50 Palestinians evicted from Jerusalem homes

[Valmy]

Is that correct? It makes justice somehow very dependent on the present power.

Wait so you are saying that people in power get to make laws?!

Amazing.

[Zoupa]

It would be nice to know if the court ruling was justified.

Israeli police cited a ruling by the country's Supreme Court that the houses belonged to Jews and that the Arab families had been living there illegally.

Gunness said the families had lived in the homes for more than 50 years.

[Sheilbh]

It gives the idea that during the time Jordan controlled  East-Jerusalem, a court would have decided that those people could live there legally (although it was formally owned by Israeli) and could even own the houses. And because East-Jerusalem is now controlled by Israel, a court decides that those people could not live there legally. Is that correct? It makes justice somehow very dependent on the present power.

Jordan annexed the West Bank including Jerusalem.  The Israelis supported their seizing annexation of the West Bank (though not of Jerusalem) and it was only recognised by, I think the UK and Pakistan.  It wasn't formally owned by Israel.  It was meant to be an 'international city' and I believe that the West Bank wasn't formally owned by a Palestinian state or Israel because no Palestinian state existed.

[Valmy]

It would be nice to know if the court ruling was justified.

Israeli police cited a ruling by the country's Supreme Court that the houses belonged to Jews and that the Arab families had been living there illegally.

Gunness said the families had lived in the homes for more than 50 years.

Which it looks like was illegally siezed (according to Israel's laws) by the Jordanian government.

So what's your point?

[garbon]

Gunness said the families had lived in the homes for more than 50 years.

So? Landlords can kick out misbehaving tenants even if they've been there a long time.

[The Minsky Moment]

The question was not about the right to live in East-Jerusalem. The question was about this part:

It makes justice somehow very dependent on the present power.

Courts apply the law of the jurisdiction they sit; they don't engage in consideration of principles of abstract justice.  So that is always true.

P.S. what would have happened if those people had got ownership during the Jordan ruling?

I am not 100% sure, but I suspect that would have been able to enforce their ownership rights, and that the Jewish plaintiffs would have been limited to seeking fair compensation for the expropriation.

[The Minsky Moment]

Gunness said the families had lived in the homes for more than 50 years.

[/quote]

It is not at all unusual for renters to stay in an apartment for over 50 years.  A legal claim that such a leasehold period would enable an ownership claim would be deemed frivolous in most jurisdictions.

[The Minsky Moment]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105316.html

A part of the editorial of Haartez:

No thinking person will be persuaded that Jews have a sweeping right to return to their homes in East Jerusalem as long as Israeli law not only bars Palestinians from returning to their homes in West Jerusalem, but even evicts them from the houses where they have lived for the last 60 years. The Israel Lands Administration's regulations do not even allow Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to buy land and houses in many parts of the city.

The Israel Land Administration is the body that holds state owned land.  Under ILA regulations, they can't lease or sell property to non-citizens.  Palestinian citizens of Israel are eligible, but many Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem don't have israeli citizenship.  Non-citizens can still buy and hold land from others, of course.

Note that because any Jew can automatically claim israeli citizenship, these regulations, though formally neutral and based only on citizenship, as a practical matter discriminate against non-Jews.  So the Ha'aretz editorialist does have a real point, even if that point is a little different from what is being discussed here.

[Malthus]

To my mind, the odd thing is that when there are in fact so many inequities one could protest, international opinion apparently consistently picks up on those situations, such as this, where an actual review of the available facts (still haven't seen the court decision) indicates that the Israeli authourities were relatively blameless. 

I mean, really. Where else would an eviction apparently for non-payment of rent create such a splash? Where else would foreign contries basically demand that a court order from a domestic court not accused in any way of corruption dealing with a rental issue be set aside?

[Jos Theelen]

I mean, really. Where else would an eviction apparently for non-payment of rent create such a splash? Where else would foreign contries basically demand that a court order from a domestic court not accused in any way of corruption dealing with a rental issue be set aside?

Because this kind of behaviour is working against the international efforts to end this war.

And if I understand this legal stuff right, the court order is only correct, because Israel claims that East-Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel.

[The Minsky Moment]

And if I understand this legal stuff right, the court order is only correct, because Israel claims that East-Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel.

Are you suggesting that as long as the status of East Jerusalem is questioned internationally, landlords cannot enforce their right to collect rent?

[The Minsky Moment]

I mean, really. Where else would an eviction apparently for non-payment of rent create such a splash? Where else would foreign contries basically demand that a court order from a domestic court not accused in any way of corruption dealing with a rental issue be set aside?

The issue is that there is a broader political motivation behind the plaintiffs legal strategy.

That said, it is a bit of an eyebrow raiser that this case is major international news.  But that is the price of claiming sovereignty over a city like Jerusalem.

[Valmy]

Because this kind of behaviour is working against the international efforts to end this war.

Hey if even Egypt refuses to help out with the situation in Gaza I fail to see what one building in Jerusalem is going to mean anything.  If the international efforts to end the war had any sort of sincerity or substantial will behind then we would be fixing up Gaza.

The fact that we don't lift a finger basically means, well, that there will be no peace regardless of what the Palestinians or Israelis do.

Gaza is the key and has been so since 2005.  The onus is on the international community.  Israel did its part and we all fumbled.

[Sheilbh]

Gaza is the key and has been so since 2005.  The onus is on the international community.  Israel did its part and we all fumbled.

I disagree.  All the issues to do with peace are in the West Bank: the borders of a Palestinian state, the status of settlements, the final status of Jerusalem, provision of security.  At least three of those issues are to do with settlers as much as anything else.  Gaza can cause problems and misery for their people and the Israelis but if we can sort out the West Bank that's the vast majority of the work on a peace treaty.  Then, it's like Blair says, we have to work to develop the economy and government of the Palestinian Authority.  If the situation progresses without Gaza then it's possible Hamas will change, this is I believe Mitchell's theory.  It's roughly what he did with the IRA.

I don't think we can foist this on Egypt.  A repressive regime of dubious use with serious economic problems and so on.  Even if Egypt wanted to 'sort out' Gaza I don't think they could; it seems to me that it would be like the way we all sort of allowed the Syrians to 'sort out' Lebanon (minus the economic incentive) because it was better than chaos.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Because this kind of behaviour is working against the international efforts to end this war.

Hey if even Egypt refuses to help out with the situation in Gaza I fail to see what one building in Jerusalem is going to mean anything.  If the international efforts to end the war had any sort of sincerity or substantial will behind then we would be fixing up Gaza.

The fact that we don't lift a finger basically means, well, that there will be no peace regardless of what the Palestinians or Israelis do.

Gaza is the key and has been so since 2005.  The onus is on the international community.  Israel did its part and we all fumbled.

the key is that the 1948 population transfer wasn't completed.