4 ms·

Israel has no legitimate claim over east Jerusalem. Even if they did, evictions based on ethnicity/religion can not be justified. Your Jewish friends are wrong.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Ultimately, the only legitimate claim any nation has over its territory is occupancy of it and ability to defend it.
betterunix2 5y ago
"Israel" is not claiming ownership of the property in question. A Jewish organization purchased the property and started developing it during the Ottoman period, and despite several changes in which country's government is in charge, there has not been any legal transfer other than a sale to another Jewish organization. The Palestinian families that currently live there were originally settled there as tenants, not owners, by the government of Jordan. They are not being evicted on the basis of their ethnicity; they are being evicted because, despite signing what amounted to a perpetual lease in the 1980s, they have made no rent payments and have made unauthorized modifications to the property (and ignored a court order to remove those modifications). More important than the actual facts of the case is this: HOW is a legal dispute, which is working its way through a civil court system -- the same court system that ruled in favor of these Palestinian families in the 1980s -- an "incitement to violence?" I am genuinely curious to know what the argument is here.
- sloshnmosh 5y ago
  Thank you for this information. I had not heard this until now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- b-x 5y ago
  Your comment would be credible if the Israeli regime juridical system is unbiased. However, their rulings are oppressing the minorities. Indeed, the unrest that we are witnessing in Arab communities inside only highlights the feeling of injustice by the indigenous population. Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
    These are facts not opinions. Yes you may think the Israeli juridical system is biased and you maybe right but that doesn't make what he wrote any less true. If you think the court made a wrong decision I'd love to hear your legal remarks where the court should have sided with the current residents.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Nobody was complaining in 1982 when that very same court system ruled that they had the right to live on the property as tenants. The people who are being evicted did not dispute the court's ruling at the time and agreed, in writing, to the terms of that ruling. Now, after 40 years of not paying the rent they agreed to pay, they are facing eviction -- and suddenly that same court system is too biased to give a fair ruling? Seriously?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - b-x 5y ago
      Of course it's biased, you needed to dig back to one debatable instance in 1982, but you couldn't find any recent one since all the recent rulings enforce the hypothesis about bias. The system shifts in time, and you can't just pretend it's the same since 4 decades. But I'm probably arguing with JIDF, which makes all exchange futile since you are here to blindly defend the colonizer actions instead of listening.
- a5994yt67 5y ago
  Respectfully, I understand you're looking at this through a purely logical lens based on the rent dispute and its history. When first hearing about this in the news I did the same. However, reading more about it, I realized that the broader context here is crucial - my evaluating the situation purely through the lens of the facts of the dispute presupposed that Israel has a right to apply law here in the first place. Based on a recent statement from the UN, I don't believe Israel has this right (https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091492 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091492). My inclination to evaluate the situation purely on the facts of the dispute implies that Israel does. Regardless of how long ago this all came to be, Israel remains an occupying power in the eyes of International Law. The laws and courts of Israel should not apply here.
  - a5994yt67 5y ago
    I'm eager to understand the positions of those who downvoted my comment here. The situation between Israel and Palestine is fraught with deep mistrust and misunderstanding, and I am eager to engage with those who don't agree with my comment to better understand theirs.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Whose courts and what legal system is appropriate? Progress on the two-state solution has been stalled for years and the PA is at best a quasi-government that is not yet able to enforce its laws or exert control across its entire territory. The PA still relies on the Israeli government to manage the West Bank and they have basically lost control of the Gaza Strip. Has there even been an effort to bring this case before a Palestinian court? [Edit: I did not downvote you.]
    - a5994yt67 5y ago
      Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I’m not sure regarding any efforts to bring this case before a Palestinian court. I completely agree that the PA is ineffective at governing and deserves much criticism for the current state of affairs. Progress on the two state solution has been stalled for years and reaching any agreement at times seems like a pipe dream. My understanding from the UN link that I shared is that international law applies here as Israel is an occupying power. I am not sure whether there is an international court to hear this dispute and rule according to the applicable international law. If there isn’t, though, I can’t bring myself to justify that Israel has the right to apply its laws and courts in order for there to be some system of law and order. Even if the PA is in effect ceding this responsibility to Israel through incompetence, applying Israeli law and adjudicating in Israeli courts sets a precedent that any occupying nation can do this in land that is not internationally recognized as their own so long as there is no functioning law and court system in that land. To me accepting this as precedent feels like a slippery slope toward an invitation for nations to engage in annexation and colonialism.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Define legitimacy.

