It's propaganda. The settlement is on land that belonged to the bedou in the first place - throwing them scraps and interpreting them taking those as "terrific relations" is just trying deflect from the question of why there are settlements by the occupying country on occupied land.
My only point of reference for this kind of thing would be like an American landowner in the Southwest allowing a Navajo rancher from the reservation to graze on their property. Is it basically the same thing, or is it somehow "different"?
> My only point of reference for this kind of thing would be
> like an American landowner in the Southwest allowing a Navajo
> rancher from the reservation to graze on their property. Is
> it basically the same thing, or is it somehow "different"?
It is similar and it is different.
One difference is that Arizona was founded as a state earlier than Israel, so people feel that "it's older, so it is OK now".
Another difference is that America decided "all the land is ours", then herded the Navajo into reservations. In Israel we built in specific places and the Bedouins continued to be nomadic around us.
Note also that the Bedouins were until recently very nomadic, but today few Bedouin are nomadic. When the Bedouins were nomadic they would roam huge areas, but "occupy" only a small area at any one time. From what I understand, the idea "this land is OURS" didn't pop into anyone's mind, each family (Hamula) would roam and they pretty much did not need to bother fighting over land. Only when permanent settlements started being built, and thus land was removed from the common pool, did this become an issue.
Another issue is that today, a sort of "land war" is happening between some Bedouins and the state of Israel. I actually believe that the state stared the problem and then it escalated. In a nutshell, the state is forcing Bedouins off some settled land and in response the Bedouins are starting to claim more lands as "permanent settlements". In one particular case that I'm aware of, the Bedouins have been pushed off a parcel of land and then returned over 100 times. We're not talking about grazing land, which there is enough of for everybody to share and build on. We are talking about tents and stables and families. There is a huge difference between the state building a town on a corner of the grazing land, and the state forcefully remove people from these places. The former is the case 99% of the time, but the latter is happening and any decent person will, as I am, oppose it.
The reply I'm replying to is the propaganda. He has no idea where I live, he sees the word "Israel" and assumes that means that I stole land.
In fact the place where I live, like the vast majority of places, has had good relations with the Bedouins and has since the beginning. These are grazing lands, and the Bedouins do graze most of it. We're built up on the rocky hilltops where there is nothing to graze, the only thing that could grow there might be olive trees. The Bedouins likely have had their herds graze here before the houses were build, but that doesn't make it "their land" and more than the store where you buy your bread is "your store". Unless you think that each Bedouin has the equivalent personal land sized several times any large city, and they all overlap!
I'm not disputing the fact that there is an Israeli-Arab conflict. I understand the argument "Israel steals land" even if I dispute it. Separate from that, there is an issue of Bedouin land. But neither argument is the one that is being made here, parent poster is conflating issues to influence your opinion. That's not uncommon when people are motivated by hate.
> The Bedouins likely have had their herds graze here before the houses were build, but that doesn't make it "their land" and more than the store where you buy your bread is "your store"
That is a naïve comparison applied to how land ownership in Palestine works and worked and in that way it's just feeding the myth of "A Land with no People for a People with no Land". That is not hate, that just means that the entire modern country of Israel was founded by driving out the people that were already living there.
Maybe consider what would happened to the Bedou if they weren't trying to make "good relations" with the people who were suddenly bulding on the land that they need in order for their livestock to survive. Pretending there is any space for "terrificness" in that situation is clearly incorrect.
And labeling any opposition to your narrative of "terriffic relation" of the occupiers to the occupied as "hate" is kind of supporting the idea that the term "propaganda" seems not entirely incorrect.
For one thing, we both agree that the "A Land with no People for a People with no Land" argument is bullshit. Of course people were living here.
Estimates of percentages vary depending which side of the narrative the estimator sits, but most Arabs who left the land of Palestine in 1948 did so at the insistence of Arab leaders who promised to clean the land of the Jews. I'm not disputing that the Jewish armies of the time committed atrocities. In fact, there is a place less than a half-hour drive from my house where an atrocity took place. You won't be surprised to hear that the Arabs committed atrocities of their own.
But none of that is under discussion. You are conflating the Bedouins with what are nominally termed Palestinians. The Bedouins are a different people, don't intermarry with them, and have had a separate spate of problems with the Jews than did the Palestinians. There is even some animosity between the groups, for instance the Bedouins can volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces.
I understand exactly your viewpoint, and you probably do not even realize that you are conflating two issues. I'm not even disputing the general gist of your viewpoint even though I reject it. I am disputing the relation of your viewpoint to the relations that my settlement has with the Bedouins. Not all Arabs peoples here consider themselves part the "the Palestinian struggle", or consider their grief with the Israeli state as part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.
This is a pretty unnecessarily inflammatory comment unless you consider every country in the world as an "occupying country on occupied land". What country didn't gain their land through conquest and occupation?
> What country didn't gain their land through conquest and occupation?
That's interesting. I guess it depends on the definition of country which is a relatively modern concept, and the meaning of "gain". If I take it loosely, then your question could be defined as which first peoples have managed to retain the land that they were the first to populate. Is that a fair interpretation? For example, it was interesting for me to realize that Vietnamese, Thais, Malays, Indonesians, Phillipinos, actually extinguished (meaning genetic/cultural extinguishment through assimilation or genocide) the aboriginal people of those lands (Papuan-like peoples) and the Australians, New Zealanders are quite far along in that process as well.
The Sentinelese of India have managed to hold on to their island, albeit it is a fragile hold, and credit to Indian establishment for holding steadfast to that policy of allowing them to completely self-determine their lives. Although I do fear that period may come to an end if CNFC (China) explorations and fishing vessels continue to pursue that region.
I'm realizing I'm ill equipped to answer your question. It is definitely interesting.