The eviction of the Shamasna family

[Shusha]

This case, in many ways, represents the impossibility of reconciling and making sense of the complex nature of the conflict and the balance between property rights, human rights and political rights.

For those who don't know, a family in Jerusalem has been evicted from their home of more than 50 years. The family moved into the home in 1964, and have been paying rent on a lease since then. In 2009, the heirs of the home's owner, expelled in 1948, made a legal application to re-assert their property rights. A long legal battle ensued, pitting the rights of the tenants against the rights of the owners. The owners eventually won the case, but the eviction was delayed on humanitarian grounds due to the age of two of the tenants. However, after a delay of nearly two years, the eviction finally occurred.

There are a number of points to discuss here, but the two I think I want to focus on are

1. the impossibility of restoring individuals to where they were 50+ years ago, without creating new humanitarian crises.

2. the impossibility of reconciling individual rights within the greater political conflict.

 

[Boston1]

Squatters don't own the place even if they squatted there for some number of years. They also first agreed to pay rent, admitting they'd been squatting there rent free for decades and then suddenly refused to pay rent.

I don't think the case needs to be all that complex, the owners gave then a chance to rent, they didn't take it, and they got booted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the Jews can claim the home they lost in 1948, then the Palestinians should be able to claim the home they lost in 1948.

Why the double standard?

 

[Boston1]

LMAO the deadbeats didn't want to pay the rent they knew they owed.

THrorw the bums out

 

[Shusha]

If the Jews can claim the home they lost in 1948, then the Palestinians should be able to claim the home they lost in 1948.

Why the double standard?

But the question is WHO has the double standard? In this particular case -- its the Arabs with the double standard. They want to be restored to their 1948 condition. But complain when a Jewish family is restored to their 1948 condition.

So, are you agreeing with this decision? Are you agreeing that people removed at some time in the past be restored to their former conditions EVEN IF that means extreme hardship or removal of human rights from those affected by the restoration?

 

[fanger]

The Israel Land Fund identified a descendant of the land's original owners and helped her reclaim the property through the Israeli courts. It was subsequently sold to another Jewish family.

In 2013, Israel's Supreme Court threw out an appeal by the Shamasnehs after a long legal battle.

"The eviction of the Shamasneh family, who resided in the house since 1964, is not only brutal but it is also indicating a dangerous trend that could threaten a future compromise in Jerusalem," Peace Now said.

The family's case was backed by pro-Palestinian rights groups and international figures, including former US President Jimmy Carter.

Palestinians say the Israeli law allowing Jewish property reclamation is discriminatory since no such law exists for Palestinians, some 800,000 of whom fled or were expelled from what became Israel in the 1948-9 war.
Israel evicts Palestinians after East Jerusalem legal battle - BBC News

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Israel Land Fund identified a descendant of the land's original owners and helped her reclaim the property through the Israeli courts. It was subsequently sold to another Jewish family.

In 2013, Israel's Supreme Court threw out an appeal by the Shamasnehs after a long legal battle.

"The eviction of the Shamasneh family, who resided in the house since 1964, is not only brutal but it is also indicating a dangerous trend that could threaten a future compromise in Jerusalem," Peace Now said.

The family's case was backed by pro-Palestinian rights groups and international figures, including former US President Jimmy Carter.

Palestinians say the Israeli law allowing Jewish property reclamation is discriminatory since no such law exists for Palestinians, some 800,000 of whom fled or were expelled from what became Israel in the 1948-9 war.
Israel evicts Palestinians after East Jerusalem legal battle - BBC News

Many Arabs have shown titles to their properties, and many have not, and all of those have been awarded their properties or land back.

"Palestinians say" means nothing when it was the Arabs who have been attacking, murdering, and expelling Jews from their rightful homes and lands since 1920.

How many Jews who lived in the Jewish Quarter (no other was attacked out of the four by Jordan) have been allowed to go back to their homes?
Very few.

It does not even deal with all the Jews who lost their homes and lands in Gaza, TransJordan and Judea and Samaria from 1920 to 1948.

By all means, never, ever deal with those attacks on Jews, the indigenous people of those lands who had every right to live where they lived and not be attacked and expelled by the tribes of Arabs and
not allowed to return.

"Palestinians" are an excuse to take away as much Jewish property and land as possible. Preferably all of the Mandate of Palestine.

If Arabs have the proper titles to the house or lands, they always get those homes or lands back. It has been documented.

It is far harder for Jews to get their properties back, as proven by this very case, even after they win their case.

 

[Boston1]

The whole thing smacks of a double standard. The Arabs want to get away with having stolen everything from the Jews who were forced out of the newly formed Arab states and having displaced them from their homes, WITHOUT CAUSE. But when the Arabs run because of a war THEY STARTED AND LOST they then want to cry foul

In the case of the squatters, I say good riddance

The Israeli's are being way to nice, they need to work the Geneva conventions to the letter. Segregate the combatants, descendants of combatants and those suspected of aiding combatants as well as their descendants from the refugee population and repatriate them to the nearest point of debarkation ;-)

It would be perfectly legal and it would eliminate a huge part of the problem.

