Israeli government razing Bedouin village (that they initially forced them onto)

[Darth Executor]

I'm not getting any indications that he's worse or more opportunistic on immigration than Harry Reid, the primary antagonist in that conflict. Also, details on the cite, please. I expect you to at least minimally do what I did and type every name of every political personality into vdare.com's search to get a better and more thorough analysis of the personality in question than what you can recollect alone. No question that Peter Brimelow has the best one, and if he forgives him, I forgive him too, because he analyzes politicians and personalities for a living while I do it for a hobby.

Cliven Bundy's opinion on illegal immigration is the same as Harry Reid's. Let's not pretend that I need to do any homework, it's obviously you searched for his opinion on my prompting and you're now trying to Eposplain your way out of it. I don't care if Brimelow forgives him, because Bundy is irrelevant in the long scheme of things, except as a cautionary tale of how ruthlessly urbanization will devour those who don't submit to it. The Bedouins are another example.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, but I will generally refrain and encourage others to refrain from attacking a lesser enemy that is attacking a greater enemy, especially if he does so in a public, inspiring, communitarian, and valorous fashion. Bedouins and nomads are never encouraged to settle anywhere in the world except by Harry Reid types. Taking control of your own country's land in your own country's general interest is a Jeff Sessions move, and one I would encourage American politicians not already fully beholden to Satan to pursue at every opportunity.

Insular ethnic groups who mind their own business are not my enemy at all. And while I don't expect to ever have to deal with Israeli Jew tribalism I see little reason to encourage it beyond the bounds of Christian decency.

On the other hand, if Mr. Bundy has been taking money from Mr. Adelson to go on speaking engagements anytime recently, feel free to disregard all of the above except the parts about nations having the general right to control their territory.

Mr. Bundy was mostly minding his own business which is why I supported him. The Bedouins are also mostly minding their own business which is why I support them. If the State, be it Reid or Netanyahu, seeks to forcibly urbanize people on the periphery of progressive degeneracy then I will stand against them, even if I have nothing in common with them (Bedouins) or even have something against them (Bundy).

[Epoetker]

Cliven Bundy has no loyalty or connections to the larger people of his country either seeing how he supports mass Mexican immigration. OH SNAP IT REALLY IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

I'm not getting any indications that he's worse or more opportunistic on immigration than Harry Reid, the primary antagonist in that conflict. Also, details on the cite, please. I expect you to at least minimally do what I did and type every name of every political personality into vdare.com's search to get a better and more thorough analysis of the personality in question than what you can recollect alone. No question that Peter Brimelow has the best one, and if he forgives him, I forgive him too, because he analyzes politicians and personalities for a living while I do it for a hobby.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be exactly the same to you, it is the same thing to libertarians who want the government to leave people alone.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, but I will generally refrain and encourage others to refrain from attacking a lesser enemy that is attacking a greater enemy, especially if he does so in a public, inspiring, communitarian, and valorous fashion. Bedouins and nomads are never encouraged to settle anywhere in the world except by Harry Reid types. Taking control of your own country's land in your own country's general interest is a Jeff Sessions move, and one I would encourage American politicians not already fully beholden to Satan to pursue at every opportunity.

On the other hand, if Mr. Bundy has been taking money from Mr. Adelson to go on speaking engagements anytime recently, feel free to disregard all of the above except the parts about nations having the general right to control their territory.

[Darth Executor]

You're maybe weakly right on the generalities, absolutely wrong in the particulars, as Israel is actually being consistent in claiming the land for their greater people versus the opportunistic and insular tribesmen who have never had any loyalty or connections to the larger people of their country of birth despite numerous opportunities to do so OH SNAP IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME

Cliven Bundy has no loyalty or connections to the larger people of his country either seeing how he supports mass Mexican immigration. OH SNAP IT REALLY IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be exactly the same to you, it is the same thing to libertarians who want the government to leave people alone.

