Bastian Hayek Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 The US has led international condemnation of Israel after it evicted nine Palestinian families living in two houses in occupied East Jerusalem. Washington said the action was not in keeping with Israel's obligations under the so-called "road map" to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Jewish settlers moved into the houses almost immediately. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8180743.stm Is this eviction justified? Why? Maybe there is something that the article does not mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Is this eviction justified? Why? Maybe there is something that the article does not mention. No, the article mentions it just fine: Israel is enforcing property rights. It followed a ruling by Israel's Supreme Court that Jewish families owned the land. Israel wants to build a block of 20 apartments in the area. Even if it wasn't this clear cut, and it was unclear whether the Israeli action was justified or not, the US condemnation would still be completely unjustifiable, and idiotic. Why doesn't Hillary Clinton go over to Paris or Moscow, and start commenting on and condemning various Court decisions there: they are just as likely to be wrong (in Russia's case far more likely, actually), so I'm sure her "help" will be much appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastian Hayek Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Could you elaborate on the property rights? This seems to be questionable.. Now I am a staunch supporter of Israel but I don't understand this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Could you elaborate on the property rights? This seems to be questionable.. No, I couldn't. All I know is that the Supreme Court of Israel made this ruling. It does not seem questionable to me though, any more than their last ruling, whatever it was. But, if I ever decided to start questioning each Supreme Court of Israel ruling, I would probably start at a nice round number, like the first ruling of January 1., and go through every one of them, to see how questionable they are. I don't understand why this particular ruling would jump out to you, to be questioned. Edited August 3, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 This seems to be questionable..What is the basis for questioning it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastian Hayek Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) I deleted my latest questions.. I found that on the internet: This housing complex is in the Sheik Jarra district of East Jerusalem, where there was a large Jewish community prior to the anti-Jewish riots in 1929. The home was originally Jewish, but its inhabitants were chased off in the above riots. Arab families then proceeded to squat on the property, without purchasing it. Jordan then proceeded to annex East Jerusalem in 1950 and occupied it until 1967. During that time Jews were barred from that part of the city, homes were taken and synagogues were destroyed. Now, in spite of the fact that documentation exists to prove that Jews had the original deeds to the property, Jewish groups legally re-purchased it from the Hezaji family. However, under pressure from the Palestinian Authority, the Hezaji family denied this (in spite of documentary evidence that the sale went through) - as I have pointed out before it is illegal for a Palestinian to sell land to a Jew and the penalty is death. The courts ruled twice that there was little doubt that the property belonged to Jews. This is the result. Bad luck for the squatters, but in the end this is a fairly mundane property dispute. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread487648/pg1 Edited August 3, 2009 by Bastian Hayek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 What gives the jewish settler the right to the property?The immediate answer is that there was sufficient documentary evidence that the land was owned by Nahalat Shimon International, that the plaintiffs failed to pay rent to the owner and therefore an eviction order was granted in a May 17th court decision in case 4744/02. Without looking at and disputing the records that the court used to makes its determination of ownership, there is no basis for doubting the ruling.But what makes it right to take this home in an arab part of Jerusalem?Race is not the basis for determining legal ownership. It's the same thing that makes it okay for a black man to acquire property in a white part of town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastian Hayek Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Thank you, I found more on the internet. I edited my earlier post before I saw that you already answered. My second question was very poorly written. I was looking for something like that http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread487648/pg1 (last post) Edited August 3, 2009 by Bastian Hayek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.