Shit like this just ain't smart policy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32259294/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Quote50 Palestinians evicted from Jerusalem homes
Israeli police then allowed Jewish settlers to move into the houses
updated 3:10 p.m. ET, Sun., Aug 2, 2009
JERUSALEM - Israeli police evicted two Palestinian families in east Jerusalem on Sunday, then allowed Jewish settlers to move into their homes, drawing criticism from Palestinians, the United Nations and the State Department.
Police arrived before dawn and cordoned off part of the Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah before forcibly removing more than 50 people, said Chris Gunness, spokesman for the U.N. agency in charge of Palestinian refugees.
U.N. staff later saw vehicles bringing Jewish settlers to move into the homes, he said.
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.
One of the most explosive issues
The status of east Jerusalem is one of the most explosive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel took control of east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it, a move not recognized by any other country. Since then, Israel has to boosted the Jewish presence there, building neighborhoods where about 180,000 Jews live. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of their hoped-for state.
Organizations linked to the Jewish West Bank settlement movement also have bought properties inside Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem and moved Israelis in.
About 270,000 Palestinians live in east Jerusalem, or 35 percent of the city's total population of 760,000.
The international community has pressured Israel to refrain from evicting Palestinians and building new homes for Jews in east Jerusalem, saying such moves hamper peacemaking efforts.
State Department spokeswoman Megan Mattson said such actions in east Jerusalem constitute violations of Israel's obligations under U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.
"Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community," she said in a statement.
Robert Serry, the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, called Sunday's evictions "totally unacceptable."
"These actions heighten tensions and undermine international efforts to create conditions for fruitful negotiations to achieve peace," he said in a statement.
'Now our future is in the streets'
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat also condemned the move.
"While Israeli authorities have promised the American administration that home demolitions, home evictions and other provocations against Palestinian Jerusalemites would be stopped, what we've seen on the ground is completely the opposite," he said in a statement.
Click for related content
Police in manhunt for Tel Aviv gay club shooter
Israel opens road to Palestinian traffic
Khawla Hanoun, 35, who lived in one of the homes, said police ordered her and 16 family members to leave the house before dawn and forced them out at gunpoint when they refused.
"Now our future is in the streets," she said. "We will remain steadfast until we return home. By any method, we must go back home."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press
Wow, they're not even trying to stop the Nazi analogies anymore are they?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 02, 2009, 06:04:50 PM
Khawla Hanoun, 35, who lived in one of the homes, said police ordered her and 16 family members to leave the house before dawn and forced them out at gunpoint when they refused.
"Now our future is in the streets," she said. "We will remain steadfast until we return home. By any method, we must go back home."
Shit like this is why the Palestinians can never make peace with Israel.
Of course, the Israelis are even worse, aren't they?
Godwin on the first reply, a new Languish record! :thumbsup:
Hopefully Caterpillar dozers were used.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 02, 2009, 06:36:16 PM
Godwin on the first reply, a new Languish record! :thumbsup:
Godwin is stupid, as who those are invoke it.
It would be nice to know if the court ruling was justified.
This is why people who support Israel are stupid.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2009, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 02, 2009, 06:36:16 PM
Godwin on the first reply, a new Languish record! :thumbsup:
Godwin is stupid, as who those are invoke it.
Godwin was actually rather clever, but those who invoke Godwin's Law in invariably retarded.
Despite Tim's Patriotardedness, I've always treated him with some level of respect. But this behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and brings him down to scarcely above Martinus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
It would be nice to know if the court ruling was justified.
If the residents had been living there for at least fifty years.... I'm dubious. But yea, I'd like more info about it too.
Quote from: Jaron on August 02, 2009, 06:53:50 PM
This is why people who support Israel are stupid.
Israelis are stupid. People who support Israel are wise.
I'm not surprised to see this, the far right in Israel is generally comprised of assholes. Frankly, I don't see why we should even be involved there anymore. If Israel wants to keep building settlements, then leave them to it and let them deal for the consequences. And they can pay for their military on their own, without our subsidies.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 02, 2009, 07:15:37 PM
I'm not surprised to see this, the far right in Israel is generally comprised of assholes. Frankly, I don't see why we should even be involved there anymore. If Israel wants to keep building settlements, then leave them to it and let them deal for the consequences. And they can pay for their military on their own, without our subsidies.
That would be exactly what the religious right of Israel wants.
They think that when everybody is against Israel it will cause the Messiah to come...or something insane like that.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2009, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 02, 2009, 06:36:16 PM
Godwin on the first reply, a new Languish record! :thumbsup:
Godwin is stupid, as who those are invoke it.
Not as stupid as the OMG ISRAEL = HITLER crowd...you know people like you. But then the OMG ISLAM IZ DA FASCIST crowd cancels you out.
