User talk:DaWalda/Agricultural history of the Negev

Feedback

@DaWalda, I think that using "Palestine" in the Later Iron Age: Political and economic history is anachronistic and could even be misleading. When I started reading it I thought that it referred to the areas inhabited by Philistines or their descendants. Alaexis_¿question? 19:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the name of the region. In the German Wikipedia, we have the (to my knowledge, nowhere explicitly documented) practice of referring to "Palästina" and linking to "Palästina (Region)" when discussing the region, and to "Staat Palästina" ("State of Palestine") when referring to the state. This is thought to be the politically most neutral solution. I assumed a similar practice in the English Wikipedia. After all, the main article on the history of the region is titled "History of Palestine." Is this not the case?
I'll change a few 'Palestine's to 'region of Palestine's, maybe that will be less ambiguous. Would that suffice for you? --DaWalda (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there is no such practice on English Wikipedia, especially when writing about this period.

The policy is to follow reliable sources. Consider the sources you used for the section, I've looked at three random ones (Zucconi, Beit-Arieh and Lipschits et al) and none of them use this term to refer to the region at that time. To be precise, Zucconi uses it once but only in a quote from a book published in 1936. Alaexis_¿question? 09:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Plus: I lied. There is another article about the History of Israel, largely with the same content. How strange. Here is the corresponding discussion; it ended without a resolution. So, right now, there indeed doesn't seem to be any official policy. Would "region of Palestine" suffice for you? --DaWalda (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of what would suffice for me. I just don't see any reason to use this particular term in this particular context, considering that it's neither used by the sources you're using or by the contemporaries. E.g., in Aram and Israel during the Jehuite Dynasty these events are described as "Hazael conquered the Israelite territory."

More importantly, what is the source for Hazael's conquest triggering the strengthening of Judean power in Arad-Beer Sheva region? I can't find it in the article by Lipshitz et al. Alaexis_¿question? 18:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

See for example in Frevel. It is, however, only certain that following Hazael's conquest, Judah strengthened under the Omrides. Not many have so decisively accepted that Hazael's conquest was also the reason for this, as Frevel has, so I have tried to find a wording that allows both a temporal and a causal connection. I will add to Frevel on the page. DaWalda (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing "Palestine" being used for "the areas inhabited by Philistines or their descendants". A considerable majority of academic sources use "Palestine" in the broader sense, some use "Canaan" and a few (mostly those by Israeli authors) use "Land of Israel". Exceptions can occur if the territory of a particular polity is under discussion, rather than a region defined geographically. Zero^talk 06:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've also been thinking about this over the past few days: I believe we can't solve here what hasn't been resolved on the pages where it is directly relevant for titling. It would be desirable to eventually have a central regulation on Wikipedia, but as long as that isn't the case, there's simply no good solution here. "Israel" is not appropriate, if only because it would be misleading in an article about the Negev. "Canaan" was limited to northern and central Palestine on the Canaan page (probably rightly so), so that's not an option either. "Southwestern Levant" is possible, but it would be a comprehension barrier for most readers. Therefore, my opinion is that 'region of Palestine' is currently the best option, and it can certainly be changed once there is a central regulation. DaWalda (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Scope

A lot of the content in the draft is not directly related to agriculture. Considering that there is no History of Negev article, maybe it would be better to rename this to History of Negev and, if needed, split the detailed discussion of agriculture into a new article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine for me. Then perhaps something from the agricultural section would need to be cut. DaWalda (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for the radio silence - I was offline for a few days. Just wanted to say that most of the issues I raised below are not show-stoppers and can be discussed after the article is published. This one (about the scope) is the only one that has to be addressed before that, because if the scope is unclear it can become a mess pretty fast. So if you are fine with starting with the history of the Negev, then let's create that article and then we can discuss the issues I've raised and also you could on the Agricultural history of the Negev article. Alaexis_¿question? 07:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem :)
Yes, I agree with you. That's why I've revised it over the last few days to make it more or less a regional history. I hope I've succeeded. I've asked for feedback on the two platforms you recommended; if nothing comes of it, we can go ahead with that. DaWalda (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This should just be "History of the Negev". Suggest incorporating some of the text from Negev, e.g.:

Although historically part of a separate region (known during the Roman period as Arabia Petraea), the Negev was added to the proposed area of Mandatory Palestine, of which large parts later became Israel, on 10 July 1922, having been conceded by British representative St John Philby "in Trans-Jordan's name".[a] Despite this, the region remained exclusively Arab until 1946; in response to the British Morrison–Grady Plan which would have allotted the area to an Arab state, the Jewish Agency enacted the 11 points in the Negev plan to begin Jewish settlement in the area.[2][3] A year later, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine allotted a larger part of the area to the Jewish State which became Israel.

...although it needs a small tweak to incorporate the Three Lookouts from 1943. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "historically part of a separate region", this is covered exhaustively (perhaps too exhaustively) under The cultural region of the Negev Bedouin. The Zionist settlement history, including the Three Lookouts and the 11 Points, was under "Mandate Period"; however, I have now created two separate subsections to make it more accessible. Do you think more should be incorporated there, @Onceinawhile? DaWalda (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In terms of what could be added from the Negev article text above, I suggest three things:

• The story of St. John Philby's allotment of the area
• The fact that the traditional Negev area (exluding the "Northern Negev" as defined here) is neither part of historical "Palestine" nor part of historical "Israel" proper.
• The fact that the traditional Negev area (exluding the "Northern Negev" as defined here) was exclusively Arab until 1946.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(1) Done. I additionally outlined the drawing of the border with Egypt, which cannot be easily omitted if one intends to elaborate on the border with Jordan.
(2) Well, that would be a considerable generalization. The regions were very likely separate in the early Iron Age, certainly most of the later Iron Age, definitely in the Hellenistic period, and mostly in the Hasmonean period. However, they were not separate in the early Roman, Byzantine, early Islamic, and Mandate periods, only to a limited extent in the Ottoman period, and it is uncertain for the Crusader period. The crucial point - historically and ideologically - is rather that the Negev was nearly never an independent region separate from the Sinai and seldom from western Jordan before 1906.
(3) I think that is already made quite clear in the lead section and in the first two introductory lines to the 'Bedouin period.' What do you think is still missing? DaWalda (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @DaWalda: thanks for your response. I have reviewed the article structure again in that light. Some of the sections read unnaturally to me, as much of the area you cover in the Later Iron Age, Hellenistic, Maccabean, Byzantine and early Islamic periods almost exclusively focus on an area that is not part of what is normally considered the "Negev proper".

