did not.

Rabbis here in the US agree with RHR too.

Jewish Groups, American Rabbis Call on Israel to Withdraw Bedouin Displacement Plan

Israel’s Bedouin population is in the hearts and minds of American Jewish clergy this week, as 780 rabbis, cantors, and rabbinical and cantorial students have signed a letter demanding that the government of Israel withdraw the Prawer-Begin plan. Under the proposed legislation, an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 Bedouin would be displaced from their homes in the Negev.

“It is precisely because of our deep commitment to the State of Israel and the prophetic values of liberty and justice on which it was founded, that we, as rabbis, are so distressed by the potential for the use of force to resettle Bedouin and destroy their villages,” said Rabbi S. Ayelet Cohen, vice chair of T’ruah, in a press release.

Other North American Jewish groups have issued similar calls, including the Reform and Reconstructionist movements. In recent days, Ameinu, on whose board I sit, has also jumped into the fray: “as Zionists who never forget the eternal bond between our people and the land of Israel, we are extremely sensitive to Bedouin Israelis’ ties to their traditional villages,” its call to action states.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/19/jewish-groups-american-rabbis-call-on-israel-to-withdraw-prawer-begin-plan.html

Yemini: Biography

Ben-Dror Yemini was born in Tel-Aviv to a Yemenite Jewish family.[1] He studied Humanities and History at Tel Aviv University and then pursued a degree in law. After graduation, he worked as an advisor to the Israeli Minister of Immigration Absorption and then became spokesman of the Ministry.[2]

In 1984, he began his career as a journalist.[3] His book Political Punch is a critique of politics and society in Israel. Since 2003, Yemini has been the opinion page editor of Maariv.

Most of his newspaper articles are intended to refute what he regards as anti-Israel claims.[1] He has published articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict in which he examines the issues of genocide, refugees, Palestinian and Arab capital, the status of Israeli Arabs,[4] multiculturalism and the status of women. He argues that "anti-Zionism is politically correct anti-Semitism": the same way Jews were demonized, Israel is being demonized; the same way the right of Jews to exist was denied, the right for self-determination is denied to Israel; and the same way Jews were presented as a menace to the world, Israel is presented as a menace to the world.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Dror_Yemini


on edit to add: RHR Awards

Awards

In 1993 RHR received “The Speaker of the Knesset’s Award for the Quality of Life in the Field of Enhancing the Rule of Law and Democratic Values, Protecting Human Rights, and Encouraging Tolerance and Mutual Respect.”

In 2006, RHR was awarded the prestigious Niwano Peace Prize for its efforts to promote peace in an interfaith context.

In 2011 Gandhi Peace Award honored RHR’s Rabbi Arik Ascherman & Rabbi Ehud Bandel.
http://rhr.org.il/eng/about/

with regard to Ben-Dror Yemini ......you need to read this :

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/twilight-zone-baron-of-manipulation-1.320636

small taste :

re : " As you know, Levy receives similar treatment here from a few people..it's sad, really."

I dont find it sad at all .... I find it amusing .

If they think Gideon Levy and Haaretz are and i quote " the Bolshevist perspective of the newspaper for people who all think the same. " ......makes me wonder what they think of Gideon Spiro and Hagada Hasmalit ....????

ref : http://hagada.org.il/eng/

and the Red Rag Column :

@ http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=62046

Seriously , they think we post zionists are the extreme Left ....they dont have a clue Jefferson23.

Yes I am aware of whats going on ....you would have to be blind deaf and stupid not to be aware of it .

Palestinians..very much so.

Who do you mean by " their " ?

I was replying to this .. " As you know, Levy receives similar treatment here from a few people..it's sad, really. " ..... and referring to the Diaspora Zionists you have on here .

What kind of support do you think they give us ?

The odds are against the Palestinians right now because we have the most Right wing Gov in our history .... that can change .

Diaspora Zionists dont get to vote in our elections Jefferson23.

