Today's Apathetic Youth: Space for Long Articles

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

End of the road for the Bedouin

End of the road for the Bedouin

The Arab Bedouin are Israeli citizens and many fight in the Israeli army. But an attempt to force them off their land has led to violent clashes with the police

By Donald Macintyre

Published: 29 November 2005

The 3,000 or so residents of Bir al Mshash are distinctly unmoved by the prospect of Israeli elections next March. The villagers, who like all their fellow Bedouin in the Negev desert are Israeli citizens, many of whom serve in the Israeli army, normally vote Labour. "I don't want to vote for any party now," says Ibrahim Abu Speyt, 48. "I want to boycott the elections."

The reason isn't hard to find. Two weeks ago, a 50-year-old problem came to a head for Bir al Mshash. Israeli police and ministry of interior officials arrived to put formal notices on 12 houses slated for demolition in what the villagers believe is the first of a multi-stage operation in which they will be moved off the land they regard as having been theirs since Ottoman times.

Violence erupted. According to the ministry of interior, warning shots were fired in response to stone throwing by children specifically called out of school for the purpose by "leaders of the tribe", and police were in fear of their lives. According to Naef Abu Speyt, 35, a member of the residents' committee, the violence started after police struck his uncle Ahmed as he tried to mediate between a force of 65 police, with helmets and riot shields, and 200 angry residents. He said 16 people were arrested and 18 people, including nine women, were injured by baton-wielding police.

Broken windows and doors taken off their frames were visible in several houses in the village. Surprisingly, given the normally deeply conservative attitudes to women among the Bedouin, Muna Abu Speyt, 19, who was in her ninth month of pregnancy at the time, was willing to display a deep bruise on her back which she said was a result of being struck by police. She started to have contractions after the incident and gave birth to her (healthy) baby in Beersheeva's Seroka hospital where she had been taken by an ambulance ordered by the police.

One of the extended family's matriarchs, Ibrahim's spritely mother Fatima Abu Speyt, 93 - who says she too was struck by the police officers though seems none the worse for the experience - is nostalgic for the old times, "the life in tents," as she puts it, when they could travel freely throughout Palestine finding pastures for their livestock. "Under the British [mandate] it was better. We had more freedom to go where we wanted." Fatima adds: "The British would arrest someone who did something wrong but they didn't attack people just sitting in their houses." But then the British, whatever else they did to dismay both Jews and Arabs during the mandate, had not been seeking to move the Bedouin; instead they acknowledged the Arab rights of land ownership established over the previous 400 hundred years after the Bedouin came, mainly from the Arabian peninsula, to Palestine. The official record of the relevant "Law Reports of Palestine" of 1923 states that "The Colonial Secretary Winston S Churchill," no less, "confirmed in the presence of the High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, that ownership of land in Beer Sheba, determined by custom law, is recognised by the British government".

But much of the Negev has long been earmarked for development for and by Jewish immigrants; more than 40 years ago the Israeli military leader and politician Moshe Dayan summed up with clarity the "sharp transition" he envisaged: "We must turn the Bedouin into urban labourers ... It means that the Bedouin will no longer live on his land with his flocks but will become an urbanite who comes home in the afternoon and puts his slippers on. His children will get used to a father who wears pants, without a dagger, and who does not pick out their nits in public. They will go to school, their hair combed and parted. This will be a revolution, but it can be achieved in two generations. Not by coercion but with direction from the state. This reality that is known as the Bedouin will disappear."

Bir al Mshash is one of 37 unrecognised villages whose inhabitants Israel wants to move to specially designated towns or villages. Although some Bedouin still move to relatively nearby summer grazing pastures, they no longer live as the nomads they once were, settling instead in villages on stretches of the desert they used to visit for long periods each year.

Yet the villages do not appear on any Israeli map, nor on the ID cards the residents carry. Nor are there roadsigns to them; the only vestige of their presence on the main highways are the big yellow signs announcing: "Beware of camels by the road." The villages do not have running water; they are not linked to the electricity grid. In stark contrast even to the smallest kibbutzim there are only eight - very basic - clinics for the 37 villages. In most cases only dirt roads lead to them. And of course, because the villages are unregistered, none of the houses they live in have permits, which is why the ministry of the interior is empowered to demolish them if and when they choose.

Two Israeli High Court hearings yesterday suggest the government regards such conditions as just one more incentive for the Bedouin to move. In Sawa, another Negev village, three-year-old Ennas al Atrash is suffering from a chest cancer, has been receiving chemotherapy and needs, to support her collapsed immune system, drugs which have to be refrigerated. But Sawa is not connected to the electricity grid and her father, who ironically is himself a doctor in the Israeli health service, cannot afford more than a part share in a £900-per-month generator running for four hours each day. Two Israeli NGOs, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR-Israel) and the Association of Civil Rights (ACRI) had petitioned the court for the family to be connected to the grid; they argued that it was an abuse of Ennas's human right to health to pay the price of what was in effect a discriminatory planning policy. They also cited, in answer to the argument that the family could move to a recognised village or town, clinical evidence that the support of her close and extended family - as well as the need for relatives to look after her five siblings when her parents accompanied her on her frequent trips to hospital - was essential to her treatment. But the court, while expressing sympathy, yesterday rejected the petition. Justice Edmond Levy declared: "One cannot ignore the fact that it was the petitioners' decision to settle in an unrecognised village, knowing that as a result they would be unable to have the most basic facilities."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home