We'll take the Bedouins in exchange for every Jew to leave the US

[Coyote]

Going back to the OT - there is merit to the compliant. From the NYT article linked to in the OT:

...Mr. Qian and the other members of some 70 Bedouin families are likely to be evicted soon from their homes in the hamlet of Umm al-Hiran, where they have been living since the 1950s. In their place, the Israeli government plans to build a community with nearly the same name, Hiran — but its expected residents will be religious, Zionist Jews.

The government says Umm al-Hiran is on state-owned land that it would like to develop, and it has fought a long legal battle to have the Bedouin families, about 1,000 people, relocated. This month, the Supreme Court ruled in a 2-1 decision that the families would have to leave. The court gave no date for when evictions could begin, and residents intend to appeal the decision.

The Bedouins say they do not want to leave land on which they have been living for more than half a century after being resettled there by the Israeli military. The government has promised compensation in the form of cash and land elsewhere, but the Bedouins say the decision to move them reflects discriminatory policies.

The land is "state-owned". They want to develop it. Ok. Why don't they develop it for the residents currently there? After all - the Israeli military settled them there in the first place. Or, why not develop up it to be a mixed community?

The policy certainly seems not only discriminatory but something from another era - like the way we used to "re-locate" Native Americans when we decided we wanted their land or decided their "reservation" was suddenly needed for white Christian expansion so we'd move them to yet another reservation (usually crappier).

For advocates of the future Jewish town of Hiran, the evictions are a matter of law and order.

“We are talking about state-owned lands on which people knowingly built on illegally,” said Liad Aviel, a government spokesman on Bedouins. “These people who built illegally on land that belongs to the state need to get off this land.”

But he added: “The court is very humane. They will not be kicked out of their homes without them having a solution.”

How is it "illegal" when the Israeli Military itself settled them there?

But supporters of the Bedouins view moving as acquiescence to a racist policy. The residents of Umm al-Hiran also say that the land the government has offered them in nearby Houra is already crowded and unsuitable for resettlement.

“This is a fight over our existence,” said Talab Abu Arar, a Bedouin member of Israel’s Parliament.

“The Israeli state sings to the world that it is a democratic state of Arabs and Jews,” he said, but “an Arab resident is prevented from his rights, while Jewish residents are given all their rights and more.”

Hassan Jabareen, chief attorney at the Arab legal rights group Adalah, which is representing the village, said that it was the first time the courts had ordered the evacuation of an entire hamlet, and that the reason for doing so — to build a Jewish community — set a dangerous precedent.

It sounds like they are trying to force them into ever more crowded and impoverished "reservations".

Clinton Bailey, an Israeli scholar who has studied the Bedouins for 45 years, said the military had concentrated them into one part of the Negev. Later, when Israel passed an absentee property law in 1953, Bedouins lost the rights to the land they used to live on, which had already been tenuous because most of them did not have deeds, just tribal acknowledgment of their territories, he said.

The Bedouins are the poorest and fastest-growing group in Israel, partly because of large, polygamous families. Some 70,000 Bedouins live in 35 communities that are off Israel’s planning grid, with no running water, power, roads, health care or education.

A $2 billion plan to resolve the Bedouins’ long-contested ownership claims to lands in the Negev was shelved in December 2013. It would have forced thousands of people to relocate, generally to smaller plots of land in government-built towns.

But Umm al-Hiran is unique among the Bedouin communities, its advocates say, because the Supreme Court acknowledged in its May 5 ruling that the residents were not trespassers. The government leased them land there until the 1980s, according to Adalah, the legal group. And Hiran will be built where Umm al-Hiran lies, suggesting that the government could also provide infrastructure for the Bedouins.

Hiran was part of a 2002 government plan to create several Jewish communities in the Negev to populate the sparse region, particularly contentious border areas like Umm al-Hiran, which is just miles from Israel’s de facto border with the West Bank.

The government said Umm al-Hiran’s residents could purchase plots in the future town, but Mr. Qian said they wanted to stay together as a community. He said they had asked to have their community recognized and to have a Jewish community built alongside theirs, but had received no response.

Again. Bedouin are Israeli citizens, yes? They have the same rights?

Do citizens in any normal country have only rights?

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

 

[Coyote]

UN officials urge Israel to halt Bedouin transfer plans
HRW denounces Israel expulsion of Bedouins Palestinians - Yahoo News "In the West Bank, Israeli authorities approved less than six percent of Palestinian building permit requests between 2000 and 2012, HRW said."

Demolition and Eviction of Bedouin Citizens of Israel in the Naqab Negev - The Prawer Plan - Adalah

Nothing to do with the UN until they force the arab muslims to stop murdering innocents

HRW is a proven ANTI_SEMITIC organisation, so their reports should be ignored.

Where is the proof they are "anti semitic"?