I hope you continue to post here, it has been a pleasure to read your input..very much appreciated.

so was I .

They are not " pro Israeli " Jefferson23....they are pro Judaism .

They are motivated by their religion ....and by their guilt .

he is motivated by his own lack of beloning ....he looks to us as the strong ' Jew ' .
He needs us to fulfill his own insecurities .

And you shira ?
Why do you need us ????

the Bedouin, who are the lucky chaps that are going to take the land?

There's nothing stopping them as Israeli citizens.

I know you see building a Jewish community in place of a Bedouin one as racist, but tell me....do you think that if Israel built a Druse community or Palestinian Christian one there in place of the Bedouins, would that be as equally racist?

that and the Israeli government.

It's why I ask.

I realize these questions make you uncomfortable, as they challenge your rigid and intolerant "religious" views. I expect fellow liberals to at least attempt to be tolerant and understanding and open to acknowledging when they're wrong.

I get the same silence from religious fundamentalist nutters who have a hard time defending their views, so I'm used to it.

Have a great happy holiday season finding ways to demonize whole groups of people.

Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's Lieberman a new Druze village:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4211318,00.html

My hunch is that if this village were in the Negev and Bedouin had to make way for it, you wouldn't be crying your crocodile tears of racism.

the Bedouin, who are the lucky chaps that are going to take their land?

Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 09:57 PM - Edit history (2)

....who are busy beavers:

a) comparing the victims of Nazi Germany to the Nazis themselves

b) portraying Israeli mainstream thought and policy as the ideology of the most rabid and extreme Kahanists

c) calling holocaust survivors and refugees seeking asylum racist colonists

d) exploiting the tragedy of apartheid & bastardizing human rights


This isn't rocket science.

1. I don't support killing anyone either, but if the choice is b/w my family being murdered and me killing the perpetrator, that's an easy choice. It doesn't mean I support killing. Same WRT Israeli ethnic cleansing...

2. You wrote previously, and lied when you did it, that Israel guarantees by law a Jewish majority.

the Bedouin, who are the lucky chaps that are going to take their land?


This isn't rocket science.

It's like Charlie Brown and that damned football.

Know what Yemeni's argument reminds me of?

"Slaveowners treated their slaves great because they were expensive! Besides, their own people sold them into slavery anyway! They did better here than they would have in Africa! You're just racist against white people!"

That, and I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't know what blood libel is. Again, Zionists, words and terms have set meanings, you can't just make 'em up as you shuffle along.

I happen to think it's worth a facepalm, at most. Maybe two farts in the wind?

Because there's NOT anything substantive in it.

Yemeni starts off by completely misusing the term "blood libel." Off the bat, that's enough for me to dismiss the entire thing as nonsense from someone who probably SHOULD know better. It's blood libel the same way that "Happy Holidays" is an assault on Christianity.

The rest is just special pleading and justification that amounts to a weak attempt at defending the Prawer Plan. Which is something i thought you were against (I admit, could be mistaken on that.)

it's a silly nonsense piece, written, posted, and defended by people who pretty much swear by silly nonsense.

Swore the things off, myself.

it really reassures me, especially after your various remarks about Ethiopians, Arabs, and your vague equivocations about extremist Kahanist groups, that you are definitely not a racist in any way, shape or form.

I am also utterly persuaded that this attempt by the Israeli government to expel indigenous people from their native lands and resettle them in Soweto-style townships so that Jews can take their place is in no way reminiscent of South African apartheid in any way.

Anyone who says otherwise is a Nazi.

Yawn.

I wouldn't be surprised if u feared your own shadow.

The OP shows that this transfer isn't racist and that the professional propagandists crying crocodile tears for the Bedouin live to demonize Jews. If it were up to these anti-Israel, professional fascist liars, the Bedouin would continue to live in absolute poverty, in 3rd world conditions.

You probably missed these parts:

You know what was missing in all his writings and speeches about Israel?