Throw the bums out.

 

[fanger]

This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), persons present at the time but considered absent for the purpose of the law. These Israeli Arabs enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees".[27]

According to Simha Flapan,[28] "a detailed account of exactly how abandoned Arab property assisted in the absorption of the new immigrants was prepared byJoseph Schechtman":

It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous role this lot of abandoned Arab property has played in the settlement of hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants who have reached Israel since the proclamation of the state in May 1948. Forty-seven new rural settlements established on the sites of abandoned Arab villages had by October 1949 already absorbed 25,255 new immigrants. By the spring of 1950 over 1 million dunams had been leased by the custodian to Jewish settlements and individual farmers for the raising of grain crops.

Large tracts of land belonging to Arab absentees have also been leased to Jewish settlers, old and new, for the raising of vegetables. In the south alone, 15,000 dunams of vineyards and fruit trees have been leased to cooperative settlements; a similar area has been rented by the Yemenites Association, the Farmers Association, and the Soldiers Settlement and Rehabilitation Board. This has saved the Jewish Agency and the government millions of dollars. While the average cost of establishing an immigrant family in a new settlement was from $7,500 to $9,000, the cost in abandoned Arab villages did not exceed $1,500 ($750 for building repairs and $750 for livestock and equipment).
the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews. The law also applied to Arabs who had become citizens of the State of Israel but were not in their usual place of residence as defined by the law. In this case, they were referred to as 'present absentees' and many lost their lands.
Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), persons present at the time but considered absent for the purpose of the law. These Israeli Arabs enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees".[27]

According to Simha Flapan,[28] "a detailed account of exactly how abandoned Arab property assisted in the absorption of the new immigrants was prepared byJoseph Schechtman":

It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous role this lot of abandoned Arab property has played in the settlement of hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants who have reached Israel since the proclamation of the state in May 1948. Forty-seven new rural settlements established on the sites of abandoned Arab villages had by October 1949 already absorbed 25,255 new immigrants. By the spring of 1950 over 1 million dunams had been leased by the custodian to Jewish settlements and individual farmers for the raising of grain crops.

Large tracts of land belonging to Arab absentees have also been leased to Jewish settlers, old and new, for the raising of vegetables. In the south alone, 15,000 dunams of vineyards and fruit trees have been leased to cooperative settlements; a similar area has been rented by the Yemenites Association, the Farmers Association, and the Soldiers Settlement and Rehabilitation Board. This has saved the Jewish Agency and the government millions of dollars. While the average cost of establishing an immigrant family in a new settlement was from $7,500 to $9,000, the cost in abandoned Arab villages did not exceed $1,500 ($750 for building repairs and $750 for livestock and equipment).
the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews. The law also applied to Arabs who had become citizens of the State of Israel but were not in their usual place of residence as defined by the law. In this case, they were referred to as 'present absentees' and many lost their lands.
Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia

Israel has a mesh of laws designed to steal Palestinian land both inside Israel and the OPT.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the Jews can claim the home they lost in 1948, then the Palestinians should be able to claim the home they lost in 1948.

Why the double standard?

But the question is WHO has the double standard? In this particular case -- its the Arabs with the double standard. They want to be restored to their 1948 condition. But complain when a Jewish family is restored to their 1948 condition.

So, are you agreeing with this decision? Are you agreeing that people removed at some time in the past be restored to their former conditions EVEN IF that means extreme hardship or removal of human rights from those affected by the restoration?

But the question is WHO has the double standard?

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

 

[Sixties Fan]

If the Jews can claim the home they lost in 1948, then the Palestinians should be able to claim the home they lost in 1948.

Why the double standard?

But the question is WHO has the double standard? In this particular case -- its the Arabs with the double standard. They want to be restored to their 1948 condition. But complain when a Jewish family is restored to their 1948 condition.

So, are you agreeing with this decision? Are you agreeing that people removed at some time in the past be restored to their former conditions EVEN IF that means extreme hardship or removal of human rights from those affected by the restoration?

But the question is WHO has the double standard?

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

Fail, fail, fail.

So many Arabs have reclaimed property whether they have title to the property or not.

Keep up with the times, tin man.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the Jews can claim the home they lost in 1948, then the Palestinians should be able to claim the home they lost in 1948.

Why the double standard?

But the question is WHO has the double standard? In this particular case -- its the Arabs with the double standard. They want to be restored to their 1948 condition. But complain when a Jewish family is restored to their 1948 condition.

So, are you agreeing with this decision? Are you agreeing that people removed at some time in the past be restored to their former conditions EVEN IF that means extreme hardship or removal of human rights from those affected by the restoration?

