Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Displaceability refers to the vulnerability to displacement, a condition often experienced by Indigenous communities in the context of state-led urban development. In Israel, the Palestinian-Bedouin community in the city of Rahat encounters such vulnerability as a result of settler-colonial dynamics and housing policies that, while aimed at easing housing shortages, often intensify this precarity.

Purpose

The study aims to explore how a state-sponsored housing initiative—specifically, a VATMAL (Committee for Planning Preferred Areas for Housing) plan—affects the displaceability of the Palestinian-Bedouin community in Rahat, Israel, focusing on both policy implementation and the appeals process.

Research Design

This research utilizes a qualitative case study approach, examining policy documents, public records related to VATMAL planning, and official appeals submitted by residents against the plan.

Study Sample

The study examines the case of the Palestinian-Bedouin community in Rahat, with particular attention to appeals filed by both Bedouin and Jewish residents in response to the VATMAL plan.

Data Collection and analysis

Data were collected through a review of planning documents, analysis of residents’ appeals against the VATMAL plan, and contextual interpretation within the framework of settler-colonial theory and Indigenous land relations.

Results

Findings demonstrate that, although the VATMAL plan is intended to address housing needs, it perpetuates “displacement-in-place” by altering Indigenous land relations and eroding the Bedouin ‘ontology of land.’ This process does not necessarily entailphysical relocation but instead manifests as the social death of indigeneity through loss of traditional land rights and the imposition of a settler-colonial ontology. Additionally, appeals by Jewish residents reveal internalized privatization values and Zionist ideologies, further exacerbating the displaceability of the Bedouin community.

Conclusions

Urban development strategies, even when designed to benefit Indigenous communities, can perpetuate settler-colonial relations and exacerbate Indigenous vulnerability to displacement. The study calls for planning approaches that recognize and respect Indigenous understandings of land, challenging state-based frameworks of recognition, to prevent further erosion of Indigenous land rights and mitigate ongoing displaceability.

Keywords

Bedouin displaceability housing crisis in Israel indigenous land rights neo-settler-colonial planning

Introduction

This paper explores the concept of displaceability, the condition of being susceptible to displacement, by tracing its manifestation in a state-sponsored solution to housing crisis in a Bedouin city in Israel. Critique of Israel’s strategy for coping with the national housing crisis—a Committee for Planning Preferred Areas for Housing (VATMAL in Hebrew)—has thus far concentrated on the failure of a market-based approach to compensate for lack of public housing and high cost of living. The country’s main solution, cutting bureaucracy and expediting the planning of private development on state lands, while avoiding clear guidelines and regulation of production of ‘affordable’ housing, has been identified as a short-sighted strategy: sacrificing a disintegrated, democratic planning procedure for a centralized process that has neither long term vision nor diverse users in mind (Charney, 2017; Feitelson, 2018). While such critique is crucial for debating measures that change the country’s physical, social and economic landscape, it does not address the politics of land in Israel that have been shaped through decades of settler-colonial spatial policy and practice (Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury, 2015).

To address this gap, we examine how the VATMAL planning framework is shaped by and reshapes displacement and displaceability. We define displacement as the act of distancing residents from their full rights to the city and their land. This can manifest in several ways, including physical eviction, home demolitions, gentrification, urban renewal, denial of services, restrictions on the use of space and resources, and the prevention of participation in shaping the spaces in which they live according to their needs and values. Displacement is particularly significant for Indigenous communities, as they often face the denial of their customary law and practices regarding property rights and land use that have been developed over generations. Disregarding their customary law may ultimately lead to their displacement (Blomley, 2003; Braverman et al., 2014).

Displaceability has emerged as a more comprehensive term to capture the full range of actual and potential spatial violations related to the right to the city and space and caused by the unstable condition of being under the threat of displacement. It refers to the potential threats of displacement that may or may not come to fruition (Tzfadia and Yiftachel, 2021; Yiftachel, 2020). This concept is particularly relevant for analyzing the spatial rights of Indigenous communities within the context of settler colonialism, as these communities often face displacement from their rights to land and space.

A “critical Indigenous perspective” refers to an analytical approach that centers Indigenous worldviews, experiences, and knowledge systems while actively critiquing and challenging dominant Western, colonial, and settler frameworks (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2014). By applying this perspective to local debates over land and housing development, we reveal how a state mechanism meant to alleviate a local housing crisis in the Bedouin city of Rahat in Israel becomes a new mode of displacement. We further discover how deeply entrenched legacies of settler-colonial principles in the planning realm in Israel and the appeals by local Jewish residents against the proposed plan render what was meant to be a housing solution a battleground for control over land. This battleground, in turn, maintains the local community’s displaceability simultaneously while adding housing units to adhere to local needs: being displaced-in-place.

The Indigenous Bedouin community has been facing persistent displacement and a constant threat of being displaced, that is, displaceability. Most adult Bedouins residing in Rahat have been relocated from traditional villages that Israel delegalized, and known as “the unrecognized villages” (Kedar et al., 2018). The VATMAL plan for the Bedouin city of Rahat appears contradictory. It seems poised to provide stability amidst what appears to be a significant shift in the state’s relationship with its Bedouin population.

Contextualizing the VATMAL plan within the ongoing settler-colonial relations that have historically displaced the Bedouin community to establish the city of Rahat is challenging. While the plan now promises stability through private homeownership, it raises crucial questions on the future of displacement. By applying critical concepts from Indigenous studies related to recognition (Coulthard, 2014) and exploring different ontologies of land (Blatman-Thomas and Porter, 2019), this paper examines how VATMAL both articulates the state’s recognition of Indigenous land rights and highlights the Indigenous community’s recognition of state control over that land.

We have found that, while housing policy may potentially improve living conditions and promote stability for some residents of Rahat, it also brings about significant changes. Specifically, (1) housing policy is altering the terms and conditions of displacement, shifting from traditional forms of displacement to what we term ‘displacement in place’. Additionally, (2) housing policy serves as a tactic in a broader strategic state project aimed at redefining indigeneity through space reconstruction. In simpler terms, the drive for stability through the commodification of land and housing is simultaneously worsening displacement by altering the relationship between Indigenous people and their land. Therefore, VATMAL, which represents development projects focused in some cases on Indigenous urbanity (Porter and Yiftachel, 2019), marks a new phase in the ongoing displacement strategy we call displacement-in-place.