He never once accused Israel of apartheid.

so what do you think about this article ?:

http://972mag.com/prawer-plan-how-the-natives-became-invaders-in-their-own-homes/83052/

Lies by omission as well as commission.

Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2013, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Since you can't acknowledge that was a lie, it's hopeless to continue, but...

Ben Dror Yemini exposed the lies of the professional propagandists pretending to show compassion for the Bedouin. He wrote about the outright lies as well as facts that were omitted intentionally to make Israel appear horrifically racist.

And now that you bring up Levy, Yemini also exposed his lies. Levy didn't counter Yemini with anything substantive. For example, Levy admitted there was no front-page story about a dog's death that captured headlines during Cast Lead in 2008-09. Levy used that dog's death to show how a major Israeli newspaper covered that event, while relegating the deaths of tens of Palestinians to page 16. That was a complete and utter lie. It wasn't that Levy just got the date wrong (the dog died years earlier). He tried using that to show that at the height of a major war, a popular Israeli newspaper thought more of a dog than 10's of Palestinians.

He's a fucking joke.

There are two allegations that stand out:-

Because that's a lie.

In any event neither an Arab nor a Jew can buy JNF land, they can only lease it. You did know that didn't you?

watch this:
shall we also discuss the racism involved in the concept of giving the S.Bedouin special status because of their race that Bedouin in the north don't get, that druze don't get or that jews don't get or that the christians don't get?...and some of them have been living in the area longer than the S.Bedouin.

care to discuss it? ..didnt think so

oops i forgot, your not talking to me, since i didn't meet your demands.....

The North Bedouin lived on relatively attractive land that Israel confiscated from them in the years from 1948 to 1966.

The South Bedouin live on unattractive land that no one particularly wanted until a few years ago.

As for special status, the Druze mostly had their property rights respected. The Christians with European ties (the Greeks and Armenians) had their property rights respected. The other Arabs and the Bedouin did not.

The Aborigines in Australia still own land in the desert which the whites never bothered stealing from them, as it was so worthless.

The difference, I suppose, is that the whites in Australia would have a hard time justifying the theft of land from Blacks in this day and age.

Whereas Israel is quite happy to have a red hot go.

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:56 AM - Edit history (2)

Sounds a bit like the JNF.

racial based laws.....

you neglected to answer.....well?

being permitted to retain a small portion of their traditional lands? I am thinking of the Seminole Indians in Florida in particular.

we're still clarifying your view that racial based laws are acceptable

its the concept the principle.......apparently you do, but rather than me make the "accusation" i think its much better idea that you simply state it, this way there is no confusion of that specific belief of yours.

and don't you call that a 'diversion' when instead of simply answering a straight forward question...you don't, and ask me a question so that you don't have to answer it?

That is hardly a racist notion. To the extent that Jews are the traditional owners of land (the Samaritans on Mount Gezirim for instance, or the remaining Yemenite Jews in Yemen) I am happy to recognise their rights as well.

if someone claims they are native is that enough?

i believe in the US its the "amount of blood" that defines if one is of indian ancestry is that not true?

Blood quantum[edit]
A common source of definition for an individual's being Indian is based on their blood (ancestry) quantum (often one-fourth) or documented Indian heritage. Almost two-thirds of all Indian federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States require a certain blood quantum for membership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_identity_in_the_United_States

didn't the nazis have the same concept about jew definition
the first anti-Semitic law was promologated with no clear definition of Jew.[18] Finally, the decision was made for three or four Jewish grandparents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
____________________________

apparently the "blood line" is used to determine if one is of a certain minority and deserving of special laws. I'm assuming your using the same criteria as what the US uses as well as what the Nazis used (and obviously other societies as well)

so can we conclude that you are for giving special laws to certain groups based on "their blood" lines, that other citizens in the same country do not get?

is someone with at least one Jewish grandparent, effectively the same definition that Hitler adopted.