But the question is WHO has the double standard?

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

Fail, fail, fail.

So many Arabs have reclaimed property whether they have title to the property or not.

Keep up with the times, tin man.

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[Sixties Fan]

If the Jews can claim the home they lost in 1948, then the Palestinians should be able to claim the home they lost in 1948.

Why the double standard?

But the question is WHO has the double standard? In this particular case -- its the Arabs with the double standard. They want to be restored to their 1948 condition. But complain when a Jewish family is restored to their 1948 condition.

So, are you agreeing with this decision? Are you agreeing that people removed at some time in the past be restored to their former conditions EVEN IF that means extreme hardship or removal of human rights from those affected by the restoration?

But the question is WHO has the double standard?

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

Fail, fail, fail.

So many Arabs have reclaimed property whether they have title to the property or not.

Keep up with the times, tin man.

Do you have any proof of that?

Same answer as my last one on the other thread, Mr. Fiction.

 

[Shusha]

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

The law says nothing about Jews. All Israeli citizens are treated equally, and even some Palestinian citizens are treated with equality under Israel's law. So no apartheid. The law is the same for all Israelis (and Palestinians under Israeli control). Do you want to do away with Palestinian authority (sovereignty) over their own citizens? And make everyone Israeli? And then apply the law equally to all Israeli citizens?

But in any case, you neatly side-stepped the actual question -- which was whether or not you believe it morally permissible to restore past wrongs EVEN IF it creates new ones.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the Jews can claim the home they lost in 1948, then the Palestinians should be able to claim the home they lost in 1948.

Why the double standard?

But the question is WHO has the double standard? In this particular case -- its the Arabs with the double standard. They want to be restored to their 1948 condition. But complain when a Jewish family is restored to their 1948 condition.

So, are you agreeing with this decision? Are you agreeing that people removed at some time in the past be restored to their former conditions EVEN IF that means extreme hardship or removal of human rights from those affected by the restoration?

But the question is WHO has the double standard?

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

Fail, fail, fail.

So many Arabs have reclaimed property whether they have title to the property or not.

Keep up with the times, tin man.

Do you have any proof of that?

Same answer as my last one on the other thread, Mr. Fiction.

Oh, OK.

Nice duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

The law says nothing about Jews. All Israeli citizens are treated equally, and even some Palestinian citizens are treated with equality under Israel's law. So no apartheid. The law is the same for all Israelis (and Palestinians under Israeli control). Do you want to do away with Palestinian authority (sovereignty) over their own citizens? And make everyone Israeli? And then apply the law equally to all Israeli citizens?

But in any case, you neatly side-stepped the actual question -- which was whether or not you believe it morally permissible to restore past wrongs EVEN IF it creates new ones.

Do you want to do away with Palestinian authority (sovereignty) over their own citizens?

The PA is a fig leaf for occupation. It has no sovereignty or authority. The so called president cannot even leave Ramallah without Israeli approval.

There is only one government throughout the territory and that is Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

The law says nothing about Jews. All Israeli citizens are treated equally, and even some Palestinian citizens are treated with equality under Israel's law. So no apartheid. The law is the same for all Israelis (and Palestinians under Israeli control). Do you want to do away with Palestinian authority (sovereignty) over their own citizens? And make everyone Israeli? And then apply the law equally to all Israeli citizens?

But in any case, you neatly side-stepped the actual question -- which was whether or not you believe it morally permissible to restore past wrongs EVEN IF it creates new ones.

I think all people who lost their homes in the conflict should have the right to reclaim their homes. Not just a select few.

 

[Sixties Fan]

That is any easy one. Israel allows Jews to reclaim property but denies that to Palestinians.

Two different laws for two different people i.e. apartheid.

The law says nothing about Jews. All Israeli citizens are treated equally, and even some Palestinian citizens are treated with equality under Israel's law. So no apartheid. The law is the same for all Israelis (and Palestinians under Israeli control). Do you want to do away with Palestinian authority (sovereignty) over their own citizens? And make everyone Israeli? And then apply the law equally to all Israeli citizens?

But in any case, you neatly side-stepped the actual question -- which was whether or not you believe it morally permissible to restore past wrongs EVEN IF it creates new ones.

I think all people who lost their homes in the conflict should have the right to reclaim their homes. Not just a select few.

I suggest you start writing to the Arabs in Gaza, Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Jordan and ask them to return the lands taken from all Jews from 1920 to 1948.

Then one can deal with all the lands and homes the Arabs abandoned or were expelled from due to their part in the war.

And then.....one can deal with the nearly One Million Jews who lost their homes and properties from the Arab conquered lands they were expelled from, be it Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Morocco, etc, etc.


Time is precious.

 

[Shusha]

The PA is a fig leaf for occupation. It has no sovereignty or authority. ...

There is only one government throughout the territory and that is Israel.

THANK YOU! I know.