Occupation from within: the Arab Bedouin in Israel

At the beginning of this year the Israeli government announced a that will displace more than 70 000 Arab Bedouin from their ancestral lands.

The Negev desert is a good place to bury dogs. The dog cemetery of Tsan Yatir provides a final resting place for beloved canines. Arab Bedouin humans are not so lucky. Increasingly they are discovering that the Israeli state has no place for them - dead or alive.

Following the news this week that an Israeli court has ruled the death of ISM activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza, to be "a regrettable accident", we should remember it's not only Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories who have come to fear Israeli forces. Israeli citizens are being forced out of their homes by dint of their ethnicity. In September 2011, the Israeli government approved the Prawer Plan for mass expulsion of the Arab Bedouin community in the Naqab (Negev) desert. At the beginning of this year the government announced its plan to establish ten new exclusively Jewish settlements along the Green Line demolishing 35 "unrecognised" villages and displacing more than 70 000 Arab Bedouin from their ancestral lands.

Following a 5am start I made the journey from Ramallah in the West Bank to Be’er Sheva in southern Israel to meet with local Bedouin leaders and Arab Minority Rights group Nadalah who are fighting the Prawer Plan every step of the way. The steps are seldom simple and fraught with the challenges that are inevitable when the state is your enemy. My journey was no exception. To get from Ramallah to the Naqab you have to cross the Green Line. It’s a funny thing the Green Line. At times it is impenetrable: to the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories she is the Sphinx, devouring those who do not give the answer she requires. To Jewish Israeli citizens she is a sylph, dissolving in the wind whenever political expediency demands it.

Four hours, three buses, one train and a checkpoint later I arrived in the dusty heart of the Naqab to meet with Dr Thabet Abu Rass, the director of the Naqab Project at Adalah, who was keen to emphasise the parity between Arab Bedouin in Israel and Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and Gaza. “This is the occupation within”, he told me. “The state of Israel refuses to recognize them as a legitimate community and deliberately withholds basic services, such as water, electricity, sewage, schools and healthcare”.

Arab Bedouin have been inhabitants of the Naqab desert since the seventh century but have faced a state policy of displacement for over 60 years. Today, 70,000 Arab Bedouin citizens live in 35 villages that either predate the establishment of the State in 1948, or were created by Israeli military order in the early 1950s. The state of Israel considers the villages “unrecognized” and the inhabitants “trespassers on State land,” so denies access to state infrastructure to “encourage” the Bedouin to give up their land and establish new Jewish settlements in their place. 

Settlements are not only happening in the Occupied Territories, they are being built in the strategically important area of the Naqab to create a contiguous Jewish bloc south of the West Bank, the only difference being that these settlements are technically legal since they are built within the Green Line.

In an unprecedented move, in July the European Parliament called on Israel to put a hold on these policies of dispossession. According to Rawia Aburabia of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, "the attempt to enshrine the Prawer Plan into law is a farce… it is a step that takes us back to the military regime." It is hard to object when the Prawer Plan recalls the more absurdist aspects of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22. You have to marvel at the evil genius of a system which demolishes people’s homes and then charges them for it. For the princely sum of 20,000-25,000 shekels (between £3,100 and £3,900) the Israeli government will reduce your house to rubble. This is leading to increasing numbers of “self-demolitions”, when people, threatened with demolition orders, are choosing to demolish their own homes at a personal cost of 15,000 (£2,350) shekels. Last year more than 1,000 houses were demolished and this year there have been over 120 official demolitions with many more self-demolitions.

Attiyah Alathamin, an Arab Bedouin from the "unrecognized" village of Khashem Zane, told me his story. “I built a home for my son and his wife when they got married. Shortly afterwards the Israeli government presented me with a demolition order and rather than pay the 25,000 shekels they were demanding I paid 15,000 to have it demolished myself.” Attiyah’s story is not unique.

Saleem Abu-el-Quian lives in the village of Umm el-Hieran which was established by military order in 1954. The state of Israel considers the some 500 residents to be trespassers and plans to destroy the village and transfer the population to the urban township of Hura in order to establish the exclusively Jewish town of "Hiran" on the ruins of Umm el-Hieran. He tells me that his son received notice of his reserve army duty on the same day that he was given a demolition order on his home. “Our children are fighting in the army and yet we are not getting anything in return. We have no school, no doctor’s clinic”.

The future for the Abu-el-Quian family and Umm el-Hieran is uncertain.

In November 2010, the prime minister’s office cancelled the planning authorities' partial recognition of the village. On 6 September  there will be a court hearing in Be’er Sheva to appeal against the demolition order. On 11 September there will be a meeting for the National Committee for Planning and Building to discuss the development of the Jewish settlement of Hiran. Twenty caravans of Israeli settlers are camped out in nearby Yatir Forest waiting to move in.

