5 or 500,000 people. Their village was not “improvised.” And calling an indigenous village improvised is culturally racist and offensive. Be very careful how you characterize indigenous Israelis in future. They were settled there in 1956 by the IDF. That is, the State. The State has no right to rescind its decision unless the residents agree. If they don’t agree, the State has no right to move them. Further, since they predate the State, their residency and rights must be accorded special status.

      YOU say they will be substantially compensated. You don’t offer any evidence to support his claim or anything you say here. Israel never substantially compensates any non-Jew for anything. What you mean to say is that Israel deigns to give these poor Bedouin a few more kopeks than they’re used to getting and they should be happy with it. Which itself is racist.

      Nor do I care whether the other residents have left or where they went to. There are Bedouins who wish to remain in their homes. The State, cannot take these homes away unless they agree to it.

      You claim they refuse to move “because they wanted more.” Again, an unfounded, unsupported assertion. I do NOT accept such claims in comments. You will not present your opinion without credible evidence in future. If you do, you are violating comment rules. Consider this yet another warning.

      They can “buy a house?” Why would they do that? These are peoples who have been nomadic for most of their history. Why would they want to buy a house? Not to mention, what sort of place is this new city? It is an artificial construct, built without the consultation of its future residents. A city without any support for the residents. With no effort to integrate them into the western style offered to them.

      And you know the financial status of Alqiyan how? Yet another unfounded claim. Since you are already moderated, know that you are skating on the edge of being banned for multiple comment rule violations.

      As for trivializing ethnic cleansing, rather it is you who is trivializing the suffering & injustice done to the Bedouin, of whom you know next to nothing.

      If you choose to use violence but direct it against your rival’s army, police or strategic infrastructure than it is not terrorism

      So that means the capture of Gilad Shalit was not terror either according to this “definition.” And the grisly murder of two IDF soldiers who mistakenly drove into Ramallah and were lynched…that too wasn’t terror?

      Your definition of terror as solely confined to the killing of civilians contradicts the views of your PM and most of your fellow Israelis. Further, the notion that grievance and a sense of injustice has no place in the definition of terror is ridiculous on its face.

      Do not post another comment in this thread.

    1. @ nikkor: Gee, I wonder why the Bedouin didn’t welcome this shlmiel with open arms. Maybe because he called Alqiyan a terrorist when he wasn’t?? IN truth, he came to report on the police expulsion and to report that the Bedouin were violent, hateful primitives. And he got his story. It was false, but he got it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link