Anyway I am not sure what sort of stupid game Israel is playing but they seem to be working hard to tweak our noses and make Obama look foolish.
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2009, 11:40:57 PM
Not as stupid as the OMG ISRAEL = HITLER crowd...you know people like you. But then the OMG ISLAM IZ DA FASCIST crowd cancels you out.
Anyway I am not sure what sort of stupid game Israel is playing but they seem to be working hard to tweak our noses and make Obama look foolish.
Sorry. When I read accounts of inferior races being moved out of their homes that they might be given to settlers, the first example that comes to mind is the Third Reich.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 03, 2009, 12:00:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2009, 11:40:57 PM
Not as stupid as the OMG ISRAEL = HITLER crowd...you know people like you. But then the OMG ISLAM IZ DA FASCIST crowd cancels you out.
Anyway I am not sure what sort of stupid game Israel is playing but they seem to be working hard to tweak our noses and make Obama look foolish.
Sorry. When I read accounts of inferior races being moved out of their homes that they might be given to settlers, the first example that comes to mind is the Third Reich.
The first example that comes to my mind is the Trail of Tears.
(IsraelNN.com) Two Arab families were evicted from Jewish-owned homes in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood of Jerusalem on Sunday morning. The evictions took place following a Supreme Court ruling in which the court found in favor of Jewish families who claimed ownership of homes in the area.
The evictions took place without unusual disturbances, police said.
The Arab families claimed that they owned the houses in which they lived. Jewish families argued that they were the legal owners of the homes, and that the Arabs had squatted there illegally in an attempt to wrest control of the property from its rightful owners.
The Arab families presented documents that appeared to show Arab ownership of the homes dating back to the Ottoman period. However, the court found that the documents had been forged, and that the documents presented by the Jewish plaintiffs were legitimate.
The neighborhood in question is located near the 2,000-year-old gravesite of the sage Shimon HaTzaddik. The neighborhood was founded in the first half of the 20th century by Jewish families, but fell under Jordanian rule following the 1948 War of Independence and was quickly populated by Jordanian Arabs.
Since the reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli rule in 1967, a number of Jewish families have moved back into the area. Their arrival has been greeted with hostility from local Arabs and from the Palestinian Authority, which has demanded control over the neighborhood as part of a future Arab capital city in Jerusalem.
Jewish activists have fought several legal battles in recent years regarding properties in Jerusalem and in Shimon HaTzaddik in particular. Activists say they are undeterred by the difficulties of regaining control of Jewish property, and plan to continue their efforts to reestablish a Jewish presence in historic Jerusalem neighborhoods.
It should be noted that in a normal country those palestinians would have been charged with forgery, lacerny, and who know what else, plus forced to compensate the owners for lost rental value over the years. This being Israel, the squatters just got an slap in the wrist and a "good luck next time".
LOL the article posted by Siege seems like an agit-prop. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewlicious.com%2Fwp-content%2Fcheer.jpg&hash=af6b200b8bd9b651ff0091412aab112a6bfdd098)
QuotePalestinians evicted in Jerusalem
Israeli police have evicted nine Palestinian families living in two houses in occupied East Jerusalem.
Jewish settlers moved into the houses almost immediately. The US has urged Israel to abandon plans for a building project in the area.
Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it, a move not recognised by the world community.
The evictions have been condemned by the United Nations, the Palestinians and also the UK government.
The US said the evictions were not in keeping with Israel's obligations under the so-called "road map" to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
'Deplorable'
The operation to evict the 53 Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah district of the city was carried out before dawn on Sunday by police clad in black riot gear.
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.
The evictions were quickly condemned by the United Nations.
"I deplore today's totally unacceptable actions by Israel," the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert H Serry said. "These actions are contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions related to occupied territory.
"These actions heighten tensions and undermine international efforts to create conditions for fruitful negotiations to achieve peace," Mr Perry said.
Palestinian negotiator Sayeb Erekat said: "Tonight, while these new settlers from abroad will be accommodating themselves and their belongings in these Palestinian houses, 19 newly homeless children will have nowhere to sleep."
Sovereignty 'unquestionable'
Israel considers a united Jerusalem to be the capital of the state of Israel.
"Our sovereignty over it is unquestionable," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last month.
"We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and buy [homes] anywhere in Jerusalem."
The BBC's Tim Franks in Jerusalem says the houses are in what is probably the most contested city on earth and the diplomatic ripples from the evictions will spread.
The UK joined in the condemnation of the evictions. "These actions are incompatible with the Israeli professed desire for peace," the British Consulate in East Jerusalem said. "We urge Israel not to allow the extremists to set the agenda."
There are an estimated 250,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and 200,000 Jews.