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


HRW has been accused of bias against Israeland having an anti-Israeli agenda)[ by general-circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel Political science professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor (a pro-Israel NGO),[42] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[43] According to Steinberg, the organization's reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony": testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[44] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, law professor David Bernstein called HRW "maniacally anti-Israel".[45][46] Spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Mark Regev said: "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," referring to HRW and Amnesty International allegations of human-rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.[47]

The organization has also been accused of ignoring anti-Semitism or being anti-Semitic itself. In a 2005 speech to the Anti-Defamation League former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, "NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism."[48] The ADL has also suggested that criticism of Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism.[49] In The New York Sun, ADL national director Abraham Foxman criticized Roth's use of "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews".[

Being accused of it doesn't mean they are. Afterall, Israel gets accused of apartheid practices.

How many posters claim that Israel is apartheid and point to the military control in the west bank as the reason. The detractors of HRW point to the actions and words for the evidence of bias against the Jews. Even one of their founders stated they were biased. But when the evidence is produced then you cant say that they are only accused of anti-Semitism, they are proven anti-semites

The main critic is the ADL, which has it's own agenda so I tend to take their complaints with a grain of salt. "Bias" also does not necessarily mean "anti-semitic".

 

[Coyote]

UN officials urge Israel to halt Bedouin transfer plans
HRW denounces Israel expulsion of Bedouins Palestinians - Yahoo News "In the West Bank, Israeli authorities approved less than six percent of Palestinian building permit requests between 2000 and 2012, HRW said."

Demolition and Eviction of Bedouin Citizens of Israel in the Naqab Negev - The Prawer Plan - Adalah

Nothing to do with the UN until they force the arab muslims to stop murdering innocents

HRW is a proven ANTI_SEMITIC organisation, so their reports should be ignored.

Where is the proof they are "anti semitic"?

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


HRW has been accused of bias against Israeland having an anti-Israeli agenda)[ by general-circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel Political science professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor (a pro-Israel NGO),[42] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[43] According to Steinberg, the organization's reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony": testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[44] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, law professor David Bernstein called HRW "maniacally anti-Israel".[45][46] Spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Mark Regev said: "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," referring to HRW and Amnesty International allegations of human-rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.[47]

The organization has also been accused of ignoring anti-Semitism or being anti-Semitic itself. In a 2005 speech to the Anti-Defamation League former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, "NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism."[48] The ADL has also suggested that criticism of Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism.[49] In The New York Sun, ADL national director Abraham Foxman criticized Roth's use of "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews".[

Being accused of it doesn't mean they are. Afterall, Israel gets accused of apartheid practices.

How many posters claim that Israel is apartheid and point to the military control in the west bank as the reason. The detractors of HRW point to the actions and words for the evidence of bias against the Jews. Even one of their founders stated they were biased. But when the evidence is produced then you cant say that they are only accused of anti-Semitism, they are proven anti-semites

Actually, they don't point to the military control as the reason - they point to the inequities in society, the judicial system, etc.

 

[Lipush]

Going back to the OT - there is merit to the compliant. From the NYT article linked to in the OT:

...Mr. Qian and the other members of some 70 Bedouin families are likely to be evicted soon from their homes in the hamlet of Umm al-Hiran, where they have been living since the 1950s. In their place, the Israeli government plans to build a community with nearly the same name, Hiran — but its expected residents will be religious, Zionist Jews.

The government says Umm al-Hiran is on state-owned land that it would like to develop, and it has fought a long legal battle to have the Bedouin families, about 1,000 people, relocated. This month, the Supreme Court ruled in a 2-1 decision that the families would have to leave. The court gave no date for when evictions could begin, and residents intend to appeal the decision.

The Bedouins say they do not want to leave land on which they have been living for more than half a century after being resettled there by the Israeli military. The government has promised compensation in the form of cash and land elsewhere, but the Bedouins say the decision to move them reflects discriminatory policies.

The land is "state-owned". They want to develop it. Ok. Why don't they develop it for the residents currently there? After all - the Israeli military settled them there in the first place. Or, why not develop up it to be a mixed community?

The policy certainly seems not only discriminatory but something from another era - like the way we used to "re-locate" Native Americans when we decided we wanted their land or decided their "reservation" was suddenly needed for white Christian expansion so we'd move them to yet another reservation (usually crappier).

For advocates of the future Jewish town of Hiran, the evictions are a matter of law and order.

“We are talking about state-owned lands on which people knowingly built on illegally,” said Liad Aviel, a government spokesman on Bedouins. “These people who built illegally on land that belongs to the state need to get off this land.”

But he added: “The court is very humane. They will not be kicked out of their homes without them having a solution.”

How is it "illegal" when the Israeli Military itself settled them there?

But supporters of the Bedouins view moving as acquiescence to a racist policy. The residents of Umm al-Hiran also say that the land the government has offered them in nearby Houra is already crowded and unsuitable for resettlement.

“This is a fight over our existence,” said Talab Abu Arar, a Bedouin member of Israel’s Parliament.

“The Israeli state sings to the world that it is a democratic state of Arabs and Jews,” he said, but “an Arab resident is prevented from his rights, while Jewish residents are given all their rights and more.”