This appears to be due to the inclusion of the what article defines as the "Northern Negev", north of Beersheba, an area which I suspect is a modern extrapolation of the definition of the Negev. For example, the map shown here shows the more traditional boundaries - i.e. the Negev is the area south of Beersheba, and this review of the 1989 Atlas of the Negev states: "The northern boundary follows the 200-millimeter isohyet that runs approximately twenty kilometers north of the largest city in the Negev, Beersheba".

This "Northern Negev" area has a quite different cultural history versus the area south of Beersheba.

Perhaps to resolve this, the article structure could be amended to more clearly delineate between the northern Negev and the rest of the area. And in an ideal world, we find a few sources which explain the historical context of the northern boundary of the region.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1945 Survey of Palestine, Index to Villages & settlements

@Zero0000: regarding the "northern Negev" in File:Negev regions.jpg, I believe it comes from the boundaries of the Beersheba Subdistrict, Mandatory Palestine, as it follows a very similar shape. For example:

Kirk, George Eden (1941). "The Negev, or Southern Desert of Palestine". Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 73 (2): 57–71. doi:10.1179/peq.1941.73.2.57. ISSN 0031-0328. Administratively it is known as the Beersheba sub-district, and recent Jewish writers have revived the old Hebrew appellation Negev, meaning "The Dry," applied vaguely to the lands south of Beersheba.

The map of the right is instructive. I have three questions:

• The map on the right shows two names in different fonts in the middle of the Negev: "Gaza" in large outline font, and "Beersheba" in smaller bold font. I presume this is suggesting that the boundary names changed (and possibly the boundaries themselves changed) but it is not clear from the map.
• Do you have any knowledge of when and by whom the subdistrict boundaries were set?
• What is your view of the right core northern boundary for an article on the Negev? Mine is that since the northern boundary is open to interpretation, the article should primarily focus on "south of Beersheba" as all agree that that area is in the Negev, whilst the north of Beersheba area should be included but clearly delineated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The Negev is not clearly delineated to the north. Halprin, for example, considers the belt north of Beersheba, where Negba, Dorot (the green settlement directly west of Ruhama) and Gath (the green settlement east of Faluja) are located, as the "border zone" of the Negev; thus, Halprin's "Negev borderland" extends even further north.

At the very beginning of drafting the article, my starting point was that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs approximately took the area of the Beersheba district as the agricultural zone "Negev" (see, for example, the map in Rummel). But honestly, I didn't question this much for the article, since the same area is considered "Negev" on the Negev page, and since this is also one of the two variants I know from biblical archaeology. It is also referenced in Footnotes 1+2; the referenced Jericke (an important biblical geographer) also considers the valley systems of the Nahal Gerar and Nahal Besor as the "northern Negev." The atlas you referred to, which states that the Negev ends 20 km north of Beersheba, is referring to the same region. For example, Tel Ma'aravim on the Nahal Gerar is 16 km north of Beersheba. Besides this, however, in biblical archaeology, there is indeed also the spatial division that instead takes the Beersheba-Arad Valley as the "northern Negev."

The boundaries that you asked Zero about come from the early 20th century. Until 1899, southern Palestine was part of the Gaza district, which belonged to the Jerusalem Mutasarrifate. When Beersheba was founded as a city in 1900, the Ottomans also established the Beersheba sub-district, incorporating mainly areas from the previous Gaza sub-district and also subordinating it to the Jerusalem district. As mentioned in the article, the southwestern border was first defined in 1906 (though the Ottomans did not agree with this delineation). This belongs to the chaotic border fluctuations between 1841 and 1906 (see The cultural region of the Negev Bedouin, on the "Ottoman period" and the "end of the Ottoman period"), which I consciously did not detail individually, because it would have exceeded the scope of the page (already the article in the Interactive Encyclopedia of the Palestine Question, which I referenced, is only a simplification). Do you think that needs to be elaborated in more detail? DaWalda (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks DaWalda. I think the article would benefit significantly from all this being set out, as it would provide solid scaffolding to article's scope.

With respect to your comments above, our challenge is that none of the sources [that I have read] state, describe or illustrate what were the borders of the new Ottoman Beersheba Kaza. I also haven't seen a source stating that the Ottoman Beersheba Kaza boundaries were retained by the British, but if that was the case it would provide a good resolution. Though that question is less important than the question of why did the Ottomans [or the British?] define the borders in this way – we need to answer that to make sense of whether the Ottoman Beersheba Kaza borders are really relevant in defining what the Negev is considered to be today.

Avci's article doesn't answer this question, but sets the context quite well:

There were a number of political, administrative and economic reasons for the decision to build a town in the Negev. The chief concern of the Ottoman state was to consolidate the security of the southern border of Jerusalem mutasarrifik (the district of Jerusalem). The British presence in Egypt after 1882 not only led to a problem of the exact border between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire, but also made Southern Palestine one of the areas crucial to the security of Ottoman domains. For the Ottomans, the creation of Beersheba as a sub-district meant a considerable tightening of their hold over the whole region." In fact, the establishment of Beersheba was also related to efforts to raise more revenue from the provinces. The lands around Beersheba were relatively fertile; the location of the new town was favourable to the encouragement of trade and the Bedouins nearby were inclined to live a sedentary life. Therefore there were many reasons to expect that the sedentarization of the Bedouins would increase the revenue transferred from the Jerusalem district to the centre. Until the end of the nineteenth century, the principal taxes, especially the tithe (ösr or the principal land tax) and the sheep tax (agnam) were occasionally farmed out by the powerful Bedouin sheikhs. The governor consulted them to decide on the amount of tax that each individual should pay, and they were also responsible for the effective collection of taxes from the tribes under their control. Obviously, this system by its nature was vulnerable to abuse, and reduced the revenue coming from the region. After the creation of the town of Beersheba, that situation changed to a considerable extent. The Bedouins of Beersheba were made to pay their taxes regularly. For instance, in 1906, they paid a lump sum of 23 000 TL for the tithes, sheep, tax and other direct imports; this was a good share of the total income from the Jerusalem district, which amounted to 233.207 TL. Another reason for the construction of a town in the desert was the distance of the vast area in the south from the nearest administrative centre, that is to say the city of Gaza. The dependency of the Southern Negev on the Gaza sub-district brought no benefit to the state, but rather it served only to intensify the land disputes among the Bedouins. They were often subjected to the corrupt practices of the urban notables who dominated the administrative council and courts in Gaza. The very establishment of an administrative centre in Beersheba meant the separation of the Negev with its Bedouin population from the sub-district of Gaza, and the inclusion of the area within the direct administration of the governor of Jerusalem responsible directly to Istanbul. In fact, this project pertained to the Tanzimat policy that pursued the aim of more centralization and better control in the provincial administration.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1944 Survey of Palestine population map