Methodology and methods

To examine how the proposed solutions to the housing crisis intersect with the ongoing effects of settler-colonial urbanization in Israel, we critically analyze the housing program suggested by the VATMAL in the Indigenous Bedouin city of Rahat and the responses it generated. In our analysis, we contrast the narratives about the recognition of Indigenous land rights with evidence from the Israeli planning system, which demonstrates a specific anti-development sentiment towards non-Jewish urban spaces. This comparison allows us to highlight how a solution that claims to be grounded in recognition can actually serve as a new form of displacement. Our methodology is based on three main pillars. Utilizing critical Indigenous Studies enhances our understanding of displaceability within the Israeli housing context is the first pillar. The concept of ‘ontologies of land’, which refers to the various ways of understanding, relating to, and conceptualizing land, particularly in settler colonial cities and from Indigenous perspectives (Blatman-Thomas and Porter, 2019) represents a significant interface between the state and Bedouin society. This relationship also plays a crucial role in shaping the issue of ‘recognition’ as discussed in critical Indigenous Studies. Such recognition often involves granting rights to land but can also function as a bureaucratic means that leads to new forms of exclusion (Porter and Barry, 2016; Schmidt, 2018). The changing dynamics of displacement become evident when we examine the state planning mechanism of VATMAL, along with amendments to the Planning and Construction Act, which make non-Jewish urban spaces more vulnerable to mass development. This situation must be contextualized within ongoing debates regarding the ontology of land.

The second methodological pillar is examining the VATMAL strategy for addressing the housing crisis through the analytical lens of “privati-nation” (Yiftachel and Avni, 2019) reveals a combination of seemingly contradictory processes of privatization and nationalization that are intertwined in the re-production of neo-settler-colonial space (Yacobi and Tzfadia, 2019). This perspective helps clarify how a housing strategy that prioritizes the privatization of disputed land contributes to the shaping of neo-settler colonialism and its implications in debates on the housing crisis and housing policy (Haas, 2022). Comparing the narratives of the state, Bedouin, and Jewish communities through the framework of ‘privati-nation’ allows us to understand the ‘solution’ to the housing crisis as inseparable from the Judaization of space. It also highlights this process’s inherently contradictory nature, which presents risks and opportunities for the local indigenous community.

Finally, the question of displacement is examined through a case study of the city of Rahat. Established in 1972, Rahat is a Bedouin city, initially one of seven purposefully built Bedouin towns in the Negev desert in southern Israel (Meir, 2020; Nasasra, 2012). Rahat was chosen for this study for two reasons: (a) it represents a contradiction between an indigenous community that is vulnerable to displacement due to state spatial strategies, and a plan aimed at providing stability for residents through the state’s planning initiatives, exemplified by the massive VATMAL plan approved in 2019; (b) this VATMAL plan has sparked resistance from a nearby predominantly Jewish settlement, Gva’ot-Bar, (established in 2004 to prevent the expansion of informal Bedouin settlements near Rahat). The resistance makes it a valuable case for analyzing local narratives around the VATMAL scheme and understanding the competing conceptions of land. We analyzed 185 appeals submitted against VATMAL Plan 1044/1084 in Rahat by residents of Gva’ot-Bar. We conducted a narrative analysis and coded the content of the appeals to identify recurring themes. These themes are contextualized through a critical indigenous perspective, applying the concepts of 'recognition' and 'privatization' to explore differing ontologies of land. Our analysis involved two cycles of coding. The first cycle was inductive, focusing on identifying themes and repetitions in the phrasing and wording of objections to the plan. The second cycle was deductive, where we identified specific phrases and language according to the primary concepts. This approach aimed to unravel the local population's narrative and the significance they attribute to these concepts, allowing for a re-evaluation of their meanings.

Empirical background: The Bedouin city of Rahat

The Bedouin community in the Negev/Naqab region was a semi-nomadic society organized into confederations and tribes (Meir, 2020). They traditionally used unwritten laws and tribal institutions to manage social and spatial issues like territory, property rights, and inter-tribal relationships (Bailey, 2014). Since the establishment of Israel and the Palestinian Nakba in 1948, state intervention in Bedouin governance has been significant. About 90,000 Bedouins were expelled or fled, while the 12,000 who remained were relocated to a designated area under military administration until 1966 (Nasasra, 2014), like all Palestinians who remained in Israel after the war. This is often seen as an effort by settler-colonial power to eliminate Indigenous communities (Nasasra, 2017). The Israeli state denied property rights based on Bedouin traditional law, claiming the Negev as no man’s land. Consequently, Bedouin settlements in villages lack recognition, land tenure, and access to essential services, leading to routine house demolitions supported by court orders (Kedar et al., 2018).

Since the late 1960s, Israel has enforced an urbanization program on the Bedouin community to sever their ties to traditional lands and facilitate the Judaization of the Negev. The program has included the establishment of seven planned townships, including Rahat in 1972. This strategy reflects the logic of settler colonization: Despite Rahat’s municipal status, its establishment perpetuates the Nakba’s legacy by replacing Indigenous spatial organization with state-controlled settlements, while, as of 2025, 100,000 Bedouin still face home demolitions and denial of infrastructure and services in 37 unrecognized villages. The city thus embodies the tension between Israel’s material erasure of Bedouin indigeneity and their resilient resistance to ongoing displacement. A significant issue was the refusal of Bedouins to settle on lands traditionally owned by others, even if the original owners fled in 1948. Efforts by Israel’s Land Authority to assign these lands to Bedouin residents were unsuccessful, limiting development to areas not claimed by Bedouin landlords (Marx and Meir, 2005). This and several other factors, including the Israeli government’s active neglect and a very high birth rate, have contributed to poverty, lack of services, extreme population density, housing shortages, inadequate planning to meet basic needs, and decades of mistrust in state institutions. This is especially true for government agencies responsible for land management and land-use planning (Shmueli and Khamaisi, 2015). Over 50 years later, Rahat has become the largest Arab-only population in Israel, with approximately 85,000 residents. Consequently, it is the largest Arab city in the country, yet it ranks among the lowest in terms of socioeconomic values (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2023).