The definition of an Australian Aborigine is not based on blood quantum, instead an Aborigine is someone who reasonably self-identifies as Aboriginal and is accepted by that community as such.

As for Native Americans, I have no idea.

But again, your criticism would apply just as much to the State of Israel (which must decide who is and who is not Jewish) than to those who would like to see a fair deal for the Bedouin.

the state of israel does use blood/identifiable criteria for ethnic laws....

i'm just clarifying the issue.....the use of laws based on ethniticiy to screw others who are not of that ethnicity is apparently used by many many many countries around the world (most), INCLUDING western countries ....that claim "equality under the law*

*unless of course your an indian, bediouin, aborigine, eskimo, a midget, 1/5 black, 1/8 indian, in which case you get special laws that in effect gives u special rights that many times will screw others (as in admission to universities or jobs).
___

so i believe we have cleared up that aspect: The bedouin may indeed need some unique laws to help bring them in the fold of citizenship that the others have all adapted to, and its probably due to the fact that israel concentrated on the north more than the south, but whatever the solution is, the principle remains that....

Laws based on ethnicity remains RACIST whether it be better or worse for the jew, christian, muslim, or better for the country as a whole it remains racist.

your disagreement with the state of israel is not that it has racists laws, your for them, you disagree with who gets the advantage of the racist laws, not the concept of it

laws which prevent Arabs or Blacks from buying land (such as the land covenants in pre-Civil rights America), and laws which recognise the native title claims of indigenous inhabitants.

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 07:02 AM - Edit history (7)

and yes that includes Israel (and the "post zionists), and Canada and Australia and Nazi Germany.....

typically you believe your version of "racism" is the more "moral one"..thats why you believe it...funny thing about that belief, didn't US govt have the same belief when it slaughtered the Indians? Isn't that the same morality that the taliban has? that the Assad has as he gasses his opposition?

This is not a difficult concept, it only gets messy when one starts with the "holy then thou attitude" and with it the denial of racism.

for example, replacing a white boy in acceptance to a college with a black/indian one because he has the proper genes is pure racist, you can argue the moral value of denying the white boy what he worked so hard for because of his skin color, but it remains a racist policy.


or more relevant: a jew from Tel Aviv finds a hill top in the Negev and builds his house....on the hilltop next to his, a Bedouin builds his house...guess who's house will be destroyed and who's wont? (hint, the jews, because he is a jew and not a Bedouin). Thats racism.

--------------------------------
name a country any country and i'm guessing but it will take about 1 minute to find some law that shows that 'equality under the law " does not exist and that it has something to do with race.

your belief is simply that israel, by its very existence is immoral..a "blot" that has to be erased from the planet so that the gods of progressiveness and nationalism will be satisfied...and your 'weapon of choice" this time is racism.

a concept you cant seem to comprehend ...

whats the first thing we would like to change ?.... the national anthem ..Hatikva .

how relevant is it today ?

relevant to around how many ????

its a racist national nationalistic anthem pelsar .....and it excludes over 25% of us .

post zionism, like all nationalistic movements have built-in racism. Its nothing against post zionism in particular, its just as guilty as zionism in that regard.

changing the national anthem, will no doubt make some groups happy while offending others.....each "group' (in this case the post zionists) care more about one group than the other.

you group is simply no different than gush emunim in that respect, both groups believe they have the superior value system.

The people who support the Bedouin are racists, the Zionists are racists and the Nazis were racist.

The pro-Bedouin people are no better than the Zionists, who are no better than the Nazis.

Is there anyone in this world who isn't a racist? You?

all i'm saying is if your going to call israel a racist country and then promote racists laws for certain israelis, i would say that makes you simply a hypocrite....

do you disagree?

(I don't care what you excuse is: promoting laws for a certain group based on their genetics is racism, is that not the definition?)

It is the State of Israel that chose to recognise certain land claims in 1948 (such as those of the Greeks and Armenians as well as of course the Jews) but not others (the Arabs, including the Bedouin). If any decision was racist, it was that one.