This 1944 population map illustrates the likely rationale very well. It shows the settled areas being only Beersheba city, plus Ruhama and the Three lookouts – all of which were established after the establishment of the sub-district. The borders of the sub-district appear to purposely avoid the historical villages of Kawfakha, Al-Muharraqa and Al-Qubayba, amongst others – in other words, when the sub-district was established, there were no settled areas in it at all. And a box at the bottom states "In the Beersheba Sub-District at certain times of the year the population of nomad Moslems is estimated to be between 40,000 and 63,000."

Given the apparently purposeful avoidance of the historical villages in the boundaries, it seems highly likely that the borders were created simply to combine all the southern areas populated by Bedouin, in order to manage and control the Bedouin politics and economy, as Avci describes above.

Thus, the Negev, as defined in this article, is simply shorthand for the historical "Southern Bedouin area".

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Kark actually writes it exactly like that: The Ottomans had deliberately drawn the borders of the Negev district so that it would be a purely Bedouin district, while the other districts were predominantly settled districts. I will add this tomorrow, good point. Regarding the fact that the British borders corresponded to those of 1906, I have now incidentally already added a source (precisely, for example, Biger 2004, p. 94 f.: 'The final decision adopted the 1906 line with all its disadvantages, especially since it was a compromise line between the various proposals and because it was already marked on maps and on the ground, and no additional investment of resources and time was necessary for its establishment. The final decision determined that the area east of the 'Negev triangle' line would be added to Palestine, without specifying its eastern delimitation limit.'). DaWalda (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As you say, Kark explains it perfectly:

Kark, Ruth; Frantzman, Seth J. (2012). "The Negev: Land, Settlement, the Bedouin and Ottoman and British Policy 1871–1948". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 39 (1): 53–77. doi:10.1080/13530194.2012.659448. ISSN 1353-0194. The Negev was incorporated into the British Mandatory government of Palestine and became its own district. Its borders were drawn in such a way that all settled villages recognised by the Mandatory administration on the fringes of the Negev were included in the Hebron and Gaza sub-districts. The Beersheba sub-district thus appears to represent, in its borders, the delineation of what the Mandatory administration saw as being between the 'desert and the sown'. This is apparent in the gerrymandering of the sub-district's northern boundary so that Kaufakha and El Muharraqa were included in the Gaza sub-district but their boundaries extended, like bite marks, into the Beersheba sub-district. Lands north of them that were populated by nomads, however, were included in the Beersheba district.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

All of this now begs the question, if in the early 20th century "the Negev" meant the Ottoman / British "Beersheba sub-district", what does "the Negev" mean today? Does it include Bureij and Maghazi, today refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, but previously inside the borders of the Ottoman / British Beersheba Subdistrict? Or perhaps just the modern Israeli Beersheba Subdistrict, which has other differences versus the original definition, such as including Amatzia, built on the ruins of Al-Dawayima in the Hebron subdistrict. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a fascinating question, but probably one that cannot be definitively answered. I reviewed my sources again yesterday following your question. It seems there are at least five criteria that are sometimes used to determine where the "Negev" ends in the north and northwest: (1) soil type (loessial soil), (2) precipitation (variously 200, 300 or 350 mm/year) (for both see the very cool map here, p. 2), (3) geography (Gerar-Besor valley system), (4) settlement history ("desert and the sown"), (5) territorial history (~Beersheba district). Depending on the criterion, the western locations may or may not be included. I know, that's not really satisfactory ;) DaWalda (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor DaWalda: To editor Onceinawhile: See Districts of Mandatory Palestine for the history of the district demarcation during the mandate period. As you can see the partition was repeatedly revised (and there were several minor revisions not mentioned on that page). The subdistrict boundaries corresponded to the boundaries of village or tribal lands, and the official definitions consisted of lists of which villages and tribal areas each contained. These lists were published in the Palestine Gazette and I have them all. The final list, apart from a few small adjustments later, is in the Palestine Gazette No. 1415, Supplement 2, June 7, 1945. The Gaza District was divided into the Gaza Sub-District and the Beersheba Sub-District, the former defined by 63 villages and the latter by 7 villages (El Auja, Beersheba, Beit Eshel, Gevulot, Jammama, Ruhama, Tel Tsofim) and a collection of tribal units. I don't know if the mandate administration had an official definition of "Negev", and the word appears rarely in official documents. The best I could find is in an explanatory statement of the 1940 land transfer regulations which has "the southern portion of the Beersheba Sub-District (the Negeb)" but even that is ambiguous as to whether the Negeb is all of the sub-district or just the southern portion. I don't know much about the Israel side of the story, but an administrative map I have from 1968 shows a Beersheba District of almost identical extent to the one in the map at the top of Districts of Mandatory Palestine. "The Negev" is labelled but without boundaries indicated. Zero^talk 03:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Style

This is a minor quibble, but you might want to change the style a bit. Wikipedia is not a place to publish new research and therefore its style differs from that of a scholarly article. Consider the following sentence

Two assumptions about Bedouin land use after 1100 AD are still quite widespread in research

When you say that these assumptions are widespread, do you mean that this is the current scholarly consensus? If yes, then you should simply describe it and then note the dissenting opinions. Or do you want to say that the newer research change the consensus and now these assumptions are no longer held by the majority of scholars? In that case you should simply describe the *new* consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 06:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right. I meant to say that this is the old position (I haven't cited older representatives due to their age), but it is also still held by the newer authors I cited. But I will rephrase that; you are absolutely right. --DaWalda (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Scope - mandate period

You discuss in great detail the reasons for the shift of land ownership from Arabs to Jewish settlers during the final decades of the Ottoman period and the mandate period. My knowledge about this topic is limited so I might be wrong but it seems like it's mostly not about the Negev. For example, the olive trees tax was unlikely to have a major impact on the inhabitants of the Negev. The general statistics about the whole Mandate Palestine (% of Jewish-owned land, % of landless peasants) likewise belong to other articles and not here. I would trim this section down and focus on the local events and trends. Alaexis_¿question? 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an olive tax, but the worst was the land tax. Some of the plagues — the livestock disease of 1932, for example — occurred only in the Negev; thus, they were even more affected than those in the north. But broadly speaking, during those eight years, things went downhill for all farmers and herders, including the Bedouins.