QuoteJewish families argued that they were the legal owners of the homes, and that the Arabs had squatted there illegally in an attempt to wrest control of the property from its rightful owners.
Ironies of ironies :lol:
Quote from: HVC on August 03, 2009, 02:00:45 AM
QuoteJewish families argued that they were the legal owners of the homes, and that the Arabs had squatted there illegally in an attempt to wrest control of the property from its rightful owners.
Ironies of ironies :lol:
What's so funny?
Martinus, have you ever met a muslim in his natural habitat?
Quote from: Siege on August 03, 2009, 02:13:47 AM
Martinus, have you ever met a muslim in his natural habitat?
Are you inviting him home?
Quote from: Siege on August 03, 2009, 02:12:40 AM
What's so funny?
The Arab property seized after 48.
If I understand this story, the court agrees with the eviction, based on ownership-rights from before 1948.
How can that be true in a country that only exists since 1948? What will this mean for ownership-rights of Palestinians who lived in Israel before 1948 and were evicted or fled the new country?
Yeah, it's fishy.
Essentially, the problem here is twofold: (1) was Israeli law applied correctly, and (2) were there grounds to actually apply Israeli law.
The first question is one I cannot answer - but it seems that if it was applied correctly, then it means 50 years of uninterrupted possession do not cure lack of title to the property. That position would be, if not unprecedented, at least quite extraordinary, since most legal systems recognize that the title to property can be cured by uninterrupted possession, even if the property was acquired in bad faith in the first place - this is to prevent legal uncertainty, since otherwise some property could be "tainted" for ever, effectively being removed from legal circulation. For example, in Polish law you acquire title to a property after 20 years of uninterrupted possession if it was acquired in good faith, and after 30 years even if it was acquired in bad faith; since our law is based on German law, I imagine it is similar in at least Central and Eastern Europe.
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.
So yeah, as I said, the Israeli Supreme Court's legal reasoning requires us to make at least a couple of legal "leaps of faith" here - of course we can't really tell for sure without more details.
Fairly stupid move even if it was owned by Jews before 1948.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 03, 2009, 07:15:02 AM
Fairly stupid move even if it was owned by Jews before 1948.
Bet noone said that in 1949. :P
Incidentally, why can't Palestinians use this to demand their property be returned to them?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 03, 2009, 09:59:00 AM
Incidentally, why can't Palestinians use this to demand their property be returned to them?
No right of return?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 03, 2009, 09:59:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2009, 04:08:59 AM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2009, 04:08:59 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 03, 2009, 09:59:00 AM
Incidentally, why can't Palestinians use this to demand their property be returned to them?
Israeli courts. :contract:
Quote
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)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 03, 2009, 11:49:54 AM
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? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2009, 12:01:02 PM
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
QuoteThe 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 wonder what the definition of Israeli resident is for the purposes of that law.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 12:11:22 PM
Israelis had it for over 40 years. Isn't it time to recognize that it's theirs? :rolleyes:
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.
The more I read, the less clear-cut this gets.
QuoteThe 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. :lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 03, 2009, 12:16:08 PM
I wonder what the definition of Israeli resident is for the purposes of that law.
Being a resident citizen wasn't always enough.
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2009, 04:08:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2009, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2009, 12:01:02 PM
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
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2009, 12:24:15 PM
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.
How unsurprising that Malthus and the Pinko Moment would LEAP to the defense of Israel.
Quote from: Jaron on August 03, 2009, 03:49:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2009, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2009, 12:24:15 PM
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:
QuoteOther provisions specify the time limit legally allowed for filing a claim...
That's the part you want.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2009, 04:02:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2009, 03:56:55 PM
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).
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 12:11:22 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 03, 2009, 11:49:54 AM
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? :rolleyes:
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. :P
Oh the sweet irony of the whole debacle. :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2009, 12:21:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2009, 04:08:59 AM
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".
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 01:47:26 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 12:11:22 PM
Israelis had it for over 40 years. Isn't it time to recognize that it's theirs? :rolleyes:
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. :P
Oh the sweet irony of the whole debacle. :lol:
My ironies are getting too subtle these days. :cry:
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 04, 2009, 06:05:58 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 07:24:13 AM
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.
QuoteOr 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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 07:24:13 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 04, 2009, 07:28:49 AM
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.
Having the state interfere in justice for the purpose of delay seems to me to be just as bad, if not worse, than having the state interfere with the press for the same ends.
Quote from: Malthus on August 03, 2009, 12:17:24 PM
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. :lmfao:
but we don't know how they violated their tenancy agreement. All we get is the bullshit "this lands belong to us". Wich makes me think they found a small tiny footprint somewhere in the agreement and used it to expel them.
