50 Palestinians evicted from Jerusalem homes

[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?

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).

I'm not sure how you are reading it that way. From what you have posted, it seems to state that one had to be an Israeli resident in 1973 or become one thereafter; it does not say that they had until 1973 to make a claim.

Moreover, this applies to land confiscated under absentee owner's law, not to land siezed by a private person.

[Viking]

I'm not sure how you are reading it that way. From what you have posted, it seems to state that one had to be an Israeli resident in 1973 or become one thereafter; it does not say that they had until 1973 to make a claim.

Moreover, this applies to land confiscated under absentee owner's law, not to land siezed by a private person.

Naturally not being a lawyer much of this language make my head spin. But I was trying to talk about palestinians trying to claim property lost in israel, not the israelis trying to claim property lost east of the 1948 green line.

[Jaron]

How unsurprising that Malthus and the Pinko Moment would LEAP to the defense of Israel.

[Malthus]

How unsurprising that Malthus and the Pinko Moment would LEAP to the defense of Israel.

Because, as everyone knows, actually examining the facts of a case as opposed to screaming OMG NAZIS is the same as LEAPING to the defense.

[Malthus]

I'm not sure how you are reading it that way. From what you have posted, it seems to state that one had to be an Israeli resident in 1973 or become one thereafter; it does not say that they had until 1973 to make a claim.

Moreover, this applies to land confiscated under absentee owner's law, not to land siezed by a private person.

Naturally not being a lawyer much of this language make my head spin. But I was trying to talk about palestinians trying to claim property lost in israel, not the israelis trying to claim property lost east of the 1948 green line.

I understood that. I'm just pointing out that you aren't looking in the right place.

The part quoted stated:

Other provisions specify the time limit legally allowed for filing a claim...

That's the part you want.

[Viking]

That's the part you want.

:hugs:

[Malthus]

That's the part you want.

:hugs:

We still have no idea what that time limit is, and whether it had expired when the case mentioned in the OP actually started (allegedly some time in the 1980s).

[Martinus]

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? 

Apparently not - at least according to Israeli law - since Palestinians had these homes for 50 years, yet Israeli law doesn't recognize they got a legal title.

Oh the sweet irony of the whole debacle. 

[Martinus]

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.

Well, that's not true under Polish, German and I believe French law (and probably most legal systems based on German and French law, as well).

In these systems, the court ruling awarding the title to the party in possession of the property is a declaratory ruling, and even if that party didn't apply for such a ruling before the former owner tries to regain it, they still have a valid defense against such a claim if they have held the property for the sufficient period before the claim was made.

The transfer of title cannot be dependent on "who gets to the court first".

[DGuller]

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

Apparently not - at least according to Israeli law - since Palestinians had these homes for 50 years, yet Israeli law doesn't recognize they got a legal title.

Oh the sweet irony of the whole debacle. 

My ironies are getting too subtle these days. 

[Sheilbh]

I think I heard about this story in an interview last night, with a former US Ambassador to Israel.

Apparently this has been building for some weeks with settler groups supporting it very strongly.  The interviewer asked if this was becoming an issue between the US and Israel because the US wants Israel to stop settlement growth and this was the most prominent case at the minute.  The Ambassador, whose name I forget, said that 'it's never a good idea to make anything to do with Jerusalem "an issue"' and that he would 'quietly but firmly' ask the Israeli government if this case could be lost in the procedural jungle a little longer (as it has been for over 20 years) rather than make a big issue of it all.

I think that's why there's been such international condemnation.  Apparently countries around the world have been asking the Israelis, quietly, not to do this, the settlers have meanwhile been pushing for it in a big way.

[Neil]

I think I heard about this story in an interview last night, with a former US Ambassador to Israel.

Apparently this has been building for some weeks with settler groups supporting it very strongly.  The interviewer asked if this was becoming an issue between the US and Israel because the US wants Israel to stop settlement growth and this was the most prominent case at the minute.  The Ambassador, whose name I forget, said that 'it's never a good idea to make anything to do with Jerusalem "an issue"' and that he would 'quietly but firmly' ask the Israeli government if this case could be lost in the procedural jungle a little longer (as it has been for over 20 years) rather than make a big issue of it all.

I think that's why there's been such international condemnation.  Apparently countries around the world have been asking the Israelis, quietly, not to do this, the settlers have meanwhile been pushing for it in a big way.

Which is funny.  It's like the Russians asking the British to control what their papers publish.

[Martinus]

Or the Saudis asking the British to drop the bribery probe. Or the Americans asking the Poles to keep shut about the secret CIA prisons.

Things like this happen all the time.

It just shows once again a big fuck you from Israel to the rest of the Western world. I just wonder if and when they will be left to their own devices.

[Sheilbh]

It just shows once again a big fuck you from Israel to the rest of the Western world. I just wonder if and when they will be left to their own devices.

Settlements are a big problem for them because I think the majority of pro-Israelis in the US and Europe just think they're entirely counter-productive and I think that, at least, a plurality of Israelis do too.  If the Israeli state can't or won't control settlers and settlement growth then that's a major problem.  Though the same ambassador said that he's cautiously optimistic.  Apparently Mitchell and Barak are working very closely and seem to be inching towards a solution that the US and the Israeli government would be happy about.

Or the Saudis asking the British to drop the bribery probe. Or the Americans asking the Poles to keep shut about the secret CIA prisons.

Yeah I think controlling the press is a world away from making what's been a twenty year old procedural nightmare just last a bit longer, the goal being that it would be delayed until the Mitchell-Barak deal was in place at which point, presumably, there wouldn't be any settlement anyway.

[Malthus]

Or the Saudis asking the British to drop the bribery probe. Or the Americans asking the Poles to keep shut about the secret CIA prisons.

Things like this happen all the time.

It just shows once again a big fuck you from Israel to the rest of the Western world. I just wonder if and when they will be left to their own devices.

This is a private court case that has gone on since the 1980s. In exactly what way should the Israeli government interfere in the court system?

At least here in Canada, interference in the judiciary by the state tends to be frowned upon.