As for the total percentages, you are right; I just wanted to make it understandable how the conditions in the Negev differed from the rest of Palestine. Another problem was that there are no independent evaluations of how much Bedouin land had been purchased by Effendis (there is a Zionist survey from 1920, but it only uses vague descriptions like "a large area" or "a lot"), so I used the overall average instead. Does that not make sense? If so, I'm happy to remove it. --DaWalda (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd remove the details that are already present or can be added to other articles such as Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership and Jewish land purchase in Palestine. It's fine to note the difference between the situation in the Negev and elsewhere in Palestine, but the details should be in those articles. Alaexis_¿question? 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Like this? Or is it still too long, what do you think, @Alaexis? DaWalda (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Agriculture during the mandate period

You emphasise the ideological and military aspects of the Jewish settlements and mention the agricultural experiments only briefly. For the History of the Negev article it's fair enough, but I would still add a few sentences about the nature of those experiments.

For the Agricultural history of the Negev the focus should be on the agriculture itself, and the ideological and military significance of the Jewish settlements should be mention inasmuch they affected or were influenced by the agriculture. Alaexis_¿question? 09:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm, well. The crux was that these settlements were later marketed as agricultural settlements or as research stations. However, actual farming was only conducted at the three observation posts; the others, before the war, were merely fortresses disguised as residential settlements or research stations (see also, besides the cited sources, Kark, p. 168: "Cereal-growing occupied the largest area in the Negev settlements, but in the more northern settlements, most of the experience in this branch was not acquired until the year 1948. In the southern settlements, cultivation was experimental in nature and was concentrated in the three observation posts."). I don't think that this is irrelevant.

The research was a problem for me. Regarding the research, Kark writes the following:

"Since the settlements wanted to obtain quicker results they made use of chemical materials in order to change the physical structure of the top layer of the soil. Similarly, a few experiements were undertaken to test the efficacy of chemical fertilizers for various crops.
The principal conclusions formed by the observation posts about cereal cultivation was that in rainy years there were prospects for good crops in the region of Gevulot and Beit Eshel, whereas in areas further south, in the environs of Revivim (which was then the southernmost settlement), even winter crops under dry irrigation could not be expected without additional irrigation [obviously, since Revivim was not just in the south, but built right in the middle of the sand dunes. Kark omits this]. As for summer crops, negative results were obtained in the three observation posts." (p. 168 f.)

In short: It was recognized that plants grow better with fertilizer and water than without. Moreover, she writes about the finding that a certain seed rotation sequence was beneficial for production, but she omits that this knowledge was taught to the Zionists by neighboring Bedouins and was not a result of their own research. My issue with these "findings" was that more propagandistic Palestinian texts often emphasize how little the early Zionists knew about agriculture. Kark tries to present the research results as advanced insights, but in reality, it hits exactly the same note. I wanted to avoid that. Maybe you have a good suggestion how to solve this in a NPOV way.

Additionally, Kark shows a plan of the test fields where the growth of different subspecies was compared (see p. 164). If there were a copyright-free plan of Revivim with these test fields, I would like to include it here, as this last point is quite fascinating. But as far as I can see, it there isn't any copyright-free plan. --DaWalda (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case probably you're right and if there were just some small-scale experiments then we don't need to describe them in more detail than you do now.

On a different note, since you do focus on the political and military aspects of these settlements, it's worth mentioning that some of these settlements like Ruhama were destroyed and depopulated during the disturbances of 1929 and 1936. Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ruhama: I read this on the Ruhama page and researched it, as it is not sourced there. The history of Ruhama is not clear to me at all.
(1) Most commonly, it is read that the Zionist settlement's land was bought and the settlement was founded in 1911. However, according to a sales document, the land was not purchased until 1913
(2) According to most versions, in 1917, someone overcame someone there and subsequently took over a village, which was re-founded by its earlier inhabitants only in 1944. However, this is reported both of the Zionist village and the Ottomans and the Zionist village and the British, as well as of the Palestinian village al-Jammama and the British.
(3) Afaik, only Avneri writes about both destructions of 1929 and 1936-1939, but doesn't seem to know anything of a British occupation Avneri is purely a propagandist and not a good historical source; however, the destruction around 1929 is also reported by Kellerman, who does not seem to know the 1917 or 1936 destructions, and the one around 1936-1939 by Kark, who does not seem to know the 1929 destruction. I do not understand how these 1929 / 1936-1939 destructions are supposed to fit with the fact that it was British after 1917. Avneri and Kellerman do not provide sources, Kark cites herself with her dissertation, which was not accessible to me. As long as the history of Ruhama is so unclear to me, I would not have written anything more specific on the page here. DaWalda (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You should copy these comments to Talk:Ruhama, as that article is not in good shape. I am horrified to see it largely based on a book by the fantasist Immanuel Velakowski, including a wild claim that it was the British HQ for the conquest of Palestine. I have several "reliable" sources for each of 1911, 1912, and 1913 for its founding. Foundation dates are a bit fuzzy as sometimes the date cited is when a group was formed to establish the settlement, or when land was bought, rather than when it was actually established. I found that there are multiple pages about Ruhama in "Ruth Kark: History of Jewish Frontier Settlement in the Negev (Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, Ramat Gan, 1974)" which is alas a Hebrew book that I don't have access to. Incidentally, I found an article in The New Palestine of January 1921: "A number of Jewish colonies are in future to be known by their Hebrew names as follows:" and one of the examples is "Ruhama (Jemameh)". Zero^talk 13:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "History of Jewish Frontier Settlement in the Negev" is Kark's Dissertation. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that either.

The second source you referenced is interesting. Could you give me the link? It reinforces my suspicion that there in fact was never a village named Ruhama before 1944. I'll give you four excerpts from the Hebrew essay by Kanaani linked on the page:

(1) About the early years:

Contrary to the dangers posed by the Bedouins, at that time there was no danger from the local farmers. The tenants of Jemmama knew that the sale of the land to the new settlers did not harm them. The village itself remained intact, and no living spaces were taken away. To foster good neighborly relations, the farm people allowed the village herds to graze in the harvested fields, especially in years of drought. The land of Ruhama was purchased from foreign Effendis who wanted to get rid of the fragmented lands of Jemmama and received full payment for them. It was well known that if anyone cared for the poor tenants, it was the settlers of Ruhama.

