This message was self-deleted by its author

[Scootaloo]

37. Well then why are you calling it apartheid?

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Because when you try that argument, that's exactly what you're claiming, that the Bedouin are dominating Israel and oppressing the others who live there.

It's a rhetorical question, you're calling it apartheid because, since you didn't know what the fuck apartheid meant until just now, you thought it was just a "bad word" you could throw against critics of Israel as a "gotcha!" argument. Must sting that this attempt just made you look pretty ignorant.

Should the southern Bedouin get to ignore the laws of the state of Israel? I like how broadly you state that. As if the Bedouin are just trying to live under mass anarchy, ignore everything, all the time! utter lawlessness! Of course, that's hardly the case at all, is it? We're just talking about a law regarding use of state land. Not "The laws of the state of Israel" but rather, an Israeli law. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Should the Bedouin get to ignore this particular law? Well, at the moment, were they to follow the law, it would essentially mean the abandonment of their culture, which is defined by a seminomadic, pastoral way of life. If a law exists that essentially tells an entire culture to drop dead, that's a bad law that should not be followed. So I can't blame them for not doing so. That said, I do understand Israel's concerns about both the preservation of natural areas, and worries over some of the places the Bedouin move into - military ranges and landfills are a bad place for anyone, right?

The solution, I think, is for Israel to work with the Bedouin community to figure out a way to preserve their way of life and nomadic traditions, while still protecting both natural reserves and the well-being of these people. That is, make allowances within the law for this indigenous, nomadic community's use of the land, with some checks and strictures for the preservation of the land and safety of everyone involved.

This is how civilized nations (and even a few "uncivilized" nations) handle their nomadic cultures. If cruel, repressive, authoritarian China permits nomadic use of state lands and internal tribal sovereignty for its dozen-odd nomadic ethnic groups - even within such tight-fisted areas as Tibet and Xinjiang - then surely Israel can figure it out as well, right?

Or perhaps, you'll argue that China's off its rocker and should have continued its relocation programs from the 1970's.

Point is, I think the human interest - that is, the preservation of a distinct culture and way of life - is worth more than blind adherence to the exact letter of the law for the sheer sake of following the law.