The fact that Siegy is all in favor of it makes it even more suspicious ;) :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 01:47:26 AM
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. :P
There doesn't seem to be any law that recognizes they have legal title, because they were renters. I am not aware of the legal doctrine that allows a leasehold to be converted into ownership simply because the leaseholder has been renting for a long time..
Quote from: viper37 on August 04, 2009, 09:13:36 AM
but we don't know how they violated their tenancy agreement. All we get is the bullshit "this lands belong to us". Wich makes me think they found a small tiny footprint somewhere in the agreement and used it to expel them.
The fact that Siegy is all in favor of it makes it even more suspicious ;) :D
The fact that those protesting the move don't even say at all that it is really a battle over a violated tenancy agreement (prefering the "OMG ISRAELIS = NAZIS, CALL THE UN!!!!" route), together with the fact that there were 50 (!) Palestinians crammed into two houses, makes me suspect the opposite - that they were piss-poor as tenants and that the owners had plenty of reason to eject them. That, and the fact that the Israeli courts tend to be actual courts and not the sort of trumped up state show courts that, apparently, the Israeli critics would prefer.
But fact is I have no clue what the actual disagreement was about and none of the so-called journalists covering the story, seemingly, have bothered to actually find out.
Has anyone got a copy of the actual judgment? I have no idea how to even look for it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 01:50:19 AM
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".
That is interesting, but of no relevance to what I said.
Adverse possession in common law jurisdictions requires that the possession be open and notorious (satisfied here) *and* that the legal owner fail to take timely efforts to protect and preserve its ownership (not satisfied here because the alleged owners have been asserting their interests for decades). Otherwise, one could obtain possession of property by force and just waiting out the legal process. I have a hard time believing civil law permits this. In particular, I have never heard of a case of adverse possession involving renters who were paying rent to the purported owner.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2009, 09:23:48 AM
In particular, I have never heard of a case of adverse possession involving renters who were paying rent to the purported owner.
Because it's impossible. Adverse possession requires that the possession be exclusive and hostile to the purported owner's rights; the possessors must act as if they own the property. Paying rent is severely inconsistent with that.
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2009, 07:47:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 07:24:13 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
You would be right if it was a normal country. Israel however is not a normal country. It's a country which holds a claim to half of its territory that is about as strong as the claim held by Palestinians in this court case, and the court case concerns an occupied territory.
Considering that a big argument against Arab claims against Israel has been a call to forget the past, and recognize status quo, rather than go back decades and centuries to see who stole what from whom, I think it is rather troubling to see the law applied in such way in this case.
But perhaps the court is right and highlights an uncomfortable truth about the whole thing - i.e. that the Israeli ownership of the big part of its territory is illegal.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2009, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 01:50:19 AM
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".
That is interesting, but of no relevance to what I said.
Adverse possession in common law jurisdictions requires that the possession be open and notorious (satisfied here) *and* that the legal owner fail to take timely efforts to protect and preserve its ownership (not satisfied here because the alleged owners have been asserting their interests for decades). Otherwise, one could obtain possession of property by force and just waiting out the legal process. I have a hard time believing civil law permits this. In particular, I have never heard of a case of adverse possession involving renters who were paying rent to the purported owner.
You are now saying something else than you said previously. Sure, if the legal action was brought while the adverse possession period has not yet completed, then yes, you are correct. But you were previously saying that only because a legal action was brought, it is not possible to declare adverse possession - which is wrong.
As to the second part, again you are right, but I don't see it said anywhere that the Palestinians were paying rent for it, just that they originally came into the possession of this piece of property on the basis of a lease agreement.
Once a tenant stops acting like a tenant (e.g. paying rent) and begins to act like an owner (e.g. by treating the property as his own in terms of maintenance, improvements, etc.) then the adverse possession period begins to run.
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Has anyone got a copy of the actual judgment? I have no idea how to even look for it.
The Israeli Supreme Court has an English language search function, but I believe there is some delay in the translations so this one isn't up yet.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 09:27:22 AM
You would be right if it was a normal country. Israel however is not a normal country. It's a country which holds a claim to half of its territory that is about as strong as the claim held by Palestinians in this court case, and the court case concerns an occupied territory.
Considering that a big argument against Arab claims against Israel has been a call to forget the past, and recognize status quo, rather than go back decades and centuries to see who stole what from whom, I think it is rather troubling to see the law applied in such way in this case.
But perhaps the court is right and highlights an uncomfortable truth about the whole thing - i.e. that the Israeli ownership of the big part of its territory is illegal.
The "the claim held by Palestinians in this court case", from what I can gather, was not that they owned the place, but rather that they were not in violation of their tenancy agreement.