Hassan Jabareen, chief attorney at the Arab legal rights group Adalah, which is representing the village, said that it was the first time the courts had ordered the evacuation of an entire hamlet, and that the reason for doing so — to build a Jewish community — set a dangerous precedent.

It sounds like they are trying to force them into ever more crowded and impoverished "reservations".

Clinton Bailey, an Israeli scholar who has studied the Bedouins for 45 years, said the military had concentrated them into one part of the Negev. Later, when Israel passed an absentee property law in 1953, Bedouins lost the rights to the land they used to live on, which had already been tenuous because most of them did not have deeds, just tribal acknowledgment of their territories, he said.

The Bedouins are the poorest and fastest-growing group in Israel, partly because of large, polygamous families. Some 70,000 Bedouins live in 35 communities that are off Israel’s planning grid, with no running water, power, roads, health care or education.

A $2 billion plan to resolve the Bedouins’ long-contested ownership claims to lands in the Negev was shelved in December 2013. It would have forced thousands of people to relocate, generally to smaller plots of land in government-built towns.

But Umm al-Hiran is unique among the Bedouin communities, its advocates say, because the Supreme Court acknowledged in its May 5 ruling that the residents were not trespassers. The government leased them land there until the 1980s, according to Adalah, the legal group. And Hiran will be built where Umm al-Hiran lies, suggesting that the government could also provide infrastructure for the Bedouins.

Hiran was part of a 2002 government plan to create several Jewish communities in the Negev to populate the sparse region, particularly contentious border areas like Umm al-Hiran, which is just miles from Israel’s de facto border with the West Bank.

The government said Umm al-Hiran’s residents could purchase plots in the future town, but Mr. Qian said they wanted to stay together as a community. He said they had asked to have their community recognized and to have a Jewish community built alongside theirs, but had received no response.

Again. Bedouin are Israeli citizens, yes? They have the same rights?

Do citizens in any normal country have only rights?

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

 

[Coyote]

Going back to the OT - there is merit to the compliant. From the NYT article linked to in the OT:


The land is "state-owned". They want to develop it. Ok. Why don't they develop it for the residents currently there? After all - the Israeli military settled them there in the first place. Or, why not develop up it to be a mixed community?

The policy certainly seems not only discriminatory but something from another era - like the way we used to "re-locate" Native Americans when we decided we wanted their land or decided their "reservation" was suddenly needed for white Christian expansion so we'd move them to yet another reservation (usually crappier).


How is it "illegal" when the Israeli Military itself settled them there?

It sounds like they are trying to force them into ever more crowded and impoverished "reservations".

Again. Bedouin are Israeli citizens, yes? They have the same rights?

Do citizens in any normal country have only rights?

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

Even so, why should they not have the right to retain their community?

 

[Lipush]

Do citizens in any normal country have only rights?

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

Even so, why should they not have the right to retain their community?

depends what you call "retain". Israel is a western country, imagine 20% of your community living in tribes with no actual cities or plans or borders.

 

[Coyote]

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

Even so, why should they not have the right to retain their community?

depends what you call "retain". Israel is a western country, imagine 20% of your community living in tribes with no actual cities or plans or borders.

I agree that offers unique challenges and at one time the US faced similar challenges with Native Americans. They way in which it was handled was heartless and arrogant and many of the resulting reservations are amongst the most impoverished areas of the US. Still - I fail to see why they must be forced to move so a new community can move in with all the amenities the old community lacks.

 

[Phoenall]

You do realise that they are nomads and have no tribal lands, all they have is their camels, donkeys, sheep and goats that eat the vegetation until they break down their tents and move to the next stopping of point.

Nomad's have tribal lands. They have regular routes through regular territories in a seasonal pattern.

Tramps and Gypsies have regular routes through regular territories in a seasonal pattern, but they don't have any tribal lands. Unless you can call their homes they return to tribal lands. It is arab muslim propaganda to elicit a response in their favour, and it looks like it is working. Even the nomads say they don't want to live in squalor and deprivation, but at the same time don't want to leave because they are a thorn in Israel's side. Their village was built illegally and they are being asked to move a short distance still in the area they were allowed to set up camp. They are refusing to move and using non existent rules to hoodwink the gullible

Well, these folks were settled (legally) by the IDF in that place in the 1950's. Now, suddenly, their settlement is "illegal" for them but "legal" for the Jews that want to take it over.

Why not allow them to stay and live in the new village with the new infrastructure etc?

WHO SAID THIS, has Israel come forward and said we gave them that land to build unsafe housing on. Or was it simply a stopping point on their migration around the M.E. Don't forget arab muslims make false claims all the time, and just shrug when found out. They have been offered land to rent or buy, and this is what sticks in their throats, as long as the build to code. Would you like a shanty town to spring up next to you, the stench of untreated sewage alone would have you demanding it be removed.