The settlement of Bedouins in Rahat, who previously lived in unrecognized villages in the Negev, is a result of the efforts made by the Authority for the Development and Settlement of the Bedouin in the Negev, commonly known as “The Bedouin Authority.” This government agency was established in 2007 to promote and develop the Bedouin population in the Negev region. However, the Bedouin Authority has faced criticism for its policies, which are contributing to the forced displacement of Bedouin communities from their traditional lands, particularly from unrecognized villages to designated townships. Consequently, it is often viewed as a part of the settler-colonial apparatus in the Negev. The Bedouin Authority’s initiation of the VATMAL program for Rahat raises concerns about its true purpose, suggesting that it may be an element of a settler-colonial agenda within a broader context of Israeli control over the Palestinians, or ultimately fail to benefit the city.

Neo-settler ontology of land

In this section, we propose a theoretical context for the VATMAL program in Rahat, focusing on three interconnected concepts: displaceability, recognition, and competing ontologies of land. We examine these concepts through the lens of Indigenous perspectives and settler-colonial relations.

Displaceability and settler-colonial relations

Displaceability, as defined in the introduction, refers to the actual and potential vulnerability of individuals and communities being distanced from their rights and resources. Viewing displaceability from an Indigenous perspective emphasizes the need for decolonization, especially in the context of ongoing colonialism intertwined with neoliberal land regimes (Roy, 2019).

In the case of Israel/Palestine, displaceability is a critical aspect of ‘colonial relationships’, which manifest in various ways, including the Judaization of space. This process seeks to maintain Jewish control over territory while displacing Palestinians from the land and their rights to it (Yiftachel, 2020). However, these colonial relationships are complex. A group’s position on the displaceability continuum—ranging from actual eviction to potential displacement from rights—illustrates how the state can both secure and undermine the ability of individuals to remain in their homes, as well as their capacity to resist displacement (Tzfadia and Yiftachel, 2021).

The paradox of recognition

The concept of recognition, as articulated by various scholars, provides insight into how the displaceability of Indigenous communities alters its mode of expression instead of being entirely eliminated. This paradox of recognition suggests that as it becomes easier for Indigenous peoples to remain on their ancestral lands, the very meaning of “remaining” transforms, ultimately resulting in a form of displacement (Tzfadia and Yiftachel, 2021; Yiftachel, 2020; Porter and Yiftachel, 2019; Barakat, 2018; Rouhana, 2018).

In this context, recognition involves the state acknowledging Indigenous rights to land, but only on its own terms and within its legal framework. While Indigenous communities may experience increased stability, this stability often comes at the expense of their land-based struggle for self-determination. This rights-based recognition by the colonizer can potentially undermine decolonization efforts, as it requires approval based on terms set by the colonizer, thus perpetuating the dynamics of settler colonialism (Coulthard, 2014).

Competing ontologies of land

The concept of competing ontologies of land, as discussed by Blatman-Thomas and Porter (2019), helps to unravel the colonial relationship embedded in the notion of recognition. This perspective highlights that both the colonizer and the colonized operate within fundamentally different understandings of land. The state often rationalizes displacement over time, perceiving Indigenous land claims as historical. In contrast, for Indigenous peoples, their attachment to land is a present and ongoing reality. This divergence in land ontologies is essential for understanding the ongoing struggle within and against the colonial present. But what does this present mean?

In his influential work on colonialism, law, and land, and their relationship with modernization, Comaroff (2001) introduces the term “lawfare” as a form of war that utilizes the legal system “to conquer and control indigenous peoples by the coercive use of legal means” (Comaroff 2001: 306). Lawfare serves as a strategy for dispossession, transforming Indigenous spaces into commodified goods and effectively displacing Indigenous communities from their land rights. However, as Wolfe (2013) explains, this displacement goes beyond merely distancing people from their land. It involves the “practical elimination of the natives” (Wolfe, 2013: p. 389), which means assimilating Indigenous people into the ‘modern’ bureaucratic system of property rights. This process results in a symbolic denial of indigeneity, undermining their internal social structures, customary property rights, and conceptions of land and the environment. It legitimizes only ‘modern’ legal, bureaucratic, and ‘Western’ property systems (Porter, 2011), leading to what can be termed the ‘social death of indigeneity’ (Wolfe, 2013).

Neo-settler colonialism and ‘privati-nation’

The concept of ‘privati-nation’ (Yiftachel and Avni, 2019) suggests that “neoliberal planning system that relies on private developers and market forces… is influenced by the same ideologies… under strong and centralised governmental control” (Alster and Avni, 2022: 2720), circling back to the issues of recognition and conflicting land ontologies. The concept of ‘neo-settler colonialism’ (Yacobi and Tzfadia, 2019) reveals how settler colonialism adapts to contemporary administrative and economic frameworks of privati-nation (Yacobi and Tzfadia, 2019). It highlights the interconnection between settler colonialism and neoliberalism in urbanization processes, and, more critically, the interaction with New Public Management—a mode of governance that relies on business logic and operational style (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Vigoda, 2007). However, the concept does not challenge Veracini’s (2010) term of “unreformed immanence,” which describes the permanent and unchanging nature of power in settler colonialism, nor suggesting that there is a new period in settler-colonialism. It rather suggests that the government’s response to the housing crisis, such as the VATMAL can be viewed as a new public administrative tactic within the ongoing settler-colonial spatial strategy aimed at eliminating the native presence (Wolfe, 2013). It establishes new modes of ethnically segregated spatial arrangements by reinforcing the interconnection between neoliberalism and settler colonialism within the new public management approach to state-led urbanization processes.

In conclusion, this theoretical framework demonstrates how displaceability, recognition, competing land ontologies, and neo-settler colonial practices interact to shape the current landscape of settler-Indigenous relations. By examining these concepts through an Indigenous perspective, we gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics in settler-colonial contexts, which is essential for analyzing the VATMAL program in Rahat.

The VATMAL housing development plan in Rahat

The VATMAL Committee, officially known as the Committee for the Promotion of Housing and Urban Development, plays a crucial role in Israel’s planning system, especially in addressing housing needs and urban development challenges to mitigate the “housing crisis.” The housing crisis refers to the rapid rise in home prices—214% from 2008 to 2021—while wages remain stagnant (Pines and Yacobi, 2021). By 2021, a middle-class Israeli needed 150 monthly paychecks to buy a home, double the OECD average. The government identified the problem of rapidly rising home prices as a Supply-Demand Imbalance: the number of new housing units built has consistently fallen short of what a growing population needs, driving up prices and making homeownership increasingly difficult for many Israelis. Therefore, the solution lies in increasing supply by reducing bureaucracy and expediting private development on state lands, while avoiding overly restrictive guidelines and regulations, as the Israeli Planning and Building Law requires. Accordingly, the VATMAL was designed as a sunset clause to bypass and suspend the law, but it has been continuously extended since 2014. The VATMAL committee is responsible for evaluating and approving housing projects that consist of at least 2000 apartments nationwide. These projects are initiated through national initiatives and do not require evaluation and approval in the ordinary planning systems (OECD, 2017). This is why these projects are referred to as the supertankers of planning (Mualam, 2018).