WTF does that have to do with the status of the place as an "occupied territory"? Presumably if the case were held in a
Jordanian court, shitting on the floor or failing to pay rent (or whatever the hell the Palestinans were found to have done in violation of their tenancy - again, details are lacking) would be just as much grounds for eviction as in Israel.
The "uncomfortable truth" seems to be that those reflexively anti-Israeli have reacted, yet again, in a knee jerk manner without knowledge of (or interest in) the actual facts.
Now, it could well be that the grounds for eviction are bullshit and there is a big injustice here. Generally the Israeli courts are reasonably fair, but they could be biased in this particular case. One would have to read the actual court case to see.
Well, I'd assume the British would have checked the facts, so until I have better evidence I am going to trust them and their "knee-jerk anti-Israelism", than Siege and you, who seem to have a vested interest.
For the record, while I consider you and Joan to be reasonable in most cases, your only blind spot seems to be anything associated with Israel - I don't recall a single case in which you wouldn't rush to the defense of Israel's actions, no matter how controversial they have been.
I can't blame you too much for this - I have a similar thing when it comes to GLBT people - but that makes me less willing to trust you in this case unless I hear from an unbiased source.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 09:40:05 AM
Well, I'd assume the British would have checked the facts, so until I have better evidence I am going to trust them and their "knee-jerk anti-Israelism", than Siege and you, who seem to have a vested interest.
The "facts" are what I've been able to glean from the newspaper articles. You can read them as well as I.
The Brits and Euros routinely "deplore" Israeli actions even, as in this case, when they are actions by private litigants.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 09:40:05 AM
For the record, while I consider you and Joan to be reasonable in most cases, your only blind spot seems to be anything associated with Israel - I don't recall a single case in which you wouldn't rush to the defense of Israel's actions, no matter how controversial they have been.
I can't blame you too much for this - I have a similar thing when it comes to GLBT people - but that makes me less willing to trust you in this case unless I hear from an unbiased source.
You don't have to "trust" me on anything. I'm merely repeating what is in the various news articles about this particular story. I have not stated any fact unavailable to you.
So no need to break out the "OMG YOU BIASED!" ad hom. From what I've seen, one side to this debate is:
- uninterested in the actual facts of the case;
- breaking out the ad homs - accusing the other side of irredemable bias;
- leaping to Godwinize the situation (first post no less);
- demanding that the courts of another nation pervert or delay justice so as to reach what *they* think is the "correct" outcome in a private legal case.
Have I misstated any of this?
I still trust you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 09:54:05 AM
I still trust you.
I do investment advice as well. Give me your bank account info. :)
Martinus has been crushed, and revealed as an antisemite (yet again!).
Because of this, fags should have their rights stripped from them.
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2009, 09:59:12 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 09:54:05 AM
I still trust you.
I do investment advice as well. Give me your bank account info. :)
I've been burned once on that score. So no. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 10:04:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2009, 09:59:12 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 09:54:05 AM
I still trust you.
I do investment advice as well. Give me your bank account info. :)
I've been burned once on that score. So no. :P
Even if the email comes from a Nigerian IP, it's still not actually the President, or a general, or a business leader, looking to divy up his ill-gotten goods with you.
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2009, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 10:04:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2009, 09:59:12 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 09:54:05 AM
I still trust you.
I do investment advice as well. Give me your bank account info. :)
I've been burned once on that score. So no. :P
Even if the email comes from a Nigerian IP, it's still not actually the President, or a general, or a business leader, looking to divy up his ill-gotten goods with you.
:P
HE SAID HE WAS A GREEN BERET AND HE HAD OSAMA'S GOLD.
Hil weighs in:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/200983205357561590.html (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/200983205357561590.html)
QuoteUS criticises Israeli eviction move
Clinton called on Israel to respect its obligations as the US continues its mediation efforts
The US secretary of state has criticised the eviction of Palestinian families from East Jerusalem by Israeli officials, after holding talks with Jordan's foreign minister in Washington.
Hillary Clinton said after the meeting with Nasser Judeh that the forced removal over the weekend of Palestinian families from homes deemed by Israel's supreme court to be under Jewish ownership was "deeply regrettable".
"The eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations and I urge the government of Israel and municipal officials to refrain from such provocative actions," she said on Monday.
George Mitchell, the US envoy for Middle East peace, is continuing to work with the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority in an effort to reach a peace agreement, Clinton said.
"I think everyone understands that sequential actions need to be taken and we are working very hard under Senator Mitchell's leadership and guidance to get to the negotiating table and, once there, everything concerning a comprehensive peace agreement is on that table," she said.
No 'piecemeal' approach
But Judeh said that Jordan does not support an incremental approach to building trust between Israel and Arab states, echoing similar comments on Friday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister.