(2) 1914:

In the spring of 1914, Hirschfeld met with the leaders of "She'erit Yisrael" in Moscow, and at this meeting, the fundamental questions of Ruhama's existence were raised. Hirschfeld reports: "... in Moscow, I gave the founder of the society, Shimon Velikovsky, a detailed report on our activities ... the necessity to allocate them (the workers) a piece of land in installments and to lend them small amounts so that they can build houses, prepare agricultural needs like animals, and only in this way will the idea of a permanent settlement be realized, as now everything is temporary ... we must allocate only 400-500 Dunams and settle twenty families."

(3) 1915:

To promote their integration into the community of workers in Judea, the people of Ruhama sent a delegate to the fourth conference of the agricultural workers' union in Rishon LeZion. At that time, the union had 977 workers in six settlements and two farms, of whom 194 were women workers. In Ruhama, there were then 15 workers.

(4) A quote from 1917:

"Ruhama is the last settlement point in the south, situated on a hill with firm clay soil. The courtyard is surrounded by a wall, and in the wall, the rooms of the farm are built, narrow and half-dark. Outside the wall are almond groves. How many hopes were placed in these trees? The almond trees are developed and large, but they do not bear fruit. It seems that a lack of water causes this" (Rachel Yanait - "We Are Rising").

So, it seems that although there were plans to establish a Jewish village on the purchased land of the village Jemmama (which would typically have led to the expulsion of the Palestinian villagers, thus, the villagers in fact did not "know that the sale of the land" would not "harm them"), this never materialized. Ruhama was never a village but remained a farm with one courtyard and a few attached workers' accommodations until its end around 1917. Even in 1915, the number of workers living there and belonging to the owner families did not exceed 15. If historical sources refer to "Ruhama," they either mean the Palestinian village Jemmama, which was renamed Ruhama after being purchased, or this small Jewish farm. But this is just my reconstruction; I believe a source is needed to correct this on the Ruhama page. DaWalda (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaWalda: A good place for you look is in the Historical Jewish Press. For example, is this 1913 article on target? If so there could be an earlier one. (My Hebrew is 0.001%.) Note that there is/was a neighbourhood of Jerusalem with the same name. The first mention in the English language newspapers there is the 1921 mention in The New Palestine (a US Zionist newspaper) that I mentioned before. Regarding the history, the 1921 mention indicates that it existed then. Also the "Handbook of Palestine" published by the Government of Palestine in 1922 lists Ruhama. However, it is absent from the 1922 census it seems. So perhaps it existed but wasn't populated then.

The National Library of Israel has a file of original documents concerning the founding of Ruhama but unfortunately it is not on the internet. Here is their summary, which raises more questions:

ב- 5 בדצמבר 1912, נחנך היישוב הראשון בנגב - רוחמה. בשנים 1914-1912 הושקעו במקום אלפי פראנקים ורובלים בהכשרת הקרקע, בקידוחי מים ובמיתקני שרברבות, במשק החי ובמבני משק שונים. ביוזמת צבי הירשפלד ועוזרו, אליהו אבן-טוב, הוזמנו למקום אגרונומים לתכנון שטחים נוספים למטע שקדים. כן הוקמו חדר-אוכל, מרפאה ומטבח פועלים, בהנהלתה של ציפורה זייד. באביב 1914 נפגש צבי הירשפלד במוסקבה עם ראשי 'שארית ישראל', ובפגישה זו הועלו שאלות-היסוד של קיום רוחמה. הסכנות מצד הבדווים, מחסור בכסף ובמים, מכות הארבה והכיבוש ע"י הבריטים, הביא לסיום הפרק הראשון בתולדותיה של רוחמה בס

What is that "בס" on the end? Zero^talk 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The letters Bet Samech, for BeSoph ("you are At the End of the chapter"). Had to look this up myself. Seems to have been common in older newspaper articles. I wrote something on the Ruhama page, thanks a lot :) DaWalda (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Israeli period

I think that there are two potential neutrality problems here. Assuming that this article would deal with the general history of the Negev, it would need to cover many other aspects of the region's history, for example the industry, agriculture, education, crime, water and energy, etc. This is not necessarily a show-stopper, the draft can be promoted to the mainspace as is, and then other editors can add the missing parts.

The other issue is that your overview is a bit one-sided. It's well-known that the Bedouin town and villages are some of the poorest in Israel, but saying that "This situation has changed little since then" is a bit misleading. It glosses over quite major developments that have affected the Bedouin population. To give just one example, the average monthly income of Bedouin men is about $2000 [1], which is certainly much higher than it used to be, and, incidentally, much higher than the average income of Jordanian men ($775) [2]. Alaexis_¿question? 10:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you first for all the comments. Then: I found it very difficult to write historically about the regional development of the Siyag without it turning into outright Israel-bashing. Therefore, I tried to present only the facts that were directly relevant to regional development, but even that sounds a lot like bashing. Things like outright racism in Knesset discussions about the Siyag I already left unmentioned because they can be omitted without loss for regional development, but ultimately the development history is just as unpleasant as it is.

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm unsure if I agree with everything. The sentence you quoted I will delete, you are certainly right about that. But poverty is always a regional-relational issue. For example, in Germany, the average earnings in 1949 were equivalent to €8,514 per year. In 2023, it was €47,000, while in neighboring Poland, which is also a part of the EU, it was only €28,000. Therefore, the avarage salary of 1947 or the average salary in Jordan says little about the conditions in Israel; the significant figure here is 56.9% earning less than the minimum wage despite 82.7% employment rate (or do the minimum wage figures only apply to those employed? That would be even more severe). --DaWalda (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, for the link to BGU. The figures are from 2018 as well, but the average salary is a more reliable measure than the poverty threshold (the higher number from the Negev Coexistence Forum probably comes from the larger average family sizes and the lower employment rate among women). DaWalda (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly true that Israel has treated its Bedouin population rather poorly. My point is that it's not the only thing that happened there and the article about the history of the region should discuss other aspects as well. It's like writing about the History of California only through the prism of the Native Americans.

