Neser Boha
upgrade your gray matter
- Thread starter
- #61
A big leftist antisemitic eye!
Go fuck yourself.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A big leftist antisemitic eye!
Go fuck yourself.
In searching for info on eviction procedures in Israel I found this :
Most of West Jerusalem is off-limits to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem in terms of their ability to purchase property. This is because most of West Jerusalem, like most of Israel, is State Land (in all, 93% of land in Israel is State Land, though the percentage is lower in Jerusalem). Under Israeli law, to qualify to purchase property on State Land the purchaser must either be a citizen of Israel (Palestinian Jerusalemites are legal residents if the city, not citizens of Israel) or legally entitled to citizenship under the law of return (i.e. Jewish). This means an Israeli or a Jew from anywhere in the world can purchase such property in West Jerusalem, but not a Palestinian resident of the city. (Technically, by the way, these are generally not purchases but long-term leases.)
With respect to private land in West Jerusalem, legally there are no limitations on Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem purchasing in such areas. Similarly, there are no legal limitations on Palestinian residents of Jerusalem renting in West Jerusalem. However, we are unfamiliar with a single case of a Palestinian who holds Jerusalem residency who is living in West Jerusalem, either through purchase or rental of property (and we are very familiar with this issue). The reasons for this are social, cultural, and economic. This is distinct, by the way, from Arab citizens of Israel, a small number of who do live in West Jerusalem.
In addition, it should be emphasized that the ban on purchase of property on State Lands by Palestinian residents of Jerusalem extends to East Jerusalem. Not only are Palestinian Jerusalemites barred from purchasing property in most of West Jerusalem, but they are also barred from purchasing property in the 35% of East Jerusalem that Israel has expropriated as State Land since 1967, and on which Israels East Jerusalem settlements have been built. This means that in more than 1/3 of East Jerusalem, Israelis and Jews from anywhere in the world have a right to buy property in Israeli settlements, but not Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, including the very residents whose land was expropriated to build these settlements.
The Peace Now Blog » Abusing Jerusalem to Assail Peace: the Case of the Shepherds Hotel
Its called a strategy! The Jews want to pack as many Jews into Jerusalem as possible! Jerusalem is 35% Jewish. Eastern Jerusalem is now 40% Jewish! The Israelis are trying to get it to be majority Jewish throughout. They want to make a claim on it in the end solution in I/P conflict. Having a majority in all of Jerusalem is a good method!
The Palestinians are using a strategy also to prevent an annexation of both Gaza and the West Bank. Which is reproduce rabbits!
A big leftist antisemitic eye!
Go fuck yourself.
do you SEE what I have to work with around here?
A big leftist antisemitic eye!
Go fuck yourself.
do you SEE what I have to work with around here?
He is a useless little clown. He's so fanatical that he will actually give the proof to all of us that he is a racist prick while still feeling that he's on the 'right' side.
Hey meathead, it doesn't take a genious to see which way you sway, esp by the posts you made in this thread!.
The problem is that I haven't even said who I think is right or wrong yet... I'm still in the process of searching for the answer. However, the international condemnation of Israeli police actions does make me lean towards the Palestinians' claims... and also after reading the amazing religious fanatical quotes from the fucker leading the organization that tries to Judify (or whatever) Jerusalem.
No its not stupid! Its about the courts enforcing a recent contract to purchase land from a willing seller to a willing buyer in which the buyer transferred funds!It's a whole group of people that can be openly racist, openly try to push certain ethnic group out of the city while still being treated well by the western media... in other countries such a group would be equated with neo-nazis or such.
Not shocking! Getting even the word "the" out must be a struggle for you, which such limited mental capacity!. Wow... I am at loss for words.
JERUSALEM -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reasserted Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem, a predominantly Arab section of the city, rebuffing a U.S. request that Israel halt a construction project in a Palestinian neighborhood by a developer with close ties to Jewish settlers.
"We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and buy [homes] anywhere in Jerusalem," Mr. Netanyahu said at his weekly cabinet meeting Sunday.
His comments came in response to reports leaked to Israel's two leading Hebrew-language newspapers and published Sunday that U.S. State Department officials last week expressed opposition to the project in a meeting with Israel's ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren.
Mr. Netanyahu's spokesman, Mark Regev, confirmed the meeting between Mr. Oren and senior State Department officials. A State Department spokesman said Sunday, "Our policy is clear on the status of Jerusalem. It's a final status issue" -- meaning disputes over the city will be resolved in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The disagreement over the East Jerusalem property is likely to complicate tense relations between Mr. Netanyahu and the Obama administration, which has demanded Israel freeze building in Jewish settlements in the West Bank including in East Jerusalem.
The dispute threatens to thrust one of the conflict's most delicate issues -- the status of Jerusalem -- into already tough negotiations between the Obama administration's Mideast peace envoy, George Mitchell, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Mr. Oren sought to play down reports of a growing rift between Israel and the U.S.