For the first question - numerous articles and sources have stated they were settled there by the Israeli military in the 1950's. "Settled" emplies a settlement, not a stopping point in a migration - settlement imposed by the millitary.

As far as the infrastructure - they're clearly intending to supply infrastructure to the new group of "settlers" who are to replace them. Why can't they do that for the existing inhabitants? It also goes back to the same old argument - arab Israeli citizens are routinely denied legitimacy for their villages, denied permits for infrastructure or expansion which are almost always granted for Jewish communities.

And where do those numerous articles and sources get their information, from the nomads perhaps ?

The original plan would have been for tents in the area to be erected and used on a short term basis, but the nomads decided to build illegal permanent structures that did not meet safety or building codes so they have to come down. That is the problem with the arab muslims they think that they own the land and they don't, they are arrogant and violent when they cant get their own way and will LIE until they do.

 

[Phoenall]

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

Even so, why should they not have the right to retain their community?

depends what you call "retain". Israel is a western country, imagine 20% of your community living in tribes with no actual cities or plans or borders.

I agree that offers unique challenges and at one time the US faced similar challenges with Native Americans. They way in which it was handled was heartless and arrogant and many of the resulting reservations are amongst the most impoverished areas of the US. Still - I fail to see why they must be forced to move so a new community can move in with all the amenities the old community lacks.

Who would get the blame the first time a child was seriously injured or killed in one of the illegal structures, you an bet that it will be Israel for not forcing them to move to better accommodation that meets with safety and building codes

 

[Phoenall]

Going back to the OT - there is merit to the compliant. From the NYT article linked to in the OT:

...Mr. Qian and the other members of some 70 Bedouin families are likely to be evicted soon from their homes in the hamlet of Umm al-Hiran, where they have been living since the 1950s. In their place, the Israeli government plans to build a community with nearly the same name, Hiran — but its expected residents will be religious, Zionist Jews.

The government says Umm al-Hiran is on state-owned land that it would like to develop, and it has fought a long legal battle to have the Bedouin families, about 1,000 people, relocated. This month, the Supreme Court ruled in a 2-1 decision that the families would have to leave. The court gave no date for when evictions could begin, and residents intend to appeal the decision.

The Bedouins say they do not want to leave land on which they have been living for more than half a century after being resettled there by the Israeli military. The government has promised compensation in the form of cash and land elsewhere, but the Bedouins say the decision to move them reflects discriminatory policies.

The land is "state-owned". They want to develop it. Ok. Why don't they develop it for the residents currently there? After all - the Israeli military settled them there in the first place. Or, why not develop up it to be a mixed community?

The policy certainly seems not only discriminatory but something from another era - like the way we used to "re-locate" Native Americans when we decided we wanted their land or decided their "reservation" was suddenly needed for white Christian expansion so we'd move them to yet another reservation (usually crappier).

For advocates of the future Jewish town of Hiran, the evictions are a matter of law and order.

“We are talking about state-owned lands on which people knowingly built on illegally,” said Liad Aviel, a government spokesman on Bedouins. “These people who built illegally on land that belongs to the state need to get off this land.”

But he added: “The court is very humane. They will not be kicked out of their homes without them having a solution.”

How is it "illegal" when the Israeli Military itself settled them there?

But supporters of the Bedouins view moving as acquiescence to a racist policy. The residents of Umm al-Hiran also say that the land the government has offered them in nearby Houra is already crowded and unsuitable for resettlement.

“This is a fight over our existence,” said Talab Abu Arar, a Bedouin member of Israel’s Parliament.

“The Israeli state sings to the world that it is a democratic state of Arabs and Jews,” he said, but “an Arab resident is prevented from his rights, while Jewish residents are given all their rights and more.”

Hassan Jabareen, chief attorney at the Arab legal rights group Adalah, which is representing the village, said that it was the first time the courts had ordered the evacuation of an entire hamlet, and that the reason for doing so — to build a Jewish community — set a dangerous precedent.

It sounds like they are trying to force them into ever more crowded and impoverished "reservations".

Clinton Bailey, an Israeli scholar who has studied the Bedouins for 45 years, said the military had concentrated them into one part of the Negev. Later, when Israel passed an absentee property law in 1953, Bedouins lost the rights to the land they used to live on, which had already been tenuous because most of them did not have deeds, just tribal acknowledgment of their territories, he said.

The Bedouins are the poorest and fastest-growing group in Israel, partly because of large, polygamous families. Some 70,000 Bedouins live in 35 communities that are off Israel’s planning grid, with no running water, power, roads, health care or education.

A $2 billion plan to resolve the Bedouins’ long-contested ownership claims to lands in the Negev was shelved in December 2013. It would have forced thousands of people to relocate, generally to smaller plots of land in government-built towns.

But Umm al-Hiran is unique among the Bedouin communities, its advocates say, because the Supreme Court acknowledged in its May 5 ruling that the residents were not trespassers. The government leased them land there until the 1980s, according to Adalah, the legal group. And Hiran will be built where Umm al-Hiran lies, suggesting that the government could also provide infrastructure for the Bedouins.