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 04:35 AM - Edit history (2)

i'm not claiming that israel doesn't have racists laws, i readily admit it. Israels democracy like all democracies have that built in.

but your the one that wants special laws just for one(?) single racial group, and then you want to claim that israel is a racist country because it has laws based on race.

that is your position is it not?
____


here i'll make is simply using "progressive language" if the S.Bedouin require special attention, don't their brothers up north, also require some "special attention", and if they do, don't the druze who have their own set of problems require some special attention"

i.e. special laws for their special needs that is the consequences of the establishment of the state of israel? that is your position is it not? and if i am wrong please explain how you DONT want special laws for any single racial/genetic/cultural group.

a lot of talk of apartheid israel, and here you are proposing exactly that.(u just want a different group to get the better laws)

You seem to be admitting that the first option is racist, buy you seem to think the second us as well.

What should an avowed non-racist do in the case of the Negev Bedouin?

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 08:09 AM - Edit history (2)

the Bedouin in the South, (btw, like historical nomads in all countries) eventually have to live within the laws of the state of israel, without special treatment.....

buy you seem to think the second us as well.
..please explain to me how giving them special laws based on their genetics is not the very definition of racism?


an "avowed non racists, who is anti apartheid has to first admit that "their justice" does infact require a set of racial laws to "correct" their perception of the initial injustice. And this correction is in fact unfair to other citizens who belong to a different race but are also citizens of the very same country.

let me get this straight:
your agains the JNF's status because it has a definite racial aspect to it.

your believe the Bedouin in the South should have a special status that lets them live anywhere they want, while ignoring the laws that the rest of the israelis have to live by..which has a clear racial aspect to it.

so basically you have no problem with laws based on racism, its just in this case, you object to the jews getting the special racial laws and the group of your choice does not.

built for them by Israel after the first wave of Negev Bedouin clearances in the seventies.

http://mondediplo.com/2012/08/06bedouin

No doubt it is a lot cheaper to lease there, in the same way that property values are a lot lower in Black ghettos in America, or Aboriginal ghettos in Australia, than they are in comparable white suburbs.

Frankly, the fact that you would choose to spin this as some kind of "affirmative action" policy shows just how much of a racist you are. Certainly CAMERA should be ashamed of themselves, although I doubt that they ever will be.

....that no one else would want to live in.

I'm pretty sure you believe Israel is building yet another ghetto for the Bedouin now in Hura. It's actually more affirmative action.

From the OP:

Rahat is, in fact, one of only two Arab towns that Israel has permitted to have been built since the Nakba.

...where no one else would want to live there. It doesn't mean it's a racist slum or ghetto.

The Bedouin arrangement is generous and was coordinated over hundreds of meetings with Bedouin leaders. Most Bedouin agreed to the plan. Half of the Bedouin who are moving live at the site of a toxic waste dump, while almost the entire other half moved to Hiran recently after the land was chosen over a decade ago by the state. The vast majority of Bedouin are either unaffected by the plan or do not have to move anywhere, as Israel will modernize their towns free of charge.

The only racists in this entire situation are the haters demonizing the Jewish state with their slander.

I dare say that a haredi school would have more than four toilets for six hundred students, and that students there wouldnt have to wade through human shit in order to use them. But again, my congratulations on whitewashing racism once again. It makes it easier to comprehend where you're coming from. And if the Israeli government is willing to defend the conditions at Rahat, at least the Bedouin know not to expect anything better at Hiran.

Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 12:48 PM - Edit history (3)

...which demonstrates your racist contempt and hatred. Again, this reminds me of your conversation with Pelsar when you couldn't let go of the lie that Israelis killed Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. It's these lies that reveal who you truly are.