throwawayboise 5y ago

Ultimately, the only legitimate claim any nation has over its territory is occupancy of it and ability to defend it.

betterunix2 5y ago

"Israel" is not claiming ownership of the property in question. A Jewish organization purchased the property and started developing it during the Ottoman period, and despite several changes in which country's government is in charge, there has not been any legal transfer other than a sale to another Jewish organization. The Palestinian families that currently live there were originally settled there as tenants, not owners, by the government of Jordan. They are not being evicted on the basis of their ethnicity; they are being evicted because, despite signing what amounted to a perpetual lease in the 1980s, they have made no rent payments and have made unauthorized modifications to the property (and ignored a court order to remove those modifications). More important than the actual facts of the case is this: HOW is a legal dispute, which is working its way through a civil court system -- the same court system that ruled in favor of these Palestinian families in the 1980s -- an "incitement to violence?" I am genuinely curious to know what the argument is here.

sloshnmosh 5y ago
Thank you for this information. I had not heard this until now.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
b-x 5y ago
Your comment would be credible if the Israeli regime juridical system is unbiased. However, their rulings are oppressing the minorities. Indeed, the unrest that we are witnessing in Arab communities inside only highlights the feeling of injustice by the indigenous population. Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864
- TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
  These are facts not opinions. Yes you may think the Israeli juridical system is biased and you maybe right but that doesn't make what he wrote any less true. If you think the court made a wrong decision I'd love to hear your legal remarks where the court should have sided with the current residents.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Nobody was complaining in 1982 when that very same court system ruled that they had the right to live on the property as tenants. The people who are being evicted did not dispute the court's ruling at the time and agreed, in writing, to the terms of that ruling. Now, after 40 years of not paying the rent they agreed to pay, they are facing eviction -- and suddenly that same court system is too biased to give a fair ruling? Seriously?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - b-x 5y ago
    Of course it's biased, you needed to dig back to one debatable instance in 1982, but you couldn't find any recent one since all the recent rulings enforce the hypothesis about bias. The system shifts in time, and you can't just pretend it's the same since 4 decades. But I'm probably arguing with JIDF, which makes all exchange futile since you are here to blindly defend the colonizer actions instead of listening.
a5994yt67 5y ago
Respectfully, I understand you're looking at this through a purely logical lens based on the rent dispute and its history. When first hearing about this in the news I did the same. However, reading more about it, I realized that the broader context here is crucial - my evaluating the situation purely through the lens of the facts of the dispute presupposed that Israel has a right to apply law here in the first place. Based on a recent statement from the UN, I don't believe Israel has this right (https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091492 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091492). My inclination to evaluate the situation purely on the facts of the dispute implies that Israel does. Regardless of how long ago this all came to be, Israel remains an occupying power in the eyes of International Law. The laws and courts of Israel should not apply here.
- a5994yt67 5y ago
  I'm eager to understand the positions of those who downvoted my comment here. The situation between Israel and Palestine is fraught with deep mistrust and misunderstanding, and I am eager to engage with those who don't agree with my comment to better understand theirs.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Whose courts and what legal system is appropriate? Progress on the two-state solution has been stalled for years and the PA is at best a quasi-government that is not yet able to enforce its laws or exert control across its entire territory. The PA still relies on the Israeli government to manage the West Bank and they have basically lost control of the Gaza Strip. Has there even been an effort to bring this case before a Palestinian court? [Edit: I did not downvote you.]
  - a5994yt67 5y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I’m not sure regarding any efforts to bring this case before a Palestinian court. I completely agree that the PA is ineffective at governing and deserves much criticism for the current state of affairs. Progress on the two state solution has been stalled for years and reaching any agreement at times seems like a pipe dream. My understanding from the UN link that I shared is that international law applies here as Israel is an occupying power. I am not sure whether there is an international court to hear this dispute and rule according to the applicable international law. If there isn’t, though, I can’t bring myself to justify that Israel has the right to apply its laws and courts in order for there to be some system of law and order. Even if the PA is in effect ceding this responsibility to Israel through incompetence, applying Israeli law and adjudicating in Israeli courts sets a precedent that any occupying nation can do this in land that is not internationally recognized as their own so long as there is no functioning law and court system in that land. To me accepting this as precedent feels like a slippery slope toward an invitation for nations to engage in annexation and colonialism.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Define legitimacy.