Almost Nothing You’ve Heard About Evictions in Jerusalem Is True 

5
>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<
Excerpted from a piece by Avi Bell and Eugene Kontorovich in the Wall Street Journal:
  • The narrative of Israel’s critics connects Hamas’ current onslaught to eviction proceedings in Israeli courts concerning a few properties in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.
  • The truth about Sheikh Jarrah is that it involves an ordinary property dispute between private parties. The Jewish claimants’ ownership of the few plots of land has been confirmed repeatedly in court, following laws that apply equally regardless of ethnicity. Israeli courts have gone out of their way to avoid evicting the Palestinian residents who haven’t paid rent for half a century.
  • In the case now before Israel’s Supreme Court, the owner is an Israeli corporation with Jewish owners whose chain of title is documented back to an original purchase in 1875. Until 1948, the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood was home to both Jewish and Arab communities. Then Jordan invaded Israel and occupied half of Jerusalem, expelling every one of its Jewish inhabitants and seizing their property.
  • This case has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion. The only discrimination in the legal treatment of Sheikh Jarrah property is historic, by Jordan, and against Jews to the benefit of Palestinians.
  • The plaintiffs have spent four decades in court seeking to recover possession of the properties. In the latest lawsuits, the courts ruled that four of the eight defendants were squatters with no legal rights to the land, and the remaining four were descendants of tenants who had never paid rent. Nevertheless, Israeli courts have treated the Palestinians as “protected tenants,” and would shield them from eviction indefinitely if they paid rent. They have refused to do so.
  • Israeli courts adjudicate property disputes in Jerusalem between Arab parties, or by Arabs against Jews, with no protest. There is only one objection in this case: the owners are Jews. The manufactured controversy this time is an attempt to pressure Israel effectively to perpetuate Jordan’s ethnic cleansing – in the name of human rights. 

    Avi Bell is a professor at the University of San Diego Law School. Eugene Kontorovich is director of the Center for the Middle East and International Law at George Mason University School of Law. Both are scholars at the Kohelet Policy Forum in Jerusalem.

{Matzav.com Israel}


5 COMMENTS

  1. This is what we would call “legal dicrimination.” There are many properties held by Arabs that were once Jewish-owned, and many more properties held by Jews that were owned by the hundreds of thousands of Arabs that fled in 1948. There is no legal recourse in Israel for descendants of these Arabs to claim their properties. Imagine if everywhere that was Arab-owned in 1875 would go back to them.
    This article ignores the main point of the issue.

    • Interesting as the facts lay for this case here. “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”? No, as you stated @Y1. Palestinians to not have the same right in the court to historical ownership.. unless someone can mention the fact of that statement being wrong.

  2. This is what we would call “legal discrimination.” There are many properties held by Arabs that were once Jewish-owned, and many more properties held by Jews that were owned by the hundreds of thousands of Arabs that fled in 1948. There is no legal recourse in Israel for descendants of these Arabs to claim their properties. Imagine if everywhere that was Arab-owned in 1875 would go back to them.
    This article ignores the main point of the issue.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here