50 Palestinians evicted from Jerusalem homes

[Faeelin]

Incidentally, why can't Palestinians use this to demand their property be returned to them?

[Warspite]

Incidentally, why can't Palestinians use this to demand their property be returned to them?

No right of return?

[Neil]

Incidentally, why can't Palestinians use this to demand their property be returned to them?

Presumably because a case involving squatters is different from lands seized as spoils of war.

[DGuller]

Then there is the question as to whether the law should have been applied at all - this is an occupied territory, not a territory of Israel, and as such extending real property laws of the occupant to real property situated in the occupied territory seems to contravene international conventions.

For some reason I thought that Jerusalem was annexed, and thus not an occupied territory.  Am I remembering things wrong?

[Admiral Yi]

For some reason I thought that Jerusalem was annexed, and thus not an occupied territory.  Am I remembering things wrong?

That's right.  Pretty sure no one else recognizes it.

[Sheilbh]

Then there is the question as to whether the law should have been applied at all - this is an occupied territory, not a territory of Israel, and as such extending real property laws of the occupant to real property situated in the occupied territory seems to contravene international conventions.

For some reason I thought that Jerusalem was annexed, and thus not an occupied territory.  Am I remembering things wrong?

No-one recognises it though.  That's why every country keeps their embassy in Tel Aviv.

[Malthus]

There is insufficient information to judge this action. From what I've read, it was the result of a private court ruling between individuals, not a state-sanctioned act of eminent domain; the Israeli courts are not passive state actors, they often rule against the state's wishes.

The crutial point is this: can Palestinians in Israel advance similar claims? Have they done so successfully in the past, through the courts?

[HisMajestyBOB]

Incidentally, why can't Palestinians use this to demand their property be returned to them?

Israeli courts.

The crutial point is this: can Palestinians in Israel advance similar claims? Have they done so successfully in the past, through the courts?

If there has been, it's likely only been with Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians. Though IIRC the Israeli courts have ruled against the fence dividing Pally communities in some cases,  so its possible they've ruled for Palestinian housing claims (though nothing that would be remotely similar to the "Right of return Issue", so again probably Palestinians or Israeli Arabs already living in Israel)

[DGuller]

No-one recognises it though.  That's why every country keeps their embassy in Tel Aviv.

Israelis had it for over 40 years.  Isn't it time to recognize that it's theirs? 

[Viking]

There is insufficient information to judge this action. From what I've read, it was the result of a private court ruling between individuals, not a state-sanctioned act of eminent domain; the Israeli courts are not passive state actors, they often rule against the state's wishes.

The crutial point is this: can Palestinians in Israel advance similar claims? Have they done so successfully in the past, through the courts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Property_Laws_in_Israel#The_.27Absentees_Property_Law.27

The Absentees' Property (Compensation) Law, 5733-1973[18]


This law establishes the procedure to compensate owners of lands which have been confiscated under the Absentees' Property Law (1950). It establishes the requirements to be eligible for compensation (Article 1):

    The persons entitled to compensation are all those who were Israel residents on 1 July 1973, or became residents thereafter, and prior to the property becoming vested in the Custodian of Absentees' Property were

        1.the owners of property, including their heirs, or
        2.the tenants only of urban property, including spouses living with them at the last mentioned date, or
        3.the lessees of property, or
        4.the owners of any easement in property.

Other provisions specify the time limit legally allowed for filing a claim, whether compensation would be awarded in cash or bonds (depending on circumstances), the payment schedule (generally over a fifteen year period) and other provisions. Appended to the law is a detailed schedule of how compensation is to be calculated for each type of property, urban or agricultural. Some provisions of this law were amended in later years[28].

Which if I understand it correctly meant that they had until 1973 to make a claim in an Israeli court. And given that both the Israeli government and the Arab governments all colluded to keep any such claim from being made (which would result in land being paid for and Israel being recognized in one fell swoop).

[Admiral Yi]

I wonder what the definition of Israeli resident is for the purposes of that law.

[Sheilbh]

Israelis had it for over 40 years.  Isn't it time to recognize that it's theirs? 

That would be seen as pre-determining the final status of any Israeli-Palestinian deal.  So far as I can see everyone roughly knows what the deal will look like on most subjects, except Jerusalem.

[Malthus]

The more I read, the less clear-cut this gets.

The families, Hannun and Gawi, say they are refugees from Palestinian neighborhoods in West Jerusalem who lost their homes in the War of Independence.

They were housed by the UN and the Jordanian authorities in East Jerusalem homes that previously belonged to a Sephardic community committee. Israeli courts acknowledged the committee's ownership of the houses, but provided a protected tenant status for the residents.

However, the committee, which supports the Jewish families' bid for the homes, had since claimed that the Palestinian families violated the agreement and demanded their eviction. Several families have been evicted over the years, the last - before Sunday - in November 2008. That family's protest tent was demolished during Sunday's eviction.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1104779.html

It seems that no-one seriously contests that the Shephardim owns the places; the Palestinian families had in fact a court ruling enabling them to live there as 'protected tenants'; but in some (unspecified) way they are alleged to have violated their tenancy agreement, and got evicted.

So, out of what *may* be nothing more than a squabble about the details of a tenancy agreement, we get - an international incident, Israelis compared to nazis, the whole nine yards. 

[Viking]

I wonder what the definition of Israeli resident is for the purposes of that law.

Being a resident citizen wasn't always enough.

[The Minsky Moment]

since most legal systems recognize that the title to property can be cured by uninterrupted possession,

I believe the doctrine of adverse possesion, as recognized in Yankistan and elsewhere, requires that the de jure legal owner take no steps to assert control over the land - that clearly was not satisfied here.

The Israeli Supreme Court has a rep of being rather liberal and has ruled for Palestinians in the past on land and rights issues, so I would not rush to jump to conclusions until the full facts and circumstances are known.