[Epoetker]

I don't consider myself prejudiced against Israel. I'm pretty sure my posting record on here is more in favor of Israel than against. As I told Jesse, my rhetorical question about Christians supporting Israel is a reference to an earlier thread where we discussed the issue of Christians supporting Israel automatically without looking at the situation.

Are Christians obligated to force righteous or at least decently respectable men to integrate and take responsibility for people who will not do so themselves if given the chance?

It's like the Israeli version of Cliven Bundy, and a brief search reveals you supported him even though it's an identical situation (the government is legally in the right and morally in the wrong).

You're maybe weakly right on the generalities, absolutely wrong in the particulars, as Israel is actually being consistent in claiming the land for their greater people versus the opportunistic and insular tribesmen who have never had any loyalty or connections to the larger people of their country of birth despite numerous opportunities to do so OH SNAP IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME

[KingsGambit]

I did say, "But that is a separate issue you have not addressed here." It's only relevance is the sense that you were condemning Israel out of prejudice. If I am wrong about that, I am wrong.

I don't consider myself prejudiced against Israel. I'm pretty sure my posting record on here is more in favor of Israel than against. As I told Jesse, my rhetorical question about Christians supporting Israel is a reference to an earlier thread where we discussed the issue of Christians supporting Israel automatically without looking at the situation.

[Sparko]

So there is certainly a question as to how they got there. The article cites opposing views.

The article does say:

The petitioners claimed they did not squat on the land, but were transferred to the area in the Yattir Forest in 1956 by direct order of the military administration of the time. But now, their lands lie within the master plan of the Be’er Sheva metropolitan area. The government has never denied that the residents were moved to Umm al-Hiran by state authorities.

[Darth Executor]

I am a registered libertarian. I am not a good one however. I do believe in the state, but I believe it should be mostly not involved in everyday life.

From the OP article; “The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally." So there is certainly a question as to how they got there. The article cites opposing views. KG selected one of these views to support. I opted to not support either. You may note that I said as much in my response to KG, " I do not have enough information to condemn or support the action."

I do not take side here. I do support Israel in their dealing with the Palestinians. It was my sense that KG was making an unspoken reference to the Palestinian situation when he said, "Will Christians continue to make excuses for this government's actions if it's not against Palestinians this time?" I clearly did not support Israel in this. Your accusation of prejudice in my post seems to be all in your imagination.

I accused you of prejudice precisely because you claim there are "two views" in the article. There aren't. None of the facts are in dispute by either side. The government doesn't deny that it forcibly relocated the bedouins there. The "two sides" claim is one of your own making.

The petitioners claimed they did not squat on the land, but were transferred to the area in the Yattir Forest in 1956 by direct order of the military administration of the time. But now, their lands lie within the master plan of the Be’er Sheva metropolitan area. The government has never denied that the residents were moved to Umm al-Hiran by state authorities. Umm al-Hiran is now home to about 700 people, say residents, but like other Bedouin villages that lack official recognition as local municipal communities, it lacks infrastructure and electricity.

It's like the Israeli version of Cliven Bundy, and a brief search reveals you supported him even though it's an identical situation (the government is legally in the right and morally in the wrong).

[Jedidiah]

Why would you think he was only condemning Israel out of prejudice? Aren't you a libertarian? Do you approve of a government forcibly moving people to a land that they own and then throwing them off that land using their ownership claim as pretext? It seems to me that you are the prejudiced one, only your prejudice is servitude to Israel's will just because Israel is doing it rather than opposition to it.

I am a registered libertarian. I am not a good one however. I do believe in the state, but I believe it should be mostly not involved in everyday life.

From the OP article; “The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally." So there is certainly a question as to how they got there. The article cites opposing views. KG selected one of these views to support. I opted to not support either. You may note that I said as much in my response to KG, " I do not have enough information to condemn or support the action."

I do not take side here. I do support Israel in their dealing with the Palestinians. It was my sense that KG was making an unspoken reference to the Palestinian situation when he said, "Will Christians continue to make excuses for this government's actions if it's not against Palestinians this time?" I clearly did not support Israel in this. Your accusation of prejudice in my post seems to be all in your imagination.