You claimed the Bedouin will not be able to purchase or lease land where they once lived. That was a lie. You said they were ordered to move to their township by Israel in 1956, when it was THEY who requested to move due to a dispute their clan had with another. So that was another lie. You say no Bedouin were consulted and that's a lie. In fact 3000 out of 4000 of the tribe have already moved to Hura. I claimed that most Bedouin were unaffected or were being offered town infrastructure in the areas they're already living in (all but 30-40,000 out of 210,000), meaning only 1 out of every 8 bedouin are truly affected. You denied this. And out of them, most chose to move to Hiran after the development plan started more than a decade ago, meaning nearly all who have to move now are relative newcomers (within the past decade) to land that was never theirs to begin with - and they're being given compensation and plots of land to build their own homes on very nearby adjacent land.

Really, where would you be if you couldn't smear, slander, and slime the Judeo-Nazi state? What would you do? Would you look for a new hobby? Get a real job?

===========

ETA regarding Bedouin who you say were never consulted, are in favor of the Begin-Prawer Plan, and are not protesting the move to "ghettos":

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/A-good-deal-for-the-Beduin-and-for-Israel-334143

1. You accuse me of making a baseless smear and ask that I retract, but here's the conversation with Pelsar when you wouldn't let go of the accusation that the IDF was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x365594

2. You say it's highly unlikely Bedouin will be able to purchase/lease property. You're giving your opinion, not fact. All it would take is one Bedouin family to put in a bid, fail due to discrimination, and then go to the media or the courts for justice.

3. Did you really watch that video of the 2 Bedouin gentlemen? They just obliterated most of your argument and confirmed those written quotes. I should thank you for posting the video. THANKS! And here's the video again. They believe Begin and the Israeli gov't means well and they don't give a shit what foreign propagandists and professional smear artists think...

Keep digging those heels in...

The conversation with Pelsar (that anyone here can read) was WRT how a foreign paper falsely reported that Israel was killing Palestinians for their organs. At no point in that conversation did you acknowledge such reports were slanderous. IOW, the doctor involved was criminally culpable of taking organs from everyone, both Jews and Palestinians alike (not just Palestinians). This was news in Israel well over a decade prior. Also, no Palestinians were being singled out by Israel and killed in order to take their organs. This reporting was nothing short of blood libel, falsely accusing Israel of racism vs. Palestinians.

As to the video, let's recall that you wrote the following:

but because I did not say the direct opposite, I can be inferred as having said it. Makes about as much sense as the rest of your guff I suppose.

....goes to show that you approved of a newspaper publishing demonizing slander against Israel. The best you could say earlier in that thread was that the article was "probably" misleading, but then you came up with the same racist bile in #25, pretending Palestinians were targeted for organ theft. Even after the author of the original article admitted he had no proof and after the Guardian apologized for their headline.

You'd certainly accuse others of being racists for defending rightwing, slanderous bigoted articles demonizing other ethnic or racial groups. But you defend it when the Jewish state is the target.

I could have sworn that I'd actually condemned the article, even after it was established that many of its allegations were in fact true.

Oh, thats right, I did:-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x360247

I thought so.

...what do you mean by having them apologize for sloppy journalism?

Does that mean you now think the article was hate speech that maliciously accused Israel of racism?

Your first accusation - that I had said that Israel killed Palestinians in order to harvest their organs - was false.

Even your subsequent, vastly downgraded accusation that I had failed to condemn the aftonbladet article was also false.

Presumably, you are now trying to angle for an accusation that I did not condemn it in the right terms, or in a timely enough fashion. As a matter of fact, I do recall condemning the article when it first appeared, but I no longer have the patience to deal with your spurious allegations. Anyone with an ounce of contrition would have apologized long ago.

I think you're a dishonest, racist little grub.

Feel free to alert on that if you like.

You are still defending it by maintaining that it contained some slivers of truth (the very essense of hate & demonization). You battled for days and at best you came up with some mealy-mouthed criticism of it later. You are still incapable of acknowledging it was demonizing, slanderous hate speech.