It doesn't mean that *you* have to write about everything. After the article is published, we could tag this section as requiring expansion and then other editors would work on it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Publishing

@DaWalda, do you plan to publish the article? I think it's mostly ready for publishing. It need not be perfect, all Wikipedia articles change and (mostly) become better over time. Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have split it and am in the process of publishing. I have already published Ancient history of the Negev and History of the Negev during the Mamluk and Ottoman periods; I am currently working on the third and final part. DaWalda (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, I'll take a look at them! Alaexis_¿question? 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to see the whole history part published! Tremendous work, congratulation. There will be a lot of interventions from fellow editors, but you've put a huge amount of thorough work into it. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Arminden, I didn’t get any notifications about your comments. Thank you! DaWalda (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Regions

Thank you for taking up this task.

Before you go ahead with it, I'd like to ask you to consider other ways of addressing the topic. Yours is very Bible-centric, which is justified in certain contexts, but not in most nowadays. The Negev is an inhabited region, with a natural and human geography which has very little in common with the Bronze & Iron Ages. Please just think of

• Northern Negev vs. NW Negev: Israelites & Philistines are long gone, while climate zones and modern habitation patterns are very relevant.
• Negev Highland(s): missing from your scheme
• Eilat Mountains: it's a common term. Your "Southern Negev", while being a nice straight-line strip, is pure fiction.

-Arava: its relation to the Negev - part of? Separate from?

There are good criteria to define the regions, and there are quotable books doing just that; you don't need to do it. Climate zones, geology, geography, population and administrative regions are probably the most relevant criteria. One can have several sections in the article, each with its own topic and set of regions according to its own criteria, but the overall separation into regions usually follows this mixed approach.

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is now too late; I have already reworked the ancient history, Mamluk, and Ottoman periods into pages. If this needs to be changed again, it would have to be done directly on these pages.

If it is pure fiction, it is not my fiction, but Jericke's:

"From the correlation between the modern and biblical understanding, four subregions emerge: (1) the northwestern Negev west of the present-day city of Beersheba (Bīr es-Seba‘ / Be’er Scheva‘; coordinates: 1304.0720; N 31° 14' 15, E 34° 47' 35) with the valley systems of Wādī eš-Šerī‘a / Nahal Gerar and Wādī Ġazze / Nahal Besor; (2) the northeastern Negev with the Beersheba Valley; (3) the central Negev up to the height of Kadesh(-Barnea); (4) the southern Negev as a narrow triangle tapering to the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba."

Historically, this division seemed reasonable to me. Before the turn of the era and, to some extent, even up to the Crusader period, the northwestern, northeastern, and central Negev could be distinguished relatively consistently as three settlement systems. This division also aligns with geological and climatic conditions: (1) fertile soil and sufficient rainfall for agriculture in the northwest(ern valley systems); (2) less rainfall, making agriculture less feasible in the northwest, which roughly corresponds to the Beersheba-Arad Valley; (3) the northern part of the Negev Highlands, north of the Ramon Crater, suitable for wadi agriculture as the Central Negev (hence the terracing systems evident here archaeologically); (4) the Negev south of 31°, largely unsuitable for agriculture due to consistently less than 100 mm of rainfall. Why does your three-part division seem more reasonable to you? DaWalda (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

POV

Did you consider accepting, every now and then, an Israeli approach to anything re. modern history? It doesn't seem so. This part of the presentation will be at least controversial, to the point of being targeted for deletion. Believe me or not, but not EVERYTHING Israelis did in the Negev had the single purpose of screwing the Bedouin. But nobody reading your text will ever be confronted with that thought, now will they? I call this militant activism on Wiki. Whatever, jedem Tierchen sein Pläsierchen. Arminden (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: This is a draft. As you can see from the sites already completed, I’ve thoroughly re-edited them; I would do the same for a "Modern History" as well. Nevertheless, after your comment, I reread the modern period. I believe that at least up to 1949, what I've drafted is fairly uncontroversial. I also want to clarify right from the start that I always use AI assistance to check my Wikipedia texts for spelling, grammar, and POV; so, I'm quite confident that it’s not just me who finds it free from POV-pushing.

I think "Expulsion of the Negev Bedouins during the war" clearly reflects the mainstream interpretation. The most cited sources here are Morris, Kark, and Yahel; it would be extreme if you accused this section of lacking consideration of the Israeli perspective. If you were to argue that we should also add, for example, that Karsh and Shapira present an even more favorable interpretation of the conquest of southern Palestine, we would need to also add voices like Pappé and Khalidi for NPOV balance, which, in my opinion, would overly burden such a specialized article.

I also don’t see how "Displacement and expropriation of the Bedouins after the war" could be POV-laden. When reading it, I briefly thought you might mean section 3, but NPOV demands that, in addition to the Israeli perspective, the perspective of the rest of the world is mentioned and explained.

After 1949:

Section "The Siyag": Section 1 presents the reasoning of Israeli politicians; section 2 compares this with the actual conditions, and for section 3, I don’t see anything controversial there. Even the cited Regavim report (pp. 29 f) recounts it this way (I probably don’t need to elaborate on Regavim's ideological orientation).

Section "Development towns": Doesn’t deal with the Bedouins at all. I don’t see where this could be considered activist. I would understand if you didn’t like the sentence "Even the areas ... were insufficient," but I think it’s necessary to mention that they weren’t only moved to camps but also to Israeli towns and former Palestinian villages.

As far as I know, the early history of the Ma'abarot residents as one of disadvantage isn’t disputed and has to be mentioned here to explain the reasons for out-migration further down.

Section "Planned Bedouin towns": Section 1 provides statistical data on how Bedouins began working in Israeli settlements and cites an explanation for this. I can’t detect any POV issues here. You might be right about section 2; it would probably need to specify the official reasons given for why the Bedouins now need to move to towns. I would need to research this. Sections 3-4, however, should be non-controversial again.

"Unrecognized settlements": Section 1 is not favorable, but that’s just how it happened. Leaving it out would clearly be a POV violation. Sections 2-3 I reread critically. I could understand if "despite having to endure" is seen as a POV phrasing – but I don’t see how the development described here could be POV. One needs to explain why they continue to live there.

The sections "Beersheba suburbs" and "Countermeasures against the Bedouin 'demographic threat'" only cover the Israeli perspective. I could understand if you criticize the second heading, but the fact that the new towns are intended to address not only the housing crisis but also the "demographic threat" is no secret; it’s widely discussed in Israeli newspapers. Omitting this would be POV.

"Part-time agriculture, agritourism, and Agro-Tech": Sections two, three, and four are likely unproblematic for you as well. Section 1 could (and probably should) be restructured, but the individual pieces of information are once again uncontroversial.