Dr Thabet Abu Rass is not giving up just yet. "We will challenge it in the courts. We will challenge it on the ground...There is a call for more co-resistance and less co-existence".  Nadia Ben-Youssef, a lawyer specializing in Arab minority rights tells me that the Bedouin are tackling the state head-on with the same methods of non-violent resistance used by Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. “There is a growing belief that you can challenge the state on your feet. Arab Bedouin have told me ‘The government can demolish my home a hundred times, I will rebuild it 100 times. I will not be the one to lose my ancestors’ land’”.

Rebecca Greig is a feature writer for Palestine Business Focus Magazine and a freelance journalist based in the West Bank.

A Bedouin carries wood on his back as he walks barefoot back to his tent in the Negev desert. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Emmanuel Macron's power struggle with the military

Reminding your subordinates that you are "their boss" doesn't go as far as listening to their problems, it may seem.

This is the sixth in a series looking at why Emmanuel Macron isn't the liberal hero he has been painted as. Each week, I examine an area of the new French president's politics that doesn't quite live up to the hype. Read the whole series.

It had started well between Macron and the army. He was the first president to chose a military vehicle to parade with troops on the Champs-Élysées at his inauguration, had made his first official visit a trip to Mali to meet French soldiers in the field, and had pulled a James Bond while visiting a submarine off the Brittany coast.

It’s all fun and games in submarines, until they ask you to pay to maintain the fleet.

“Macron wanted to appear as the head of armed forces, he was reaffirming the president’s link with the military after the François Hollande years, during which the defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had a lot of power,” Elie Tenenbaum, a defence research fellow at the French Institute for International Relations, told the New Statesman. The new president was originally viewed with distrust by the troops because he is a liberal, he says, but “surprised them positively” in his first weeks. Olivier de France, the research director at The French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, agrees: “He sent good signals at first, gathering sympathy.” 

But the honeymoon ended in July, with what Tenenbaum describes as Macron’s first “real test” on defence: the announced cut of €850m from the army’s budget, despite Macron’s (very ambitious) campaign pledge to rise the defence budget to 2 per cent of the country’s GDP by 2025. A row ensued between the president and the French army’s chief of staff, general Pierre de Villiers, when the general complained publicly that the defence budget was “unbearable”. He told MPs: “I won’t let him [Macron] fuck me up like that!”

Macron replied in a speech he gave to military troops the day before Bastille Day, in which he called soldiers to honour their “sense of duty and discretion” and told them: “I have taken responsibilities. I am your boss.” After the general threatened to quit and wrote at length about “trust” in leadership, Macron added a few days later that “If something brings into conflict the army’s chief of staff and the president of the Republic, the chief of staff changes.” That, Tenenbaum says, was the real error: “On the content, he was cutting the budget, and on the form, he was straightening out a general in front of his troops”. This is the complete opposite of the military ethos, he says: “It showed a lack of tact.”

This brutal demonstration of power led to de Villiers’ resignation on 19 July – a first in modern French politics. (de Villiers had already protested over budget cuts and threatened to quit in 2014, but Hollande’s defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had backed down.)

Macron did his best to own up to his mistake, assuring the military that, although this year’s cuts were necessary to meet targets, the budget would be rised in 2018. “I want you to have the means to achieve your mission,” he said.

But the harm was done. “He should have introduced a long-term budget plan with a rise in the coming years right away,” says de France. “It was clumsy – of course he is the boss, everyone knows that. If he needs to say it, something is off.” The €850m will be taken out of the army’s “already suffering” equipment budget, says Tenenbaum. “There are pressures everywhere. Soldiers use equipment that is twice their age, they feel no one has their back." The 2 per cent GDP target Macron set himself during the campaign – a “precise” and “ambitious” one – would mean reaching a €50bn army budget by 2025, from this year’s €34m, he explains. “That’s €2bn added per year. It’s enormous.”

Read more: #5: On immigration, Macron's words draw borders

Macron has two choices ahead, De France explains: “Either France remains a big power and adapts its means to its ambitions” – which means honouring the 2 per cent by 2025 pledge – “or wants to be a medium power and adapts its ambitions to its means”, by reducing its army’s budget and, for instance, reinvesting more in European defence.

The military has good reason to doubt Macron will keep his promise: all recent presidents have set objectives that outlast their mandates, meaning the actual rise happens under someone else’s supervision. In short, the set goals aren’t always met. Hollande’s law on military programming planned a budget rise for the period 2018-19, which Macron has now inherited. “The question is whether Macron will give the army the means to maintain these ambitions, otherwise the forces’ capacities will crumble,” says Tenenbaum. “These €850m of cuts are a sign than he may not fulfill his commitments.”

If so, Macron’s row with the general may only be the beginning.  It didn’t help Macron’s popularity, which has been plummeting all summer. And the already distrustful troops may not forgive him: more than half of France’s forces of order may support Marine Le Pen’s Front national, according to one poll. “It’s hardly quantifiable and includes police officers,” Tenenbaum cautions. All the same, the army probably supports right-wing and hard-right politicians in higher numbers than the general population, he suggests.

James Bond would probably have known better than to irritate an entire army – but then again, Bond never was “their boss.”