In 2018, the VATMAL committee approved Land Use Plan 1044 for Rahat, the first. Several months later, in 2019, it approved Land Use Plan 1084, annexed to Plan 1044. The plans, known as ‘Rahat South’ or Plan 1044/1084, designate land for 6922 housing units. This is expected to support a 40% increase in the city’s population, with options ranging from single-family homes to 10-story apartment buildings.

The lands included in Plan 1044/1084 are primarily vacant, as shown in Figure 1. However, the plan also involves demolishing approximately 250 structures deemed ‘illegal’, including some family homes and sheep pens that provide significant income for the families residing there. The plan fails to offer any solutions for these families facing eviction, stating that addressing the needs of families living in illegal dwellings is a political issue rather than a professional one. In response, the City of Rahat has submitted an appeal to the VATMAL against this plan.

Figure 1.

Excerpt of the land use map of Plan 1044/1084, showing Gva’ot-Bar and the separating Highway 310 (source: Israel Planning Administration). Labels by authors.

Some of the land included in Plans 1044 and 1084 is privately owned. Certain Bedouin families were granted land rights in this area as part of a settlement regarding their land claims. If these lands are confiscated, the owners will be compensated according to the standard procedures outlined in Israel’s planning framework. Additionally, some portions of the plan include lands for which Bedouin families have active land claims. Historically, no land claims submitted by Bedouins have ever been accepted by Israel (Kedar et al., 2018). Including areas with pending land claims in the VATMAL plan would further complicate these claims, as the lands would be sold to private developers, leading to the construction of residential buildings on them. This is what Wolfe (2013) terms ‘social death of indigeneity’.

The Chief Engineer of the Municipality of Rahat expects the VATMAL plan to fail, citing two main issues: the lack of attention to the local community’s needs and the complications surrounding land claims. He believes that people will be reluctant to buy apartments in buildings constructed on land that has claims from their neighbors, acquaintances, or even strangers. Additionally, He points to other factors that he believes will contribute to the plan’s failure. Specifically, he criticizes the top-down planning approach of VATMAL, which bypasses public participation and prioritizes short-term housing goals over long-term planning considerations (personal communication, August 5, 2021). In his view, this approach makes the plan no different from previous VATMAL initiatives (Charney, 2017).

In ‘minority communities’, the risks of VATMAL are exacerbated. The inherently diminished opportunity for the local community to participate in the planning process comes after decades of active discrimination and neglect by planning institutions. Since the VATMAL is a national planning body and its plans are national initiatives, local and district planning committees are shut out of the planning process, and cannot advocate for local goals, inform how the plans address local needs or promote a long-term vision on a regional scale. Cities with greater political agency than Rahat, in fact some of the leading municipalities on Israel’s socio-economic ladder, have resisted VATMAL plans in their jurisdiction, with limited success when it comes to weak local authorities (Eshel and Hananel, 2018). The massive numbers of housing units added to the city, usually without proper infrastructure or services, may prove to be an unbearable economic weight, harming older neighbourhoods disproportionally. In a poor city such as Rahat, this is a tangible risk.

The history of large new neighborhoods intended for minority communities is marked by numerous failed projects, primarily due to a fundamental marketing issue (Maller and Nicholls, 2014). The Israel Land Administration (ILA) oversees ‘state land’—92% of the land in the country, and is responsible for marketing land for development projects, including those planned by VATMAL, has repeatedly struggled to find buyers for homes in these developments. The reasons for this failure range from inadequate planning to a lack of understanding of local marketing trends. As Rahat’s Chief Engineer explains, the core problem is that the ILA is completely out of touch with the local population. While the addition of 6922 housing units is expected to benefit some families in Rahat and help alleviate the housing crisis in the city, there are concerns that the plan may not be realized. This could be due to a lack of collaboration and the willingness of the target communities to move in, as has occurred in similar situations in other Bedouin townships (Meir et al., 2023).

At the same time, the VATMAL law makes it relatively easier for the government to initiate and approve VATMAL plans in ‘minority communities’ relative to predominantly Jewish ones. Grounded in a real housing crisis and in the outcomes of decades of government neglect, the law recognizes a greater need of rapid housing development in ‘minority communities’ and therefore includes a lower threshold of criteria for approving plans in these communities – plans that may cause more harm than benefit (Feitelson et al., 2021).

In the case of Rahat, the issue runs deeper. Given the Authority for Development and Settlement of the Bedouin in the Negev was the initiator of the VATMAL plan, city officials are concerned that the plan would be used for yet another act of displacement—forcing khamulas who live outside of Rahat in ‘unrecognized villages’ to move into the city. State land has been used before to re-settle communities from ‘unrecognized’ villages, and Rahat city officials are concerned that this is the state’s true goal in this project. Seen in the context of the state’s unwillingness to officially recognize Bedouin villages and the constant threat, which is sometimes acted upon, of demolition of Bedouin dwellings in the Naqab, the new Plan holds a threat of yet another act of displacement of the ‘unrecognized villages’ forcing communities to move into the city.

Appeals against housing development in rahat

The issue of who the land belongs to and who belongs to the land, echoed in different ontologies of land, is reflected again in appeals made by the Jewish residents of Gva’ot-Bar (hereon GB), a Jewish village adjacent to Rahat, against VATMAL Plan 1044/1084. The planning issue that instigated a united opposition among GB residents involves the inclusion of lands outside of Rahat’s municipal border in the Plan. As part of the plan, some lands in the jurisdiction of a Regional Council that is adjacent to Rahat are deemed to be annexed to the Bedouin city (Regional Councils in Israel are local authorities that are comprised of several small Jewish communities. GB is part of Bnei Shimon Regional Council. The jurisdiction of some regional councils in the Negev spreads over a vast desert territory consisting of ‘unrecognized villages’ as well).

