|
Blood revenge among the Bedouins is a highly sensitive issue in the state of Israel. For many Bedouins, it is considered a mandated (and often obligatory) right; for other citizens of Israel, it is simply outright murder. Moreover, this once prescribed form of conflict resolution is increasingly challenged from within and from without the Bedouin community. Not to mention the state authorities which consider blood revenge to be not outdated and, more importantly, at counters with law and order. It is these different takes on legal norms and practices that have spurred Joseph Ginat, an anthropologist at the University of Haifa and co-director of the University of Oklahoma Center for Peace Studies, to explore in depth this contentious topic. Among his numerous publications is the classic Blood Revenge: Family Honor, Mediation, and Outcasting (Sussex Academic Press, 2nd edition, 1997). It is in honor of the book's translation into Hebrew that the Center together with the Joe Alon Center for Bedouin Culture and the Center for Bedouin Studies and Development at BGU held a one-day long conference this past June on blood revenge, and its social and political implications.
The highlight of the conference was a debate among tribal judges from Jordan and Israel, held in a Bedouin tent at the Joe Alon Center. The debate focused on a case of rape and murder, and in the course of the discussions, distinct differences emerged between the Jordanian participants-shaykhs and their Israeli counterparts.
Blood revenge remains a volatile and contentious issue. This was very much evident throughout the standing-room-only conference. Also evident was the rapid societal and cultural transformations within Bedouin society, as young and old sparred over the moral legitimacy of a custom that condones killing of individuals who are not direct parties to a conflict. Many tribal elders are fully aware of the changes in attitude toward blood revenge. In fact, the visiting sheikhs from Jordan were of the opinion that tribal justice had to adjust itself to new social conditions affecting Bedouin society at large. At issue was whether Bedouins should abide by long-standing "legal" precedents or consider each case as unique. Equally interesting was the different attitudes the Jordanian and Israeli states respectively have toward blood revenge. As the two sheikhs pointed out, there is a closer fit between the civil law and Bedouin customary justice in Jordan. This is not the case in Israel, where the official legal system looks askance at tribal customs that operate independently of state institutions. Thus, Bedouins who support blood revenge find themselves on the defensive.
Yet traditional judicial norms are not giving way to Israeli civil law. Most Bedouins still consider their norms of justice, including blood revenge, to be morally valid. This is not simply a matter of formal education or exposure to non-Bedouin values. After all, the majority of middle-age Bedouins who received advanced degrees from Israeli state institutions still support and participate in blood revenge. And, it is still common wisdom that a murderer who has served thirty-odd years in prison will face upon release physical retribution from a family member of the victim.
To note, the Bedouin custom of blood revenge only affects men. While women are exempt from this form of conflict resolution, they are not spared physical violence in the case of adultery and sexual relations outside marriage. Indeed, one woman attending the conference challenged the fundamentally patriarchal values underlying blood revenge and tribal justice. Indeed, a new generation of Bedouin men and women in their twenties and early thirties are questioning the very salience of centuries-old practices. This intense inter-generational encounter articulated not simply different attitudes to justice and conflict resolution among Bedouins and non-Bedouins in Israel but, more importantly, revealed how young and old, men and women are imagining alternative social and legal ideals. By Nawwaf Nabbary, Journalist
|