Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 8 (since 2011-09-27 13:28:26)

Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Showing comments 8 - 1

  • Israel sent Palestinian Authority letter to 'stop incitement' over bus driver’s death
    • Dr. al-Aloul stopped speaking to the press after his initial comments to Ma'an. His initial comments shows he disagreed with the autopsy's conclusions, but the Israeli doctors say he changed his mind after the autopsy concluded, and concurred at the time. Dr. al-Aloul had made no comment on that matter.

  • Tel Avivians brave sirens for clothes in NYT story about 'Fashion during wartime'
  • Death comes to downtown Ramallah
  • Let it go
  • Grindr in Hebron: A dispatch from the last debate
  • Conviction rate for Israeli interrogators who use torture: 0%
    • @Stephen, the 99' High Court ruling states the officer needs approval from the security services to use physical abuse, and they can only receive it in a scenario where there is a clear and imminent threat, like a bomb is planted and the officers want to know where. Moreover, in the case of the plaintiffs in the 99' decision, nearly all of them did carry out violent attacks, but there was no persistent threat. Still torture was used. The jurists concluded that despite their extreme crimes, it was unacceptable to use torture. And so the law actually is quite progressive. The ruling even references international law (very common in Israeli courts, even with all the brewhaha against international law in the public sphere). It's just too bad the law has not been followed.

      One in four Palestinian men have been to, or are in prison. If 95% have been tortured, that has a huge effect on the entire population.

  • A Jew's dead dog has more rights than a Bedouin in the Negev
    • They actually don't have the right to petition their land claim. In the 1970s the state started taking claims to review Bedouin land ownership that pre-dated the state of Israel. Around 3,000 claims were accepted, 300 processed, and then the rest were frozen. At the end of the decade the state started filing counter-claims on the same pieces of property, big chunks of the Negev. The state employed the Ottoman "dead lands" law and said because the Bedouins were not cultivating the grounds for five-years, the state could seize ownership. That usurped most of the land from the original 3,000 claims.

      Then over the next few decades the state formed a number of committees to again address Bedouin land claims. Every committee recommended processing the petitions that were already accepted by the courts, but never reviewed, until the Prawer Commission. The Prawer committee devised the Prawer Plan that I have reported extensively on. Prawer says trash the 1970s claims and develop a new process that only* applies to Bedouins (so it's applied on an ethnic basis). In this new procedure the state will not review: property deeds, or tax records including property taxes paid to the State of Israel, when determining land ownership. Instead the state will match land claims with aerial photographs taken by the British Mandate during the 1940s. If the photos show land cultivation, at most, the Bedouin owner can receive a title for 50% of the plot.

      So no, the Bedouins cannot file land claims. They are denied this right which Jewish-Israelis enjoy and instead, if Prawer passes, will be subject to a process that is estimated to evict 30,000 out of 80,000 people. If Prawer does not pass, the 1970s claims and the court's willingness to review any Bedouin land claims will still be frozen.

      Right to vote: they do not have the right to vote in local elections* and in some instances, Bedouins have reported they are denied the right to vote in national elections because they do not have official addresses.

      Freely worship: yeh, they can do that.

      Protest peacefully: yes, and they do. Their protests more recently likely spurred a delay in passing Prawer, although it's worth noting their demonstrations have never led to a policy change. They are still subject to the same bar of filing claims since the state's founding.

      Squatting on state land: since the state began filing counter claims to the land where the unrecognized villages are located, yes all of these properties are officially owned by the state and administered through the Israeli Lands Association. However, every government committee has acknowledged that the Bedouins do have a legitimate claim to at least some of the land. In an early draft of Prawer the state even recognized Bedouins as "indigenous peoples" of the Negev.

      "Squatters" is a term in political discourse, but in actual government policy, generally Bedouin are seen as people who have unresolved claims an live in villages not zoned for residential use, ear-marking all of their homes for demolition by law, even if a specific demolition order has not been issued.

      In any case in Israel "squatting" per se, is not illegal. Bedouins and Jewish-Israelis alike can legally live on land in shanty towns so long as they do not have hook ups to services. So when you say that they are "squatting illegally" that's not accurate. Their village is "unrecognized" so certain building materials are illegal to use, but actual residency on state owned land is not. As far as I know, only if the state owned land is leased to an entity for use, like a factory or a condo, or a park, or if they area is labeled a closed military zone, then an eviction for all residential use can by carried out.

      All in all, Bedouins do have some rights afforded by the state, but essential rights (water, health, sanitation, filing a land claim), no they don't have those.

      Dead dogs: dead animals do not have any specific rights, but the cemetery where they are resting peacefully is serviced in ways that Bedouins are not do to all of the above.

  • 10,000 Israeli teens follow mother-hen of extremist settler movement in anti-Kerry protest
    • I get it. In a way it's like how there are more religious sites to Serbs in Kosovo than in Serbia. But the point of the rally was nationalistic, not religious. Use, control, or access to religious sites is very different than staging a demonstration on a land corridor and speaking out against the government (the Israeli government) for negotiations.

      What I found at the demonstration, was many young people on a school field trip who are very proud of their religion and culture. But they were led in a march by a violent extremist who is exacting political leverage. One of the youths told me, "I don't have anything bad to say about anyone," when speaking of the Kerry negotiation team, yet Weiss's purpose was in opposition to Kerry. The two don't add up. Most cynically, the kids were being exploited to astroturf a movement for Greater Israel.

Showing comments 8 - 1