In addition, you're still defending all these malicious articles today that incite hatred WRT Bedouin housing. Slivers of truth combined with malicious falsehoods are fair game to you when the target is the Jewish state. The reason you won't condemn any false articles today about the Bedouin is the same reason you're still mealy-mouthed about organ harvesting slander from years back.

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:22 AM - Edit history (1)

making an argument with a predetermined (racist) agenda usually makes for poor logic

No doubt it is a lot cheaper to lease there, in the same way that property values are a lot lower in Black ghettos in America,

on one post you argue, that no one wants to live there as the land is unattractive.(previous post)
then you state the cheaper housing is because no one wants to live there....

conclusion, it must be defined as a ghetto, because its cheaper......so every place that has "unattractive land" that has cheaper prices is similar to a "black ghetto."

so if mention the village of ezuz, which is really really "unattractive", where housing is dirt cheap and its in the southern negev....is that too a ghetto? or since there are jews living there, you can't declare it a ghetto?

or more likely you'll now add a few more conditions to your argument to further refine it, so that you can exclude the jewish israelis....(correct?)

or at least part of it is, although the forest nearby is JNF land. Therefore Arabs may lease that part which is owned by the State via the ILA. However, the Negev settlements being built by the JNF will only be leased to Jews.

And as I said before, neither Jews nor Arabs can buy the land. It is only available for long term lease.

Not to be confused with current Palestinian and Jordanian state-mandated law which forbids land sales to Jews.

The solution to the problem was eventually found in late 2007, when it was proposed to swap land between the state and the JNF.[50] The deal was designed to render redundant the Ariel Bill, deemed by some to be racist, while allowing the JNF to continue leasing its lands only to Jews. After the initial land swap, urban JNF land sold in future to non-Jews would include an automatic swap mechanism: the fund would transfer the land to the ILA, and in exchange would receive the purchase price plus a similar-sized plot in the Negev.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund

For example, the Bedouin leaving al-Hiran now are being compensated with a plot of land elsewhere. They could sell that plot and use the proceeds to buy or lease land back in al-Hiran, a town that is falsely being labeled exclusively Jewish.

that is one of the Bedouin villages being demolished to make way for a Jewish only settlement

...for sale or lease to non-Jews? At worst, the JNF is forced to sell/lease and the ILA then compensates the JNF for that land.

There's nothing stopping Bedouin from purchasing or leasing in those "Jewish-only" settlements.

Just as there's nothing stopping Israel's Arabs from purchasing homes in the settlements over the green lines (in allegedly exclusive Jewish neighborhoods).

The solution to the problem was eventually found in late 2007, when it was proposed to swap land between the state and the JNF.[50] The deal was designed to render redundant the Ariel Bill, deemed by some to be racist, while allowing the JNF to continue leasing its lands only to Jews. After the initial land swap, urban JNF land sold in future to non-Jews would include an automatic swap mechanism: the fund would transfer the land to the ILA, and in exchange would receive the purchase price plus a similar-sized plot in the Negev.

This page was last modified on 30 October 2013 at 10:22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund

under the Admissions Committees Law.

From 2011, that law allows villages to adapt "selection committees" which can reject applications for residency based on criteria including "social unsuitability".

Is that right?

And I'm not sure how it would work. Under the current scheme, the JNF gets land in the Negev whenever it is forced to lease urban land to an Arab. The land with the Arab gets transferred to the ILA and in exchange the JNF gets the purchase monies and negev land. The JNF therefore avoids compromising on its racist principles and the State in effect is able to resolve the problem by kicking some scraggly natives off their land.

If the JNF has to lease its Negev land to Arabs, I'm not sure what the state could offer them in compensation. In think the whole point of the admissions committee laws was to try and avoid that scenario. Unlike the Ariel bill, the admissions law isn't blatantly racist on its face, it just has that effect in practice.

It is quite similar to the WASP Country clubs in the US that didn't have explicit "no Jew" policies, but had selection policies that operated to exclude Jews from membership.