And your specific reference to that one town includes this:
First off, I'm entirely willing to believe that Israel is not letting the Bedouin live their traditional nomadic lifestyle, nor are they letting them build wherever they please. I can also believe that some of this stems from a sense of cultural superiority or a desire to exert control over the Bedouin population.
All that said, I'd note that if those same Bedouin were to start to build shacks and tents on the outskirts of Sydney in an act of protest without building permission they'd likely be repeatedly razed as well. Large homeless encampments in the US are regularly torn down as well. In the case of the US homeless, that may actually be their only dwelling - unlike most of the Bedouin who do have homes elsewhere. In fact, in most developed countries it is not legal to just build what you want where you want to build it even if you have historical ties to that land. Where I used to live I couldn't build a shed on my own land but both of my neighbors were. If I had built it I would have been fined and it would have been demolished. Apartheid! Injustice! Entire towns bulldozed!
Even Australia's relatively generous Native Title provisions don't allow aboriginals to randomly start construction in areas their ancestors lived.
While the 10,000 number is very high, it would seem that many of those were likely the repeated demolitions in al-Araqib, or similar demolitions of shacks and tents set up elsewhere. While I'm sure that some of these demolitions caused homelessness, it would appear that a significant number of the demolished structures are not actually used as residences, and certainly not sole residences.
Then there’s this (worth emphasising that Jerusalem is not part of the pre 67 border):
Yes, and? It's unfair. Probably infuriating for the Palestinians who live there. I guess they could all become Jewish, naturalize, then later renounce their Judaism. As long as their Palestinian neighbors allowed them to survive the conversion, that is.
What's more, this unfairness is downright common. Germany's policy of
Aussiedler und Spätaussiedler which establishes the right to return for Germanic descendants (even those who lived outside of Germany for generations) in contrast to the long term guest-worker residents of Turkish descent. Greece, Finland, China, India, Japan, France ... all have preferential treatment when it comes to establishing citizenship for certain ethnic groups. I think India even specifically excludes Muslims from their policy. Jordan has revoked established citizenship from Palestinians. Lebanon has refused Palestinians citizenship. And so on.
I guess I'm just not all that shocked that a nation might include racial, ethnic, or lineage components when it comes to citizenship. Even more so when the excluded peoples tend to be very vocal about the destruction of that nation.
Demolishing 10,000 homes and leaving 3 percent of the land inside the pre 67 border to Palestinians seems to fit the bill as I described it.
Demolishing 10,000 Bedouin shacks across six years, most of which are built in protest as civil disobedience or in an attempt to live a traditional lifestyle. Nope, not the same thing as:
Hahaha mate the Israelis bulldoze entire Arab towns and then develop the land for settlement by immigrants solely on the basis of their race and religion.
There’s a long list of demolished towns and homes in there which should help give context to the wiki map.
"Bulldoze entire Arab towns and then develop the land for settlement by immigrants"
"Long list of demolished towns"
You straight made that up. You wanted to evoke an exaggerated image of what Israel was doing and weren't content to stay within the bounds of truth to do so.
Were all of those 10,000 demolitions just? Almost certainly not. Are they equivalent to "apartheid"? Almost certainly not.
What do you think the appropriate Palestinian response should have been?
Obviously their only rational option is a coordinated terror campaign against civilians.