The village of GB was established in 2004 in a controversial decision by then Minister of Housing Effi Eitam (of the right National Religious Party). As reported that same year in newspapers (Hason, 2004), the village was first established in a night operation where a handful of mobile homes were placed on a hill south of Rahat. The secretive operation was meant to avoid on-the-ground resistance by Bedouins, according to Eitam, the article notes. The chosen land was under land claim by the Bedouin tribe al-Uqbi who was displaced from there in 1951, whose members had been advocating for decades to be allowed to return and form an agricultural village there In a cycle of displacement, the area was first approved for planning of a new settlement for another Bedouin tribe (Tarabin al-Sana), displaced from a different part of the Naqab, but that tribe refused to be settled on a land that was claimed by al-Uqbi—as mentioned above as one of the factors for planning failures by the state in the context of Bedouin communities. Al-Uqbi demanded to be re-settled on their land when that plan was deserted. At first, the government was favorable to that solution, but a change of power in government brought a new settlement policy and a hawkish Minister of Housing who decided to designate the area for a Jewish village: Gva’ot Bar (Forensic Architecture and al-Araqib Village, 2017).

Residents of GB, which grew to approximately 1300 (as of 2023), filed appeals against Plan 1044/1084 to prevent the Bedouin city of Rahat from expanding in their direction. In 2019, the VATMAL’s appeals committee deliberated the claims raized by 185 submissions by more than 200 residents (Planning Administration, 2019). The appeals span four main themes that emerge from the Jewish residents’ arguments: ‘Anti-mixing’, arguing the benefits of spatial segregation between Jews and Bedouins; A theme we name as ‘Zionist wholesomeness’ that includes arguments conflating Zionist ideology with conservative views of a quaint, peaceful community character; ‘Deserving the land’ and who the land belongs to, in the eyes of the Jewish appellants; and arguments reflecting an internalized understanding of ‘privati-nation’ by Jewish citizens.

Anti-mixing is the most common argument raised in the appeals against Plan 1044/1084 by GB residents. This is a plea against changing the geography of the status quo of separation between Jews and Bedouins in the Naqab. The appeals reviewed contain points against using a shared space, shared infrastructure (i.e., roads, public services) and against mixing in social spaces and everyday activities—sometimes all lumped together in an anti-mixing sentiment.

One central point of objection is a planned interchange and a new access road to the planned neighbourhood in Rahat, which is part of the infrastructure included in the plan. Some appeals mention increased traffic, noise, nuisance, and road safety. Specifically, some residents of the small village argue that allowing more Bedouin-driven cars on the road next to their village would pose a risk to their safety since—the argument goes—Bedouin drivers do not abide to traffic rules (Appeal #123; #155). Therefore, they conclude that the new neighbourhood (6922 housing units) should not have access to Highway 310 from which they enter their village (200 housing units). The infrastructure topic in the appeals is always intertwined with other arguments against expanding the Bedouin city in the direction of the Jewish village, such as fear of an increase in crime and of anti-government protests that may occur in times of political unrest.

In fact, numerous appeals utilize the ethnonational conflict between different groups in Israel as an argument in favor of maintaining spatial segregation, which is presented positively as an argument for planning separate urban spaces and infrastructure. According to this perspective, the physical distance between GB and Rahat makes for good neighbours. Living in proximity—on opposite sides of a main desert highway is identified as “sensitive” and therefore “problematic” since interaction leads to friction and hence undesirable (Appeal #34). Moreover, GB residents frame their approach to separation as “co-existence,” in which interaction is limited to them going into Rahat for shopping and services, and they wish to maintain it that way. Plan 1044/1084, which they oppose, does nothing to generate further ‘mixing’ other than bringing commercial and public services closer to GB residents. However, despite describing their village as lacking services and acknowledging the benefits of having the Bedouin city nearby (Appeals #166,170,40,52,80,81), GB residents object to the Plan.

Another argument in favour of preventing the expansion of Rahat in the proximity of GB states that physical proximity would antagonize the Bedouin residents: “they may be uncomfortable seeing a gate at the entrance to our village right next to their neighbourhood (Appeal #123)”; and “seeing the gate would antagonize ‘the Bedouins’ (Appeal #155).” The appellants conclude that expansion that would result in living side by side is not at the benefit of Rahat residents. Other ways of GB residents taking upon themselves to know what is in the best interest of Rahat residents and what is the best use of land manifests in different ways throughout the themes that emerge from the appeal documents, and we address this directly in theme 4 that deals with ‘internalized private-nation’.

A similarly common theme is fear of compromising the GB ‘community character’, by which objectors mean several different things that are tied together in the rationale to their appeals. We refer to it as ‘Zionist wholesomeness’. The concept of ‘wholesomeness’ in urban studies, particularly in relation to the NIMBY phenomenon, reflects a complex interplay between societal values and spatial dynamics. This term often embodies conservative family values associated with suburban environments, where community members resist developments perceived as threats to their way of life (Chung, 2020). Here, Zionist wholesomeness signifies a parcel of arguments linking Zionist ideology of conquering the wilderness, a specific imaginary of life in the Naqab as a peaceful countryside (Zerubavel, 2018), and social principles that focus on family, education and prioritizing personal safety (Appeal #97). Most prominently, the appeals paint a picture of life in the Naqab desert as a high quality of life that is quaint, focused on family and Jewish, and reflect a fear among GB residents that expanding the Bedouin city would somehow infringe on their chances to fulfill this aspiration:

[Gva’ot-Bar] is a community with a rural Jewish atmosphere; this is the reason we came to the Negev. The Plan is ruining the sense of family. Different types of settlements have different values, and we’re about family, education.... (Appeals #39,89,140,170).

Most appeals name ‘family’ and ‘children’ as reasons to object Plan 1044/1084 and the expansion of Rahat. The Naqab, the family and the Jewish character of the community emerge as inseparable (Appeals #140,152).

Some appellants go further to argue explicitly that living in a gated community surrounded by fences is inherent to the community’s ‘character’ rather than being a mere practicality (Appeal #92). GB residents accept that this is how things are in the Naqab and wish to keep it that way: to hinder the sprawl of the Bedouin population over Naqab lands, each small Jewish community functions as a gated community that excludes outsiders (Yacobi and Milner, 2021). “Just like Kibbutzim exclude us—we want to exclude others,” is argued, in order to protect a specific community character (Appeal #92).