Hiran was part of a 2002 government plan to create several Jewish communities in the Negev to populate the sparse region, particularly contentious border areas like Umm al-Hiran, which is just miles from Israel’s de facto border with the West Bank.

The government said Umm al-Hiran’s residents could purchase plots in the future town, but Mr. Qian said they wanted to stay together as a community. He said they had asked to have their community recognized and to have a Jewish community built alongside theirs, but had received no response.

Again. Bedouin are Israeli citizens, yes? They have the same rights?

Do citizens in any normal country have only rights?

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

All rights are contingent on a citizens duties, remove the duties and the rights are meaningless

 

[Phoenall]

Nothing to do with the UN until they force the arab muslims to stop murdering innocents

HRW is a proven ANTI_SEMITIC organisation, so their reports should be ignored.

Where is the proof they are "anti semitic"?

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


HRW has been accused of bias against Israeland having an anti-Israeli agenda)[ by general-circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel Political science professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor (a pro-Israel NGO),[42] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[43] According to Steinberg, the organization's reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony": testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[44] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, law professor David Bernstein called HRW "maniacally anti-Israel".[45][46] Spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Mark Regev said: "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," referring to HRW and Amnesty International allegations of human-rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.[47]

The organization has also been accused of ignoring anti-Semitism or being anti-Semitic itself. In a 2005 speech to the Anti-Defamation League former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, "NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism."[48] The ADL has also suggested that criticism of Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism.[49] In The New York Sun, ADL national director Abraham Foxman criticized Roth's use of "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews".[

Being accused of it doesn't mean they are. Afterall, Israel gets accused of apartheid practices.

How many posters claim that Israel is apartheid and point to the military control in the west bank as the reason. The detractors of HRW point to the actions and words for the evidence of bias against the Jews. Even one of their founders stated they were biased. But when the evidence is produced then you cant say that they are only accused of anti-Semitism, they are proven anti-semites

The main critic is the ADL, which has it's own agenda so I tend to take their complaints with a grain of salt. "Bias" also does not necessarily mean "anti-semitic".

Depends on how far you want to go with the classification, and how evenly biased you are. If more than one source claims that that HRW is anti-Semitic, and one of them sources is a founding member, then the alarms bells should start ringing.

 

[Phoenall]

Nothing to do with the UN until they force the arab muslims to stop murdering innocents

HRW is a proven ANTI_SEMITIC organisation, so their reports should be ignored.

Where is the proof they are "anti semitic"?

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


HRW has been accused of bias against Israeland having an anti-Israeli agenda)[ by general-circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel Political science professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor (a pro-Israel NGO),[42] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[43] According to Steinberg, the organization's reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony": testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[44] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, law professor David Bernstein called HRW "maniacally anti-Israel".[45][46] Spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Mark Regev said: "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," referring to HRW and Amnesty International allegations of human-rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.[47]

The organization has also been accused of ignoring anti-Semitism or being anti-Semitic itself. In a 2005 speech to the Anti-Defamation League former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, "NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism."[48] The ADL has also suggested that criticism of Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism.[49] In The New York Sun, ADL national director Abraham Foxman criticized Roth's use of "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews".[

Being accused of it doesn't mean they are. Afterall, Israel gets accused of apartheid practices.

How many posters claim that Israel is apartheid and point to the military control in the west bank as the reason. The detractors of HRW point to the actions and words for the evidence of bias against the Jews. Even one of their founders stated they were biased. But when the evidence is produced then you cant say that they are only accused of anti-Semitism, they are proven anti-semites

Actually, they don't point to the military control as the reason - they point to the inequities in society, the judicial system, etc.

The laws applied are those of the Palestinian state at the time of the occupation, so they are complaining about their own laws and judicial system. Strange isn't it that the Palestinians are complaining about the IDF imposing their own laws on them as if they are something the Israelis have made up.

 

[Phoenall]

Do citizens in any normal country have only rights?

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

Even so, why should they not have the right to retain their community?

Their community is not being taken away from them though is it, all they are being asked to do is move to proper housing that is safe. The community is still intact and thriving, it is just that they have a problem with law and order.

 

[Coyote]

Where is the proof they are "anti semitic"?

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


HRW has been accused of bias against Israeland having an anti-Israeli agenda)[ by general-circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel Political science professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor (a pro-Israel NGO),[42] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[43] According to Steinberg, the organization's reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony": testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[44] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, law professor David Bernstein called HRW "maniacally anti-Israel".[45][46] Spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Mark Regev said: "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," referring to HRW and Amnesty International allegations of human-rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.[47]

The organization has also been accused of ignoring anti-Semitism or being anti-Semitic itself. In a 2005 speech to the Anti-Defamation League former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, "NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism."[48] The ADL has also suggested that criticism of Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism.[49] In The New York Sun, ADL national director Abraham Foxman criticized Roth's use of "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews".[

Being accused of it doesn't mean they are. Afterall, Israel gets accused of apartheid practices.