"In the Middle East, there has been in the past an overinvestment, perhaps, by the parties in pursuing confidence-building measures, conflict-management techniques, including transitional arrangements, and an overemphasis on gestures, perhaps at the expense of reaching the actual end game,'' Judeh said.
"Piecemeal approaches that never lead to peace and that have proven repeatedly to be confidence-eroding, rather than confidence-building'' must be avoided, he said.
He also spoke out against Israel's refusal to stop the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, and said that the Israeli government should not reject the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.
The Saudi authored plan offers Israel a full normalisation of ties with Arab states as long as Israel returns all Arab lands captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The initiative also calls for Israel to allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state to resolve the problem of Palestinian refugees, in line with United Nations resolutions.
The fact that after the families were evicted, their homes were demolished in order to build a new block of flats there, suggests that the claims of these families being troublesome tenants were trumped up, too.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2009, 09:40:05 AM
Sure, if the legal action was brought while the adverse possession period has not yet completed, then yes, you are correct
The timeline as I understand it goes as follows:
In 1948, the property in question was acquired by the Jordanian government as confiscated enemy property. In 1956, under a joint Jordanian-UN program, the property was rented out to Palestinian refugees. It appears that the eventual intent was that the renters would eventually be given ownership, but it is undisputed this never happened. This situation continued until 1967. So far - there is no adverse possession issue - the residents are mere tenants, the government owner is collecting rent even if nominal in amount, and the Jewish owners are enemy aliens who are unable to enforce their pre-existing property rights.
In 1967, Israel takes over sovereignty over Jerusalem. The land formerly held as "enemy property" by the Jordanian government now became Israeli government owned land under the aegis of Israel Land Administration. It is unclear whether the Palestinians in question here continued to pay their rent after 1967. But in 1972, the plaintiffs in this case filed a claim with the Israel Land Administration asserting their title and sent rent demands to all the Palestinian tenants. they made various efforts to collect including a formal rent delinquency action brought in 1982. The lawyer representing the defendants settled the case by a binding agreement in which the defendants conceded the right of ownership, but secured "protected tenancy" status -- i.e the right to stay indefinitely at a favorable rent rate. Apparently the defendants repudiated this agreement, and claimed their lawyer wasn't authorized to sign the agreement on their behalf. That touched of years of litigation and legal maneuvering that finally ended in this ruling.
The only possible basis for an adverse possession claim I can see would have to be based on the 5 year period from 1967-1972 where the tenants were not paying rent and there is no evidence of the Land Administration's efforts to enforce title. But 5 years is not nearly sufficient in most jurisdictions to establish an AP claim. And even if it were sufficient, a court could easily find that any such claim was waived by the 1982 settlement agreement which waived ownership rights (assuming the court finds that the defendants lawyer had the requisite authority).
QuoteFor the record, while I consider you and Joan to be reasonable in most cases, your only blind spot seems to be anything associated with Israel - I don't recall a single case in which you wouldn't rush to the defense of Israel's actions, no matter how controversial they have been.
I am not defending any action of "Israel" - only questioning the sensibility of international protests over a court ruling in a private dispute in the absence of any evidence that the ruling was improper in some way or based on some abhorrent legal principle.
From what I have read, it does appear that the plaintiffs in this case have a particular agenda - they are allied with or part of the settler movement, and this case is part of a broader strategy to expel Palestinians from certain Jerusalem neighborhoods. I don't have any sympathy either for these movements, their agenda, or their use of the legal system to achieve those ends. However, the protests are not directed as this particular movement, they are directed at the State of Israel as a whole based on the court ruling. As you know, where the legal relations of parties are plain, the court is rarely permitted to speculate about motivations. Owners of property can do whatever the law permits them to do with their property - even if the Court subjectively dislikes what they are doing.
Do I understand your story correctly?
It seems to say that while East-Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan, the Palestinians had the legal right to live there?
And during the time East-Jerusalem was occupied by Israel, it was legal to remove them?
So the legal case is dependent of who occupies East-Jerusalem?
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 04, 2009, 03:13:17 PM
Do I understand your story correctly?
It seems to say that while East-Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan, the Palestinians had the legal right to live there?
And during the time East-Jerusalem was occupied by Israel, it was legal to remove them?
So the legal case is dependent of who occupies East-Jerusalem?
No, they had the exact same legal right to live there under the Israelis as they had under the Jordanians - in both cases, they were renting the property.
The dispute arose because they were alleged to have broken their tenancy agreement.
One presumes that had they broken their tenancy agreement while Jordan owned the place, they would have been out on their ear just as much as they are now - though possibly it would not have taken some 20-odd years of legal wrangling to accomplish that removal under Jordanian law (of which I know nothing).