So, even after critically reviewing, the potential POV issues I see are:

• Planned Bedouin towns, paragraph 2: Missing official justification from Israeli politicians.
• Unrecognized settlements: Modify "despite having to endure."
• Countermeasures against the Bedouin demographic threat: Change heading.
• Part-time agriculture: Restructure section 1.

Do you remember what specifically bothered you or where you read 'militant activism' particularly? Or have I already identified the main parts? DaWalda (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

IA is not an argument, not by any stretch of the inagination.

It's not a matter of which Israeli "New Historian" or Pal. historian to quote - stating this actually clearly proves my point-; but to include the mainstream Israeli narrative, at least to MENTION it, as it still characterises how a vast majority of Israelis see their history. If not to support their view, but at least to mention it, as it is a main driver of Israeli attitudes across the entire society, is an absolute MUST in an ecyclopedia. If you don't know what the "settling of the desert" means to Israelis, not least to Ben Gurion, that would prove my point beyond the need of any further discussion. If you do and chose to edit it out, it's at least as bad.

To pick just one case: quoting only Weitz, known for his extreme opinion, as "THE Israeli stance" in 48, THE major point of inflexion, is so blatantly POV as to be painful: "Others were for driving all Bedouins out of the land, just like the rest of the Palestinians" - in other words, keeping the friendly tribes and major Christian communities was the only point under discussion, but "driving out all the rest of the Palestinians" was the default starting point. Apart from anything else, reality proves that to be plainly wrong, see the population figures in 49.

So no, the entire approach and the resulting text are wrong, not just this or that point. Your only approach was how to describe "the colonial Zionist anti-Bedouin, anti-native, ethnic cleansing project". Period. Just look at ALL your post-49 headings: ALL are dealing with Zionist displacement of Bedouin. As if gov't, mayors and "colonists" in Israel woke up early in the morning and went to bed late at night only with one thought in mind: how to kick out more Bedouin, or Arabs un general. That is militant activism and POV - as a whole, not in specific parts -, so none of the specific details is worth fightung over. You don't publish pamphlets and liberation platforms as general entries in encyclopedias. They have their own justified space, but not here.

This is my honest and, I would think, informed opinion. Arminden (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as an argument; I just wanted to explain why I'm quite confident that the wording isn't POV-laden: I was very careful about this when writing.

But I see now what you mean. You mean the main thread of the entire section. You’re absolutely right about that. However, this isn’t due to activism, but rather a result of the genesis of this draft. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but the draft originally began as a history of agricultural use in the Negev. From an agricultural history perspective, the Negev’s story is, objectively speaking, one of disruption and destruction. The key periods relevant to Zionist settlement are:

1. Agricultural boom under the Bedouins during the late Ottoman and Mandate periods
2. Destruction of Bedouin agriculture through displacement and confiscation of their fields
3. Disruption of agriculture due to displacement from the northwest and south, leaving only the mostly unsuitable Siyag area
4. Further reduction of the agricultural area in the Siyag due to (a) development towns, (b) forced relocation into planned Bedouin towns and destruction of unrecognized settlements, (c) building of community towns, and (d) military building projects
5. Simultaneous transformation of the northwestern and southern Negev through (a) the "kibbutzification" of the Negev, (b) agritourism, (c) and agro-tech.

This is the basic structure of this section. The statistical data between sections 4 and 5 were my attempt to explain as objectively and data-based as possible how we went from 4 to 5.

The "settling the desert" discourse is actually already partially addressed, namely in note 10. And it’s addressed in a way that would be quite unfair for a "History of the Negev" but accurate for a history of land use.

All of this would have to be different in a "Modern History of the Negev." I already have some drafts at home, but they’re not yet ready for Wikipedia. Only the "Border redrawings" section has already been revised to include a political history as well. Otherwise, I’ve only included the parts of political history that seemed essential to trace the history of land use.

(At the moment, though, that’s a bit on hold. I had planned to continue with the modern history in Wikipedia only once the political situation has calmed down a bit, as until then, every page automatically becomes and is seen as a contribution to the political discourse on Israel.)

What you criticize regarding Weitz, however, I’ve already drafted, and the paragraph doesn’t differ significantly from how it appears on the main page. I didn’t only cite Weitz, but also Galili and Ben-Gurion. I was quite pleased when I found the two quotes from Galili and Weitz, as both are strong examples of the two main perspectives being discussed within Israeli leadership circles in the 1930s and 1940s:

"But the idea of transfer, the golden deus-ex-machina solution to the Arab problem, continued to captivate the Zionist imagination. When deliberating transfer in the late thirties, the Zionist executives tended to think either in terms of a total transfer, which would leave the emergent Jewish state Arab-free, or, should that prove impossible, in terms of particular categories of Arabs. Most often peasants and tenant farmers were mentioned, perhaps because their transfer would entail an accretion of land to the Zionist institutions."
Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 51.

On the following pages, Morris describes how the balance in this discussion increasingly shifted towards total transfer. I chose Weitz as an example of the total transfer idea because he was head of the Negev Committee. I could have chosen others, but Weitz was really no extremist in this regard. Do you really find this one-sided? If you'd like: How would you word it to make it seem fairer to you? And again, if you'd like: Does the bridge from 4 to 5 (the "demographic threat" passage) seem unfair to you? I actually thought I represented the discourse from Israeli newspapers quite well here. But I mostly read English-language Israeli newspapers; it’s possible that the perspective is different in Hebrew-language ones. DaWalda (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If agriculture would indeed be your topic, which it is not, de facto speaking, your conclusion would never be that "the Negev’s story is, objectively speaking, one of disruption and destruction". If you refer to traditional Bedouin land use, then maybe; but all in all, the opposite is true. But you ignore and dismiss all the achievements of modern Israeli desert agriculture, which are truly world-leading, and even the reintroduction of Byzantine-period low-tech and high-yield methods rediscovered and pioneered by Michael Evenari. Your statement is actually mind-boggling.

Please take the time to check the fate of the Bedouin-type agriculture in ANY developing or developed state: it's on the retreat EVERYWHERE, because it's not productive enough and can't sustain a modern lifestyle, which is incrementally chosen by all those who do have the choice - education, electricity and technology in general, etc. Start with neighbouring Jordan and so on. There's a huge amount of knowledge to preserve from the Bedouin, and in Israel there are powerful initiatives to do just that, which have nothing to do with folkloristic nostalgia, Rousseau's "noble savage" views, or 1960s leftist romanticism, but with future-oriented projects. These are initiatives trying to balance the very real progress in education, especially of girls and women, and their social and economic rise, including their much stronger role in the family - not losing old knowledge while gaining modern one, so to say.