Arguments regarding GB residents’ perspective of themselves as the true deserving group to occupy land in the Naqab are part of the Deserving the land theme. Anything that is seen as a threat to Zionist wholesomeness, as described above, is also seen as undeserving of land. The set of arguments in this theme contains reasons why the Bedouin residents of Rahat do not deserve and do not need Plan 1044/1048, with certain appeals arguing that Rahat residents should not want the Plan to be approved. What is striking in our analysis of the appeals is an essentialist view of the Bedouin population that renders Rahat residents as undeserving of land. Through numerous appeals emerges the following circular argument that is also based on a fallacy: Since Rahat residents live in dire conditions—an assumption by GB residents that has little to do with the actual modern living conditions of many people in the city and is presumably based on racialized conflation of Rahat residents with Bedouin living in ‘unrecognized villages’ (Appeal #35,94); since they have no interest in large modern neighbourhoods—another fallacy easily disproved by the abundance of newly built areas in Rahat; and since the city is drastically lacking in infrastructure; there is no point in constructing a massive new neighbourhood in the city (Appeals #166,170,40,52,80,81). Granted, we discussed above the objection by Rahat City Officials to implementing the VATMAL plan without sufficient support and funding for infrastructure, which would render the project a failure and a risk to the city. However, the argument here is not in support of improving the city’s infrastructure to accommodate growth among the Bedouin population but rather to prevent growth due to the current state of infrastructure, which is the result of decades of neglect by the Israeli government.

Referring to Rahat residents as if they were living in the ‘unrecognized villages’ is a recurring motif in the appeals, used to rationalize denying them lands for development. Appellants argue the state needs to find a solution to the booming Bedouin population “elsewhere” and that annexing lands from the Regional Council jurisdiction (which includes GB) to the city of Rahat is “illegal.” This argument is coupled with identifying the Bedouin population with criminal activity (reckless driving, theft) that, in the eyes of appellants, renders Bedouin Israelis as ‘unfit’ to the desired character of the Naqab and should disqualify the Bedouin city from being allocated lands for expansion (Appeals #32,40,46,166).

Generally, the appeals do not submit objective recommendations from land use planning, environmental, growth management, or any other professional standpoint regarding the need, or lack thereof, to expand Rahat municipal borders. The single exception is Appeal #163 that includes an expert opinion on potential environmental hazards. However, some appeals argue, based on personal views, that the city does not need the expansion and would be better off without it (Appeals #40,52,80,81,166,170). The massive Plan 1044/1084 is also accused of potentially damaging the landscape and undermining the desert views, which were part of the reasons that GB residents chose to move there (Appeals ##123,155). In this context, it would be useful to remember that GB was founded against professional recommendations to avoid establishing new settlements in the Naqab due to environmental concerns (Shachar, 1998).

(4) Lastly, we get to the way the Jewish residents of GB see themselves as an arm of the state, while the Bedouin population is seen as a threat. We name it Internalized ‘Privati-nation’. Some appeals include an explicit “ideology” argument against the massive development proposed for the Bedouin city of Rahat (Appeals #69,155,166). These arguments contain language that reflects Zionist ideology and places GB residents as the conveyers of Zionism on the ground in the Naqab, for example:

We came here for the sake of the state. We came here deliberately to settle in-between [Bedouin and Jewish communities] and to separate Bedouin spread over the land [from Jewish settlements], and now we have to suffer for living near the Bedouins. (Appeal #69)

Our interest in such arguments is twofold. First, the appellants reveal a fundamental purpose in their choice to live in the Naqab: to use their own bodies and homes to prevent Bedouins from settling and occupying the lands. In other words, GB residents acknowledge their pioneering role in Judaising the Naqab. Second, the argument presented in an appeal to the VATMAL indicates that Jewish residents believe that the state planning institutions should prioritize their objectives over the Bedouin city’s need for housing development. Such a view implies a private-nation argument, referring to the re-production of spatial segregation along ethno-national fault lines through the privatization of state land. Indeed, some appeals state explicitly: “The state sent us here [to the Naqab], and now they are changing the game’s rules! (Appeal #160,161)”—by promoting Rahat’s expansion ostensibly at the expense of the adjacent Jewish community.

Interestingly, residents of GB have internalized their role in privatization to such an extent that some have submitted appeals regarding Plan 1044/1084, demanding monetary compensation for lands being annexed from the Regional Council to the City of Rahat. This reaction is notable considering that when GB was established on Regional Council lands, those lands were allocated to the new residents free of charge. Importantly, the Regional Council has not filed these appeals, but rather individual residents. GB residents perceive the transfer of state land from one jurisdiction—that is Jewish—to another jurisdiction, which is a Bedouin city, as an infringement on their land rights, which they believe warrants compensation.

An argument illustrating how privati-nation is internalized by GB residents is expressed in the form of fear of Bedouin infiltration to the Jewish village. Approximately 20% of appeal documents list land value depreciation as a concern, pointing to an expected decrease as a result of new neighbourhoods of Plan 1044/1084 being near the Jewish village. In some appeals, this concern grows to fear from a scenario where lower land and house prices, coupled by the physical proximity to Rahat, would open up opportunities for Bedouin families to move into the Jewish village. One of the appeals uses the term ‘infiltration’ (Appeal #79). We thus see an understanding among GB residents of their role in private-nation as the keepers of land, a land of which they are the rightful owners rather than the Bedouin residents of Rahat.

The appeals achieved limited success. While the VATMAL appeals committee rejected the claims against the need for new neighbourhoods and the expansion of Rahat’s jurisdiction, quoting the local housing crisis, committee planners sided with the advantages of maintaining spatial separation. For the most part, this would be achieved, according to the planners, by keeping an undeveloped natural area between Rahat and GB. However, the claim against using a common highway was accepted. The planned interchange that was meant to provide access to a city of approximately 100,000 residents (including the future residents of the new neighbourhoods) was cancelled to avoid the use of the same highway as the 1300 Jewish residents of the nearby village. As for the demand for compensation for the lands annexed to the Bedouin city, the appeal committee responded that this was a question of property law rather than a planning matter, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to deliberate it.

In 2019 Plan 1044/1084 was approved, with adjustments including the cancellation of the entrance interchange. Whether the implementation of the Plan would be successful, overcoming the challenge of lot marketing and units sales for the Bedouin community—or whether it would fail as the city’s Chief Engineer predicts, is yet to be seen at the time of writing of this paper.