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 04, 2009, 03:13:17 PM
Do I understand your story correctly?
It seems to say that while East-Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan, the Palestinians had the legal right to live there?
And during the time East-Jerusalem was occupied by Israel, it was legal to remove them?
So the legal case is dependent of who occupies East-Jerusalem?
No.
The Palestinians have always had the legal right to live in East Jerusalem. Always. They had the right to live in East Jerusalem under the Ottomans, they had it under the British mandate; they had it under the Jordanians, and they had it and still have it today under the Israelis.
The property in question is alleged to have been owned since the Ottoman period by a Jewish family. It was effectively confiscated as enemy property by the Jordanian government. The Jordanians had a problem with Palestinian refugees hanging out in Jordan and making trouble. So they decided to put some of these refugees in this particular property which it controlled. These refugees had no previous connection with the property whatsoever, much less any ownership rights.
In 67, Israel took over sovereign control over East Jerusalem. This included control over those areas of the city that were owned by the Jordanian government, including this particular piece of property. Israeli law provided that property owned by the Israeli state could be reclaimed by prior owners divested of ownership by the Jordanian enemy property laws [note - this is not an unusual procedure and should not be entirely unfamiliar to a lawyer living int he former eastern bloc]. This law was invoked by the plaintiffs in this legal case to claim ownership. They succeeded and made rent demands of the Palestinian tenants. The rest of the story is as I have indicated earlier.
As should be clear, this case has nothing to do with the right of Palestinians to own property in East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, or Planet Mars. The court apparently found that the defendant Palestinians were leaseholders and hence had no ownership rights to assert in the first place. This may have been in error but there appears to have been more than sufficient factual basis, including a prior judicial admission purportedly made by the Palestinians affected.
Wow...if what Joan says is true...
well that is what I get for taking a story about Israel at face value.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2009, 04:16:23 PM
Israeli law provided that property owned by the Israeli state could be reclaimed by prior owners divested of ownership by the Jordanian enemy property laws [note - this is not an unusual procedure and should not be entirely unfamiliar to a lawyer living int he former eastern bloc].
And the evidence against Martinus being a lawyer continues to mount.
The question was not about the right to live in East-Jerusalem. The question was about this part:
QuoteIn 1956, under a joint Jordanian-UN program, the property was rented out to Palestinian refugees. It appears that the eventual intent was that the renters would eventually be given ownership, but it is undisputed this never happened. This situation continued until 1967.
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.
P.S. what would have happened if those people had got ownership during the Jordan ruling?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105316.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105316.html)
A part of the editorial of Haartez:
QuoteNo 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.
QuoteThe 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.
True but the same regulations prevent Israelis from buying lands or building in the West Bank areas and Gaza (at least those areas Israel recognizes as no theirs...which is slightly different than what we would prefer they they recognized as not theirs).
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 05, 2009, 03:18:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
It would be nice to know if the court ruling was justified.
QuoteIsraeli 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.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 05, 2009, 03:18:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 11:48:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
It would be nice to know if the court ruling was justified.
QuoteIsraeli 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?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 11:48:27 AM
Quote
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.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 05, 2009, 03:18:04 AM
The question was not about the right to live in East-Jerusalem. The question was about this part:
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteP.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.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 11:48:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 05, 2009, 09:09:58 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105316.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1105316.html)
A part of the editorial of Haartez:
QuoteNo 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.
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?
Quote from: Malthus on August 05, 2009, 01:17:25 PMI 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.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 05, 2009, 01:29:21 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on August 05, 2009, 01:17:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 05, 2009, 01:29:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2009, 01:48:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2009, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on August 05, 2009, 01:29:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2009, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 11:48:27 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2009, 06:51:40 PM
It would be nice to know if the court ruling was justified.
QuoteIsraeli 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?
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 09:46:48 PM
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
It would seem that they do.
The King of Israel's rifles extend into East Jerusalem, and therefore so does his writ.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 09:46:48 PM
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
The Knesset annexed East Jerusalem to Israel. So according to Israeli courts, they do have jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 09:46:48 PM
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
Take that thought to its logical conclusion. Assume Israeli courts have no jurisdiction.
What happens (or what
ought to happen) when renters shit on the floor or refuse to pay rent?
What about when landlords refuse to repair the premises, provide electricity or gas?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 05, 2009, 01:56:10 PM
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.
Um...why would Israel do those things in the West Bank when doing them in Gaza set back the peace process instead of moving it forward? How fucking insane is that idea?
'Um you know that policy you did that was a miserable failure? Well do more of it please.'
Also, please explain how more concessions are going to WEAKEN Hamas instead of strengthen it because, call me crazy, I think when you win you get stronger not weaker.