But you neither looked for that, nor seem to want to publish such facts.

Of course there are tremendous conflicts, there has been dispossession, and Zionism has lately taken a sharp turn toward the extremist right. But there is resilience in the achievements, too, and the present and future are not necessarily doomed. Kassandra isn't the only legitimate commentator.

So POV, yes, 100%, due to an extremely narrow approach and complete lack of familiarity with the complex reality. The result reads like a pamphlet, a one-sided, ideology-driven call to arms, and not at all as an encyclopedic article. A segment of a society is never sufficiently described by historians or politically motivated researchers - not any better than by propagandists of any kind, Zionist or anti-Zionist, traditionalist or (truly) progressive. And when even the historical facts are viewed through just one ideological prism, the result is - a pamphlet, and nothing more.

It reads like a history of, say, Brandenburg strictly and only through the prism of "colonised, disposessed and culturally ethnically cleansed" Slavs. Berlin be damned and with it all the good that came out of German Prussian culture. Arminden (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh. It's unfortunate. I had hoped your comments aimed at constructive feedback, even if strongly worded.

Again, you're right, I didn't look for that; that wasn't my topic when I drafted it. I only researched which developments were relevant to various aspects of land use. I didn't concern myself with education at all. Alexis already pointed that out above; see there.

"If you refer to traditional Bedouin land use, then maybe" – yes, of course that's what I'm referring to. That's how history works, you know? From old to new, which in this case means: (1) traditional Bedouin land use => (2) disruption of traditional Bedouin land use => (3) modern Israeli land use (which is addressed in the Agrotech section).

As for Evenari, I deliberately chose not to mention him, as I wanted to keep the draft as free from ideology as possible: Evenari styled himself as the rediscoverer of an ancient agricultural technique (see especially in his autobiography, starting on page 148). But that was plainly and simply self-mythologizing, which was later further promoted in Israel. He was doubtlessly a pioneer in the scientific study of desert agriculture, but definitely not the rediscoverer of an ancient technique. He began his experiments in 1959. However, in 1960, Mayerson reported that the Bedouins had been practicing this same technique for at least several years. Be sure to read the article; you’ll also find photos there showing the continuity of the ancient and Bedouin agricultural techniques. Meraiot, Meir, and Rosen have recently explored this even more thoroughly. There’s a survey by Verman and Zohary from 1945, showing that this was practiced throughout the region where Byzantine wadi agriculture had been conducted; you’ll find a map here on page 94. Similar practices further south are shown by OSL dating of terraces (see Stavi et al. 2020). What's more: Evenari's insights aren't even being applied. The terraces lie fallow while the Azazima are prevented by force from farming there, and only very recently has there been consideration of reviving terrace agriculture (see, e.g., Mor-Mussery et al. 2020; Sapir et al. 2022). For the same reason, I didn’t mention drip irrigation, which is marketed as an invention by Simcha Blass but was actually invented in Germany in the 1860s.

As for modern agriculture: I'm the last person who would idealize traditional farming; I come from a farming family. But since it seems that, in your opinion, the innovative power of Israeli agriculture hasn’t yet been sufficiently praised here, let me clarify what I chose to say and what I chose not to say about modern Israeli agriculture. I chose to note that modernization and innovative Agro-Tech industry is prominent in the Negev. I chose to leave out a critique of this trend. Israel, and particularly the Negev, is an exceptional case precisely because it’s an unusually arid region where Israelis have nonetheless attempted, and continue to attempt, to make it "bloom." Therefore, the modernization of Negev agriculture is far from an entirely positive phenomenon: groundwater is massively overused, soil is heavily over-fertilized and acidified, soil erosion occurs due to artificial irrigation and over-tillage, savannization has damaged the environment, and afforestation has disrupted the ecosystem. These are well-known concerns even within Israel. Here are some literature recommendations:

• Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel 2019: The Need to stop Afforestation in Sensitive Natural Ecosystems in Israel
• Pearce 2019: In Israel, Questions are Raised about a Forest that Rises from the Desert
• Kaminer 2021: The Agricultural Settlement of the Arabah and the Political Ecology of Zionism
• Prince/Safriel 2021: Land Use and Degradation in a Desert Margin: The Northern Negev
• Fergusson 2023: In Search of the River Jordan. A Story of Palestine, Israel and the Struggle for Water (<= Awesome book. It's obvious where he stands politically, but he really makes an effort to provide a fair representation.)
• Shani 2024: Make the desert bloom - imaginaries, infrastructure, and water-land entanglement in desert agriculture in Israel

I also chose to leave out a critique of this trend from a post-colonial perspective. If you want to see what a real "pamphlet" in this area looks like, take a look at Tarvainen 2022: The modern/colonial hell of innovation economy: future as a return to colonial mythologies or Entwistle/Plonski 2024: Making All Deserts Bloom: The Racist Space/Time of UAE-Israel Collaboration. This is the kind of literature you find in respectable journals nowadays when researching Negev agriculture; a post-colonial perspective totally dominates the field.

So, what I drafted is really not unusually negative. I'm no Wiki Warrior. And again, this will look different once I adapt the draft into a "Modern History." So, if you want to spend your topic ban time converting anti-Zionists, I'm really not the right address — I'm harmless. However, I'm also not willing to contribute to turning Wikipedia into a propaganda platform. DaWalda (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate the time and effort you've put into replying, given your obvious knowledge of the topic, and I'm especially grateful for the the biblography. I'll try to go through at least some of it. Please, don't try to pigeonhole me into the Zionist drawer. The ban is so BS that I didn't bother with contesting it, so mentioning it wasn't worth your while. Yes, I'm aware of where the mainstream stands, and also that the pendulum has reached an extremity; I'm in favour of neither extremes, and that includes the current "mainstream", but whatever. Going point by point through your arguments will take us nowhere, you are obviously better read in this field than me, but I'm fully confident that there are good quotable authors claiming the exact opposite, once we acknowledge the reality of growing populations (relevant: Israeli Bedouin used to have an extraordinarily high natural growth rate until recent changes associated with increasing education levels and gender equality) and their needs, and the difference between yesteryear's societies and today's developments. So - dead end, I guess, and I'll probably leave you alone, unless some questions arise while reading through those articles, for which I thank you again. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)