Conclusions

The concept of “displacement-in-place” provides a crucial framework for understanding the contradictory nature of state-led housing initiatives for Indigenous communities. This type of displacement, we argue, represents a new phase in the relationship between settler colonialism and Indigenous communities. In this context, Indigenous peoples may be offered stability through housing solutions, yet they are simultaneously further displaced from their traditional rights to land. Although their connections to land and space are acknowledged, this recognition is complicated. Indigenous communities are not considered native in the traditional sense; they are viewed as individuals or city-dwellers who possess property rights defined by the “modern” state’s legal and property regime. This highlights the essence of displacement in place, which, contrary to the idea of recognition promoted in liberal thinking (Kymlicka, 1996), ultimately suggests the ‘social death of indigeneity’ instead.

Rahat South’s VATMAL program does not clearly support this argument by itself. It can be analyzed as an anti-environment project (Feitelson et al., 2021), a neo-liberal initiative (Charney, 2017), a top-down control approach (Barak and Mualam, 2022), or as a quick response to a genuine housing crisis (Mualam, 2018). To move beyond these viewpoints and connect the program to the concept of displaceability and settler colonialism, we propose examining it from an Indigenous perspective and contextualizing it within the settler-colonial relations between the State of Israel and the Bedouin community. This contextualization involves reviewing the historical and current displacement policies affecting Bedouin’s land rights and analyzing the appeals submitted by residents of GB against the program. Together, they highlight the underlying spirit of settler-colonialism concerning indigeneity and urban development (Porter and Yiftachel, 2019). The contextual examination of Rahat South’s program demonstrates how this spirit is translated into a mechanism for displacing Indigenous communities, not through physical removal, but by undermining their traditional relationship with the land and compelling the ‘modern state’ ontology of land.

Indeed, the VATMAL project imposes a settler-colonial ontology of land onto Indigenous spaces. The concept of “neo-settler-colonialism” helps to understand how contemporary settler-colonial practices manifest within neoliberal economic policies, pursued through market-driven mechanisms and urban development strategies. This neo-settler-colonial approach continues land appropriation and Indigenous displacement under the guise of economic development and housing solutions. It is manifested through sophisticated private-nation, which emptied the land from its Indigenous content. This sharply contrasts with Indigenous perspectives that view land as a living entity with which communities maintain reciprocal relationships. This imposition not only alters the physical landscape but also reconfigures the social and cultural relationships that Indigenous communities have with their territories.

In conclusion, the case of Rahat and the VATMAL project illustrates the need for a nuanced understanding of displacement that transcends physical relocation. It highlights how urban development strategies, even when aimed at addressing urgent issues like housing shortages, can perpetuate settler-colonial relations and undermine Indigenous rights. The interplay of neo-settler-colonialism and private-nation reveals the complex ways contemporary settler states assert control over Indigenous lands and communities. Moving forward, addressing housing crises in Indigenous communities requires approaches that respect and incorporate Indigenous understandings of land, challenge the constraints of state-based recognition, and actively work to prevent the “social death of indigeneity” that can result from well-intentioned yet ultimately colonial urban development practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the members of the research group ‘Understanding Urban Displacement: Implications for Israeli Cities’ (PIs Oren Yiftachel and Erez Tzfadia) for their support and insightful feedback while developing this article. Their constructive comments and collaborative spirit enhanced our research. We also appreciate the resources provided by the research,which were essential to our work. The article is part of an edited issue on “Condition of ‘Displaceability’: Southeastern perspectives from Israel/Palestine on the New Status of Urban Citizenship.” We are grateful to the special issue editors for their support and guidance throughout the work on the article. Their dedication has been instrumental in bringing this work to fruition.

ORCID iDs

Oded Haas

Erez Tzfadia

Ethical considerations

The Institutional Ethics Committee of Ben-Gurion University (Israel) approved the study and the research.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 1622/18).

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Oded Haas is a researcher and planning policy professional whose work bridges academic research and public sector practice. His research interests include political geography,housing policy,and state-minority relations,with a particular focus on the construction of new cities in Israel/Palestine. Following his postdoctoral research,he has held policy roles in the Israeli and Canadian public sectors,working on land use planning policy,land regulation,and municipal housing strategies affecting marginalized communities.

Erez Tzfadia is a public policy Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology,Politics,and Communication at The Open University of Israel. His research interests include public policy,spatial politics,and place-making,with a particular focus on peripheral regions in Israel/Palestine. In recent years,he has researched the legal geography of spatial development in peripheral areas,with a focus on informal development,displacement of marginalized communities,local governance in peripheral regions,and digital urban citizenship in the periphery. His research has been published in numerous academic articles and co-authored books such as Rethinking Israeli Space (Routledge,2011),Israel since 1980 (Cambridge,2008),and Abandoning State— Surveillance State: Social Policy in Israel,1985–2008 (Sapir and Resling,2010).

References

Alster

Avni

(2022) The divergent logics of urban regeneration in Israel: a neoliberal toolkit and national rationales. Urban Studies 59(13): 2719–2738.

Bailey

(2014) Bedouin Law from Sinai and the Negev: Justice without Government. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Barak

Mualam

(2022) How do cities foster autonomous planning practices despite top-down control? Cities 123: 103576.

Barakat

(2018) Lifta, the Nakba, and the Museumification of Palestine’s History. Native American and Indigenous Studies 5(2): 1–15. DOI: 10.5749/natiindistudj.5.2.0001.

Blatman‐Thomas

Porter

(2019) Placing property: theorizing the urban from settler colonial cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 43(1): 30–45.

Blomley

(2003) Law, property, and the geography of violence: the frontier, the survey, and the grid. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(1): 121–141.

Braverman

Blomley

Delaney

, et al. (2014) The Expanding Spaces of Law: A Timely Legal Geography. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2023) Characterization and classification of geographical units by the socio-economic level of the population 2019. Available at: https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/publications/Pages/2023/socio-2019-e.aspx (accessed 30 November 2024).

Charney

(2017) A “supertanker” against bureaucracy in the wake of a housing crisis: neoliberalizing planning in netanyahu’s Israel. Antipode 49(5): 1223–1243.

10.

Chung

(2020) Collective versus self-interests: what is behind NIMBY? In: Yung

K-P

(eds) Land and Housing Controversies in Hong Kong: Perspectives of Justice and Social Values. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 145–167. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-5266-3_8.

11.