How many posters claim that Israel is apartheid and point to the military control in the west bank as the reason. The detractors of HRW point to the actions and words for the evidence of bias against the Jews. Even one of their founders stated they were biased. But when the evidence is produced then you cant say that they are only accused of anti-Semitism, they are proven anti-semites

Actually, they don't point to the military control as the reason - they point to the inequities in society, the judicial system, etc.

The laws applied are those of the Palestinian state at the time of the occupation, so they are complaining about their own laws and judicial system. Strange isn't it that the Palestinians are complaining about the IDF imposing their own laws on them as if they are something the Israelis have made up.

No. they fall under Israeli Military law.

 

[Coyote]

What do you mean?

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

Even so, why should they not have the right to retain their community?

Their community is not being taken away from them though is it, all they are being asked to do is move to proper housing that is safe. The community is still intact and thriving, it is just that they have a problem with law and order.

Why do they need to be moved? They're going to build proper housing anyway.

 

[Coyote]

Nomad's have tribal lands. They have regular routes through regular territories in a seasonal pattern.

Tramps and Gypsies have regular routes through regular territories in a seasonal pattern, but they don't have any tribal lands. Unless you can call their homes they return to tribal lands. It is arab muslim propaganda to elicit a response in their favour, and it looks like it is working. Even the nomads say they don't want to live in squalor and deprivation, but at the same time don't want to leave because they are a thorn in Israel's side. Their village was built illegally and they are being asked to move a short distance still in the area they were allowed to set up camp. They are refusing to move and using non existent rules to hoodwink the gullible

Well, these folks were settled (legally) by the IDF in that place in the 1950's. Now, suddenly, their settlement is "illegal" for them but "legal" for the Jews that want to take it over.

Why not allow them to stay and live in the new village with the new infrastructure etc?

WHO SAID THIS, has Israel come forward and said we gave them that land to build unsafe housing on. Or was it simply a stopping point on their migration around the M.E. Don't forget arab muslims make false claims all the time, and just shrug when found out. They have been offered land to rent or buy, and this is what sticks in their throats, as long as the build to code. Would you like a shanty town to spring up next to you, the stench of untreated sewage alone would have you demanding it be removed.

For the first question - numerous articles and sources have stated they were settled there by the Israeli military in the 1950's. "Settled" emplies a settlement, not a stopping point in a migration - settlement imposed by the millitary.

As far as the infrastructure - they're clearly intending to supply infrastructure to the new group of "settlers" who are to replace them. Why can't they do that for the existing inhabitants? It also goes back to the same old argument - arab Israeli citizens are routinely denied legitimacy for their villages, denied permits for infrastructure or expansion which are almost always granted for Jewish communities.

And where do those numerous articles and sources get their information, from the nomads perhaps ?

It would be in the Israeli military records. These people would not have wanted to become a settled people.

The original plan would have been for tents in the area to be erected and used on a short term basis, but the nomads decided to build illegal permanent structures that did not meet safety or building codes so they have to come down. That is the problem with the arab muslims they think that they own the land and they don't, they are arrogant and violent when they cant get their own way and will LIE until they do.

Negev Bedouin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The first Israeli government headed by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion opposed the return of the Bedouin from Jordan and Egypt. At first he wanted to expel the few remaining Bedouin but changed his mind. The lands were nationalized and the area was declared a military zone. The government saw the Negev as a potential home for the masses of Jewish immigrants, including 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. In the following years, some 50 Jewish settlements were established in the Negev.[42]


The Bedouin who remained in the Negev belonged to the Tiaha confederation[22] as well as some smaller groups such as the 'Azazme and the Jahalin. They were relocated by the Israeli government in the 1950s and 1960s to a restricted zone in the northeast corner of the Negev, called the Siyagh (Arabic: السياغ‎ Hebrew: אזור הסייג‎, an Arabic word that can be translated as the "permitted area") made up of in 10% of the Negev desert in the northeast.[43][44]


In 1951, the United Nations reported the deportation of about 7,000 Negev Bedouin to Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai, but many returned undetected.[45] The new government failed to issue the Bedouin identity cards until 1952 and deported thousands of Bedouin who remained within the new borders.[46] Deportation continued into the late 1950s, as reported by Haaretz newspaper in 1959: "The army's desert patrols would turn up in the midst of a Bedouin encampment day after day, dispersing it with a sudden burst of machine-gun fire until the sons of the desert were broken and, gathering what little was left of their belongings, led their camels in long silent strings into the heart of the Sinai desert."[16]
​

The more I read, the more I realize that the Israeli treatment of the Bedoiun is very reminiscent of the US treatment of Native Americans. If they resist they are labeled violent, arrogant, liers, savages, etc.