[Jesse]

There was the thread a few weeks ago where some people established that a number of Christians (particularly in the US) will approve literally anything the Israeli government does because of perceived religious allegiance. Because as Jed points out, a number of Israel's neighbors want them wiped out, that seems to give some credence to Israeli's defensive postures. I'm posting this because this is a case that seems to have nothing to do with people with genocidal aims, so that issue doesn't have to come into play.

I'm not anti-Israel; I think their government is better than most in the Middle East. But I don't believe honest criticism is out of court.

I see what you mean. I have heard of people supporting Israel only because it is Israel and they were Christians. That seems silly to me. I just didn't see any type of religious problem here. Like Jedidiah said, they seem to be on land they don't own and the government wants it back.

[Darth Executor]

I did say, "But that is a separate issue you have not addressed here." It's only relevance is the sense that you were condemning Israel out of prejudice. If I am wrong about that, I am wrong.

Why would you think he was only condemning Israel out of prejudice? Aren't you a libertarian? Do you approve of a government forcibly moving people to a land that they own and then throwing them off that land using their ownership claim as pretext? It seems to me that you are the prejudiced one, only your prejudice is servitude to Israel's will just because Israel is doing it rather than opposition to it.

[Jedidiah]

Why would these be relevant here?

I did say, "But that is a separate issue you have not addressed here." It's only relevance is the sense that you were condemning Israel out of prejudice. If I am wrong about that, I am wrong.

[KingsGambit]

Sounds a lot like you are simply prejudiced against Israel. They are only people and are able to do wrong. I do not see them doing wrong in there dealings with their neighbors who want to kill them all. But that is a separate issue you have not addressed here.

Why would these be relevant here?

[Epoetker]

Israel's Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition by residents of the unrecognized Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran against their removal and the demolition of the community – in order to construct a new town for Jewish residents in its place. The court ruled the land belongs to the state and the Bedouins have no legal rights to it.

So, they're doing what the US did to the Indians, the Europeans did to Gypsies, what the black South Africans did to other African immigrants, and what you would demand the city council would do if you found out that, say, a trailer park was set up on land you owned by deed but hadn't developed yet.

It's obviously HYPOCRITICAL IN HOLY HOLOCAUST HINDSIGHT but an expected last step and an establishment of the principle that if you want to own land in a country, you have to work at getting legally recognized by the country, and not just legally ignored because the people can't deport you yet. For my part, I say that Israel NOT having the Holocaust as the primary motivator and influencer of every state decision is healthy and one to be emulated, especially by...say...American Jews and the politicians who take their money.

That sound you're hearing is the wail of a reliable liberal outrage mindset just faaaading away....

[Darth Executor]

According to the article you cited the the state is the owner of the lands in dispute. The Bedouins have never had or acquired any rights to the land. They settled there with out authorization.

This article is all I know about the whole thing. I do not have enough information to condemn or support the action. Your attitude seems to be that we should condemn Israel, but there is no real information in this article to base that on. Sounds a lot like you are simply prejudiced against Israel. They are only people and are able to do wrong. I do not see them doing wrong in there dealings with their neighbors who want to kill them all. But that is a separate issue you have not addressed here.

[KingsGambit]

I don't know why this would be divided down religious lines. This looks like nothing more than a land dispute. Though I admit I know nothing about Israeli politics.

There was the thread a few weeks ago where some people established that a number of Christians (particularly in the US) will approve literally anything the Israeli government does because of perceived religious allegiance. Because as Jed points out, a number of Israel's neighbors want them wiped out, that seems to give some credence to Israeli's defensive postures. I'm posting this because this is a case that seems to have nothing to do with people with genocidal aims, so that issue doesn't have to come into play.

I'm not anti-Israel; I think their government is better than most in the Middle East. But I don't believe honest criticism is out of court.