I place an onus on Egypt because they border Gaza and thus would have some interest theoretically in things working out over there if they gave a flying fucking shit about the Pals and peace over there. Also it shows how the Arabs just want the situation to get more fucked up, not less.
If the Arabs did want it to get better they would be fixing things up in Gaza because only in that case could Israelis who want to further the peace process have any legitimacy to topple the Israeli right wing.
You see first we need to show Israel that giving concessions to the Pals is not going to simply make the terrorist groups stronger. Thus far we have been working really really hard to make sure they see that giving concessions to the Pals in fact strengthens Hamas quite a bit. Ergo the right wing nationalist fucks in Israel only get stronger.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 09:46:48 PM
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
That was your point? How the fuck was that communicated by claiming people lived in a building for 50 years?
And also please tell me which government does have jurisdiction in East Jerusalem...oh wait there is none.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 09:46:48 PM
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
this is a very silly statement.
East Jerusalem was annexed. It is true that act didn't receive widespread international recognition, but that is irrelevant. Almost nobody recognizes the republic of China (Taiwan) as a sovereign anymore - and no one would suggest that Taiwanese courts lack jurisdiction over Taiwan or that PRC courts have jurisdiction over civil disputes on Taiwan. Jurisdiction is a matter of positive law, not international recognition.
Of course, even if East Jerusalem were an occupied territory, Israeli courts could still exercise jurisdiction as that is expressly permitted, and in some circumstances - required, under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2009, 08:10:15 AM
Um...why would Israel do those things in the West Bank when doing them in Gaza set back the peace process instead of moving it forward? How fucking insane is that idea?
'Um you know that policy you did that was a miserable failure? Well do more of it please.'
Also, please explain how more concessions are going to WEAKEN Hamas instead of strengthen it because, call me crazy, I think when you win you get stronger not weaker.
Well there are a couple of points.
The first is that in the West Bank there is a sort-of Palestinian state that we in the west are trying to strengthen. It is, so far as we can tell, in charge of the West Bank and not about to be taken over. I mean there is an election on its way but from what I've read it looks like Hamas has lost a lot of support, especially in Gaza where there won't be an election.
The second point is that I don't think anyone's suggesting that Israel unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank. Rather they negotiate with Abbas and with George Mitchell. Stopping the growth of settlements is a good start. Then, perhaps close down a few outlying settlements while in the West Bank we continue to try and build up a Palestinian state.
I think what we should be trying isn't to get Israel to throw their hands up and leave because that won't necessarily work and it would leave a number of outstanding issues such as settlements and the status of Jerusalem.
The reason it would weaken Hamas's position is simple. If the moderates (Netanyahu and Abbas) are able to be seen to be making progress (regardless of whether they are or not) then the pressure on Hamas to get involved is increased. It's what Mitchell did in Northern Ireland. To get a peace you need to involve the extremists, to get them to join on your terms the best thing to do is to look like you're making progress with the non-extremists. To this I'd add Blair's idea that as well as putting sanctions on Hamas in Gaza that we should be investing a lot of aid into trying to develop the West Bank.
In terms of an overall settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian issue Gaza is a sideshow. It doesn't really matter anymore whereas all the remaining issues are in the West Bank and the West Bank is run by a guy with whom we can do business.
QuoteI place an onus on Egypt because they border Gaza and thus would have some interest theoretically in things working out over there if they gave a flying fucking shit about the Pals and peace over there. Also it shows how the Arabs just want the situation to get more fucked up, not less.
If the Arabs did want it to get better they would be fixing things up in Gaza because only in that case could Israelis who want to further the peace process have any legitimacy to topple the Israeli right wing.
I don't think Egypt with its own raft of interior problems can really be expected to 'fix' Gaza. Possibly the Gulf States could pay for 'fixing' it, though I don't know that would entail.
I also don't think many Arab states have a great deal of influence left with the Palestinians, certainly not with Hamas.
Quote from: Malthus on August 06, 2009, 08:04:25 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 09:46:48 PM
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
Take that thought to its logical conclusion. Assume Israeli courts have no jurisdiction.
What happens (or what ought to happen) when renters shit on the floor or refuse to pay rent?
What about when landlords refuse to repair the premises, provide electricity or gas?
Why don't you tell me?
Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2009, 08:13:19 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 05, 2009, 09:46:48 PM
My point is that Israel and its courts have no jurisdiction in East Jerusalem.
That was your point? How the fuck was that communicated by claiming people lived in a building for 50 years?
And also please tell me which government does have jurisdiction in East Jerusalem...oh wait there is none.
Meow!
It also raises nice parallels with the right of return. Which only ever seems to happens once you're the occupying power.
Hint to old Palestinians still clinging to their hopes a return to their property: become the occupying power, it seems to help legitimacy.