 

[Phoenall]

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


HRW has been accused of bias against Israeland having an anti-Israeli agenda)[ by general-circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel Political science professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor (a pro-Israel NGO),[42] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[43] According to Steinberg, the organization's reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony": testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[44] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, law professor David Bernstein called HRW "maniacally anti-Israel".[45][46] Spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Mark Regev said: "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," referring to HRW and Amnesty International allegations of human-rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.[47]

The organization has also been accused of ignoring anti-Semitism or being anti-Semitic itself. In a 2005 speech to the Anti-Defamation League former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, "NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism."[48] The ADL has also suggested that criticism of Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism.[49] In The New York Sun, ADL national director Abraham Foxman criticized Roth's use of "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews".[

Being accused of it doesn't mean they are. Afterall, Israel gets accused of apartheid practices.

How many posters claim that Israel is apartheid and point to the military control in the west bank as the reason. The detractors of HRW point to the actions and words for the evidence of bias against the Jews. Even one of their founders stated they were biased. But when the evidence is produced then you cant say that they are only accused of anti-Semitism, they are proven anti-semites

Actually, they don't point to the military control as the reason - they point to the inequities in society, the judicial system, etc.

The laws applied are those of the Palestinian state at the time of the occupation, so they are complaining about their own laws and judicial system. Strange isn't it that the Palestinians are complaining about the IDF imposing their own laws on them as if they are something the Israelis have made up.

No. they fall under Israeli Military law.

Nearly the Israeli's enforce the judicial terms as set out by Jordan as they were the nation that held sovereignty over the west bank in accordance with the Geneva conventions. Israel can not impose any sentences other that those on the statute books for the crimes committed. So every judicial action taken by Israel is exactly what Jordan would take under the same circumstances. That is International Law and Israel sticks to the letter of that law.

 

[Phoenall]

I mean, do people have only RIGHTS in a normal state, or do they also have duties?

Ok, I see what you mean. Certain rights aren't contingent upon duties - they are inherent. Citizenship incurs duties and responsibilities though.

Of course, the right to live in security and respect doesn't depend on citizenship; However, people are expected to respect the law in the state they live in, and our Bedouin cousins had issues with aspect before.

Even so, why should they not have the right to retain their community?

Their community is not being taken away from them though is it, all they are being asked to do is move to proper housing that is safe. The community is still intact and thriving, it is just that they have a problem with law and order.

Why do they need to be moved? They're going to build proper housing anyway.

Who do any illegal settlements need to be moved, because they cant be made liable for land tax and forced to do their duty as citizens. Then the legal land owners an reclaim their land and start making it pay again. If your local town council passed your plans for a new front porch, and you hen built a new house on the porch they could come and demolish the house but leave the porch

 

[Phoenall]

Tramps and Gypsies have regular routes through regular territories in a seasonal pattern, but they don't have any tribal lands. Unless you can call their homes they return to tribal lands. It is arab muslim propaganda to elicit a response in their favour, and it looks like it is working. Even the nomads say they don't want to live in squalor and deprivation, but at the same time don't want to leave because they are a thorn in Israel's side. Their village was built illegally and they are being asked to move a short distance still in the area they were allowed to set up camp. They are refusing to move and using non existent rules to hoodwink the gullible

Well, these folks were settled (legally) by the IDF in that place in the 1950's. Now, suddenly, their settlement is "illegal" for them but "legal" for the Jews that want to take it over.

Why not allow them to stay and live in the new village with the new infrastructure etc?

WHO SAID THIS, has Israel come forward and said we gave them that land to build unsafe housing on. Or was it simply a stopping point on their migration around the M.E. Don't forget arab muslims make false claims all the time, and just shrug when found out. They have been offered land to rent or buy, and this is what sticks in their throats, as long as the build to code. Would you like a shanty town to spring up next to you, the stench of untreated sewage alone would have you demanding it be removed.

For the first question - numerous articles and sources have stated they were settled there by the Israeli military in the 1950's. "Settled" emplies a settlement, not a stopping point in a migration - settlement imposed by the millitary.

As far as the infrastructure - they're clearly intending to supply infrastructure to the new group of "settlers" who are to replace them. Why can't they do that for the existing inhabitants? It also goes back to the same old argument - arab Israeli citizens are routinely denied legitimacy for their villages, denied permits for infrastructure or expansion which are almost always granted for Jewish communities.

And where do those numerous articles and sources get their information, from the nomads perhaps ?

It would be in the Israeli military records. These people would not have wanted to become a settled people.

The original plan would have been for tents in the area to be erected and used on a short term basis, but the nomads decided to build illegal permanent structures that did not meet safety or building codes so they have to come down. That is the problem with the arab muslims they think that they own the land and they don't, they are arrogant and violent when they cant get their own way and will LIE until they do.