Comaroff

(2001) Colonialism, culture, and the law: a foreword. Law & Social Inquiry 26(2): 305–314.

12.

Coulthard

(2014) Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Taylor & Francis.

13.

Eshel

Hananel

(2018) Centralization, neoliberalism, and housing policy central–local government relations and residential development in Israel. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37(2): 237–255.

14.

Feitelson

(2018) Shifting sands of planning in Israel. Land Use Policy 79: 695–706.

15.

Feitelson

Horowitz-Harel

Levin

, et al. (2021) Haste makes waste: on the implications of rapid planning in Israel. Land Use Policy 103: 105312.

16.

Forensic Architecture and al-Araqib Village (2017) Ground truth: destruction and return in al-’Araqīb. Available at: https://www.naqab.org/ (accessed 5 December 2024).

17.

Haas

(2022) De-colonising the right to housing, one new city at a time: Seeing housing development from Palestine/Israel. Urban studies 59(8): 1676–1693. DOI: 10.1177/00420980211056226.

18.

Hason

(2004) A Going Concern in the Negev. Haaretz, July 16, https://www.haaretz.com/2004-07-16/ty-article/a-going-concern-in-the-negev/0000017f-f75e-ddde-abff-ff7fff940000

19.

Kedar

Amara

Yiftachel

(2018) Emptied Lands: A Legal Geography of Bedouin Rights in the Negev. Stanford University Press.

20.

Kymlicka

(1996) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0198290918.001.0001.

21.

Maller

Nicholls

(2014) Encountering the multiplicity of community in planning and designing new neighbourhoods. Urban Policy and Research 32(1): 17–32.

22.

Marx

Meir

(2005) Land, towns and planning: the Negev Bedouin and the state of Israel. Geography Research Forum 25: 43–61.

23.

Meir

(2020) As Nomadism Ends: The Israeli Bedouin of the Negev. London & New York: Routledge.

24.

Meir

Tzfadia

Roded

(2023) Temporal dynamics of contested local government among the Bedouin in Israel. Territory, Politics, Governance 11(4): 776–793. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1860809

25.

Moreton-Robinson

McMillan

Singh

(2014) Editorial. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 7(2): 1.

26.

Mualam

(2018) Playing with Supertankers: centralization in land use planning in Israel—a national experiment underway. Land Use Policy 75: 269–283.

27.

Nasasra

(2012) The ongoing Judaisation of the Naqab and the struggle for recognising the indigenous rights of the Arab Bedouin people. Settler colonial studies 2(1): 81–107.

28.

Nasasra

(2014) The politics of non-cooperation and lobbying: the Naqab Bedouin and Israeli military rule, 1948–67. In: Nasasra

Richter-Devroe

Abu-Rabia-Queder

, et al. (eds) The Naqab Bedouin and Colonialism. Routledge, 137–158.

29.

Nasasra

(2017) The Naqab Bedouins: A Century of Politics and Resistance. New York, USA: Columbia University Press.

30.

OECD (2017) Spatial Planning and Policy in Israel. Paris: OECD Publisher, 59–84. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/spatial-planning-and-policy-in-israel/the-housing-crisis-in-israel-as-catalyst-for-policy-reforms_9789264277366-6-en (accessed 30 November 2024).

31.

Osborne

Gaebler

(1992) Reinventing Government : How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Addison-Wesley.

32.

Pines

Yacobi

(2021) Affordable Housing Policy: Effectiveness and Social Impact. In M-RCBG Associate Working Paper No. 162 (162; Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government Working Paper). Harvard Kennedy School, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/AWP_162_final.pdf

33.

Planning Administration (2019) Planning information: tamal 1084. Available at: https://mavat.iplan.gov.il/SV4/1/99000910935/310 (accessed 5 December 2024).

34.

Porter

Barry

(2016) Planning for Coexistence? Recognizing Indigenous Rights through Land-Use Planning in Canada and Australia. London and New York: Routledge.

35.

Porter

Yiftachel

(2019) Urbanizing settler-colonial studies: introduction to the special issue. Settler Colonial Studies 9(2): 177–186.

36.

Porter

Lombard

Huxley

, et al. (2011) Informality, the commons and the paradoxes for planning: concepts and debates for informality and planning. Planning Theory & Practice 12: 115–153.

37.

Rouhana

(2018) Decolonization as reconciliation: Rethinking the national conflict paradigm in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ethnic and Racial Studies 41(4): 643–662. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2017.1324999.

38.

Rouhana

Sabbagh-Khoury

(2015) Settler-colonial citizenship: conceptualizing the relationship between Israel and its Palestinian citizens. Settler Colonial Studies 5(3): 205–225.

39.

Roy

(2019) Racial banishment. In: Keywords in Radical Geography: Antipode at 50. Wiley Online Books. DOI: 10.1002/9781119558071.ch42.

40.

Schmidt

(2018) Bureaucratic territory: First Nations, private property, and “turn-key” colonialism in Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 108(4): 901–916.

41.

Shachar

(1998) Reshaping the map of Israel: a new national planning doctrine. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 555(1): 209–218.

42.

Shmueli

Khamaisi

(2015) Israel’s Invisible Negev Bedouin: Issues of Land and Spatial Planning. Springer.

43.

Tzfadia

Yiftachel

(2021) Urban Displaceability: A Southeastern Perspective. Theoya U-Bikoret 54: 59–86.

44.

Veracini

(2010) Settler Colonialism. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI: 10.1057/9780230299191.

45.

Vigoda

(2007) New public management. In: Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy Rabin J. 2nd eds. New York: Basel: CRC Press.

46.

Wolfe

(2013) The settler complex: an introduction. American Indian Culture & Research Journal 37(2): 1–22.

47.

Yacobi

Milner

(2021) Beyond ‘causes of causes’: health, stigma and the settler colonial urban territory in the Negev/Naqab. Urban Studies 59(3): 572–590.

48.

Yacobi

Tzfadia

(2019) Neo-settler colonialism and the re-formation of territory: privatization and nationalization in Israel. Mediterranean Politics 24(1): 1–19.

49.

Yiftachel

(2020) From displacement to displaceability. City 24(1–2): 151–165.

50.

Yiftachel

Avni

(2019) Privatination: privatization, nationlization, housing and gaps. Tikhnun 16(1): 225–247.

51.

Zerubavel

(2018) Desert in the promised land. In: Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture, Book. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.