Israel Perspectives: Feeling 'Right' at Home: The Double Standard of Ha'aretz

Monday, November 28, 2005

The Double Standard of Ha'aretz

Why is it that Ha'aretz refers to illegal Bedouin outposts in the Negev as "unrecognized villages", while they refer to small Jewish villages in Judea & Samaria as "illegal outposts"?

(Yes, I know, this was probably my shortest post ever - don't get used to it...)

Israel
Zionism
Judaism

11 Comments:

Why? Because Post-Zionist newspapers favor the advocation of minority non-Jewish groups in Israel, over the welfare and advancement of anything remotely Jewish.

By Jameel @ The Muqata, at Mon Nov 28, 04:49:00 PM GMT+2

I dunno... how is it that I can type with boxing gloves on? Some questions will never be satisfactorily answered.

By Anonymous, at Mon Nov 28, 08:39:00 PM GMT+2

Oh, Please tell me that this is a joke question!

(Clue: the correct answer isn't what Jameel said either, much as that would make it "easier" to bear.)

By Anonymous, at Tue Nov 29, 01:56:00 AM GMT+2

because they 'love' their fellow Jew and theland of IsraelI RECOMMEND A WEEKLY DISCUSSION OF 'HAARETZ'-THE LAND OFTHE PALESTINIANS.

By Anonymous, at Tue Nov 29, 04:32:00 AM GMT+2

PP< perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us with the obviously clear answer to the question?

By Ze'ev, at Tue Nov 29, 05:33:00 AM GMT+2

So Ze'ev,

The obviously clear answer to the question:

"Unrecognised village" is an official term and does not necessarily imply that the settlement is "illegal". These are technical terms - the interior ministry does not want to classify the villages as illegal because then they would have to rehouse the inhabitants according to the compensation package given to the bedouin in 1966 when the state of military law over them was lifted (nothing like the compensation given to the settlers from Aza). So yes - the reason they are called unrecognised villages is because that is actually a nice way for the establishment to pretend that it is their own fault that they have no running water or electricity, as if to imply, as you did that they are illegal, whereas in fact they are not.

Why are illegal outposts called illegal outposts - because according to both international and Israeli law they are illegal. In the sense that everywhere outside of a major settlement bloc (and according to some legal opinions, even within) comes under Israel's Civilian administration of the territories, this means that any civilian building work is not only unlicensed and therefore illegal, but also considered an infringemnet under the terms of our administration/occupation of the territories. Hence any outpost not given prior license is illegal.

So Ze'ev - that is why - nothing to do with the vehement racism which underpins the outpost movement, nor the violence inherent in the conquest of someone else's land, but rather that very simple term - the law. Or in hebrew - Dat.

By Anonymous, at Tue Nov 29, 02:04:00 PM GMT+2

Ze'ev?

Waiting for response ....

By Anonymous, at Tue Nov 29, 04:40:00 PM GMT+2

Ze'ev- H has provided you with the enlightenment you seek- I couldn't have said it better. Didn't have time to today either.

By Anonymous, at Tue Nov 29, 06:58:00 PM GMT+2

Haim, to respond to your points:

1) You write: the interior ministry does not want to classify the villages as illegal because then they would have to rehouse the inhabitants according to the compensation package given to the bedouin in 1966 when the state of military law over them was lifted -

Haim, by that logic, then every time the Government of Israel threw some Jews off of a hilltop or destroyed some caravans they would have to re-settle those who were evicted, and that is simply not the case...

2) You write: (nothing like the compensation given to the settlers from Aza).

The Jewish communities of Aza were 100% legal in the eyes of the Government of Israel.

It seems to me like the media and the Government of Israel arbritrarily deicde which villages are to be "unregonized" and which are to be illegal, based on fulfilling their political agendas...

By Ze'ev, at Tue Nov 29, 07:32:00 PM GMT+2

Ze'ev,

The point though Ze'ev is there is nothing inherently illegal about Bedouin settlements - they do not transgress on any one else's land - and the land is not disputed and the government does not have to send special forces to go and inhabit the area. Whereas illegal fascist outposts are on stolen land. As the government has never annexed yehuda v'shomron, israeli citizens do not have the right to settle it in Israeli law, except in those cases where they are given special license to do so. Therefore the illegal outposts are illegal in the sense that they are created in a closed military zone. the same cannot be said about the bedouin villages - no matter who the government is.

Shouldn't the question really be - what makes any of the settlements over the green line legal? Why is Ma'ale Adumim not illegal, as it is in International Law. Why should I as an Israeli tax-payer be subsidising your desire to live outside of the state borders?

By Anonymous, at Tue Nov 29, 07:41:00 PM GMT+2

It seems to me like the media and the Government of Israel arbritrarily deicde which villages are to be "unregonized" and which are to be illegal, based on fulfilling their political agendas...

Taking that approach might justify your anger towards the media and the Government, but it is not reasonable. As H also said, Settlements (which, unlike bedouin villages, enjoy full amenities and even heavy subsidies- do you not see why I thought this was a trick question?!) are, whether you like it or not, built in disputed territory. You cannot even begin to compare the two! If you aren't sold, perhaps you'd like to visit an unrecognized village or two to see for yourself?

Before I go I must also take issue with contention that "Gush Katif was 100% legal in the eyes of the Government of Israel". In every country- not just here- legislation is passed and modified all the time. The governments over the years supported the settlement enterprise in Yesha knowing full well that the territory was disputed. And while you may criticise our current leaders for pandering to the inconvenience of International Law, I see fit to praise them for it.

By Anonymous, at Tue Nov 29, 11:28:00 PM GMT+2