Negev Bedouin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The first Israeli government headed by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion opposed the return of the Bedouin from Jordan and Egypt. At first he wanted to expel the few remaining Bedouin but changed his mind. The lands were nationalized and the area was declared a military zone. The government saw the Negev as a potential home for the masses of Jewish immigrants, including 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. In the following years, some 50 Jewish settlements were established in the Negev.[42]


The Bedouin who remained in the Negev belonged to the Tiaha confederation[22] as well as some smaller groups such as the 'Azazme and the Jahalin. They were relocated by the Israeli government in the 1950s and 1960s to a restricted zone in the northeast corner of the Negev, called the Siyagh (Arabic: السياغ‎ Hebrew: אזור הסייג‎, an Arabic word that can be translated as the "permitted area") made up of in 10% of the Negev desert in the northeast.[43][44]


In 1951, the United Nations reported the deportation of about 7,000 Negev Bedouin to Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai, but many returned undetected.[45] The new government failed to issue the Bedouin identity cards until 1952 and deported thousands of Bedouin who remained within the new borders.[46] Deportation continued into the late 1950s, as reported by Haaretz newspaper in 1959: "The army's desert patrols would turn up in the midst of a Bedouin encampment day after day, dispersing it with a sudden burst of machine-gun fire until the sons of the desert were broken and, gathering what little was left of their belongings, led their camels in long silent strings into the heart of the Sinai desert."[16]
​

The more I read, the more I realize that the Israeli treatment of the Bedoiun is very reminiscent of the US treatment of Native Americans. If they resist they are labeled violent, arrogant, liers, savages, etc.

So lets look at your C&P shall we, the Israeli government deports 7,000 illegal immigrants to where they came from. These then re-enter Israel and build illegal houses on Government land. And you of course side with the illegal violent immigrants who are in breach of many laws because it is the Jews that are trying to reclaim their land from illegal squatters

 

[Coyote]

Well, these folks were settled (legally) by the IDF in that place in the 1950's. Now, suddenly, their settlement is "illegal" for them but "legal" for the Jews that want to take it over.

Why not allow them to stay and live in the new village with the new infrastructure etc?

WHO SAID THIS, has Israel come forward and said we gave them that land to build unsafe housing on. Or was it simply a stopping point on their migration around the M.E. Don't forget arab muslims make false claims all the time, and just shrug when found out. They have been offered land to rent or buy, and this is what sticks in their throats, as long as the build to code. Would you like a shanty town to spring up next to you, the stench of untreated sewage alone would have you demanding it be removed.

For the first question - numerous articles and sources have stated they were settled there by the Israeli military in the 1950's. "Settled" emplies a settlement, not a stopping point in a migration - settlement imposed by the millitary.

As far as the infrastructure - they're clearly intending to supply infrastructure to the new group of "settlers" who are to replace them. Why can't they do that for the existing inhabitants? It also goes back to the same old argument - arab Israeli citizens are routinely denied legitimacy for their villages, denied permits for infrastructure or expansion which are almost always granted for Jewish communities.

And where do those numerous articles and sources get their information, from the nomads perhaps ?

It would be in the Israeli military records. These people would not have wanted to become a settled people.

The original plan would have been for tents in the area to be erected and used on a short term basis, but the nomads decided to build illegal permanent structures that did not meet safety or building codes so they have to come down. That is the problem with the arab muslims they think that they own the land and they don't, they are arrogant and violent when they cant get their own way and will LIE until they do.

Negev Bedouin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The first Israeli government headed by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion opposed the return of the Bedouin from Jordan and Egypt. At first he wanted to expel the few remaining Bedouin but changed his mind. The lands were nationalized and the area was declared a military zone. The government saw the Negev as a potential home for the masses of Jewish immigrants, including 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. In the following years, some 50 Jewish settlements were established in the Negev.[42]


The Bedouin who remained in the Negev belonged to the Tiaha confederation[22] as well as some smaller groups such as the 'Azazme and the Jahalin. They were relocated by the Israeli government in the 1950s and 1960s to a restricted zone in the northeast corner of the Negev, called the Siyagh (Arabic: السياغ‎ Hebrew: אזור הסייג‎, an Arabic word that can be translated as the "permitted area") made up of in 10% of the Negev desert in the northeast.[43][44]


In 1951, the United Nations reported the deportation of about 7,000 Negev Bedouin to Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai, but many returned undetected.[45] The new government failed to issue the Bedouin identity cards until 1952 and deported thousands of Bedouin who remained within the new borders.[46] Deportation continued into the late 1950s, as reported by Haaretz newspaper in 1959: "The army's desert patrols would turn up in the midst of a Bedouin encampment day after day, dispersing it with a sudden burst of machine-gun fire until the sons of the desert were broken and, gathering what little was left of their belongings, led their camels in long silent strings into the heart of the Sinai desert."[16]
​

The more I read, the more I realize that the Israeli treatment of the Bedoiun is very reminiscent of the US treatment of Native Americans. If they resist they are labeled violent, arrogant, liers, savages, etc.

So lets look at your C&P shall we, the Israeli government deports 7,000 illegal immigrants to where they came from. These then re-enter Israel and build illegal houses on Government land. And you of course side with the illegal violent immigrants who are in breach of many laws because it is the Jews that are trying to reclaim their land from illegal squatters

They weren't illegal immigrants.