"Whatever disagreements we have, whether on the issue of a settlement freeze or on Jerusalem, there is no crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations," he said.
Mr. Mitchell is due in Israel this month to continue negotiations, which have dragged on for weeks. There are mixed reports over how close the two sides are to an agreement. Significant differences persist over how many housing units under construction in the settlements can be completed, how long the freeze would remain in effect, what the mechanism would be to end the freeze, and what concessions Arab states would deliver in exchange for the freeze, according to sources familiar with the talks.
Recently Mr. Mitchell has appeared more eager to conclude a deal with Israel because the Obama administration has begun worrying that Arab states and the Palestinians will refuse to offer concessions of their own or increase their demands as long as they believe the U.S. will do all the heavy lifting to sway Israel, the sources said.
"We have a situation now where both the Syrians and Palestinians have made an absolute settlement freeze a precondition for resuming talks and that's a completely new demand," said Mr. Oren, the Israeli ambassador.
White House officials declined to comment.
The current dispute centers on a storied lot in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah that became the Shepherd Hotel. The property was once owned by Jerusalem's leading Muslim cleric, the Grand Mufti Muhammad Amin al-Husseini.
The state of Israel seized the property after the 1967 War. In 1985 it was sold to Irving Moskowitz, an American millionaire.
For years, Mr. Moskowitz's plans to develop the Shepherd's Hotel property have been held up by successive Israeli governments reluctant to approve the project. On July 2, the Jerusalem municipality officials voted to approve a plan to develop 20 residential units.
Mr. Moskowitz couldn't be reached to comment.
A statement from the Jerusalem mayor's office said the decision was made in the course of the routine planning process and in accordance with Israeli law "according to equal criteria for all issues of construction permits, without regard to race, creed, gender, religion, or national identity of the resident or property owner."
Critics of the Mr. Moskowitz's project say such settler developments are exclusively for Jews with the intent of altering the demographic balance in Jerusalem and securing Jewish control over historically Arab neighborhoods.
The properties are located near the Shepherd's Hotel, which created headlines two weeks ago when the U.S. State department advised Israel not to go ahead with plans by American millionaire Irving Moskowitz to build housing units for 20 Jewish families there.
He is a useless little clown. He's so fanatical that he will actually give the proof to all of us that he is a racist prick while still feeling that he's on the 'right' side.
I think I have been very objective on the situationm unlike you and the ultra bigoted Shogun!
Here are 2 previous threads of prove
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1013996-post1.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1089980-post1.html
The eviction yesterday in Jerusalem was a result of a ruling by our Supreme Court that had to decide in a dispute between two parties over the legal control of a property," Netanyahu's spokesman, Mark Regev, told WND.
Continued Regev: "The Supreme Court ruled for one side and not the other. In all democracies the rulings of the courts must be upheld, and it is incumbent on the executive branch to implement such decisions."
Regev said the Israeli Supreme Court "is renowned internationally for both its independence and its professionalism. There are countless examples of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Palestinians in land disputes."
Many of the reports failed to provide proper background regarding why the Arabs were kicked out of the home.
The housing complex is located in the Sheik Jarra neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem. The home was originally Jewish, but its Jewish occupants were chased out during countrywide anti-Jewish Arab riots in 1929. Arabs then squatted on the property, with one family, the Hejazi family, becoming the de facto occupants despite never having purchased the property.
Even though documentation shows the complex is owned by Jews and that Arabs have been squatting on it illegally for almost a century, Jewish groups say they still legally re-purchased the property from the Hejazi family.
Following pressure from the Palestinian Authority, however, the family later denied selling the complex back to the Jews despite documentation and other evidence showing the sale went through.
The PA in April warned Palestinians against selling their homes or properties to Jews, saying those who violate the order would be accused of "high treason" a charge that carries the death penalty.
Israel's court system twice ruled the property in question belongs to Jews.
Articles on the topic by Agence France-Presse and Reuters use the terms "occupied" and "East Jerusalem" to describe the area in which the house is located. Reuters called it "occupied Arab East Jerusalem."
According to international law, however, eastern sections of Jerusalem are not "occupied" but "disputed." Referring to the area as "Arab East Jerusalem" presupposes the outcome of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that have yet to take place and ignores British documentation that authenticates Jews outnumbered Arabs in eastern Jerusalem from the 19th century until Jews were expelled by Arabs in 1929.
The use of the term "East Jerusalem" is widespread. Historically, however, there was never any separation between eastern and western Jerusalem. The terminology came after Jordan occupied the eastern section of the city, including the Temple Mount, from 1947 until it used the territory to attack the Jewish state in 1967. Israel reunited Jerusalem when it won the 1967 Six Day War, although the Palestinians claim eastern sections for a future capital. .
The eviction of squatting Arabs from a Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem follows recent demands by the Obama administration for Israel to halt all "settlement activity," meaning Jewish construction, in Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank.
Last month, Israel's ambassador to Washington was summoned by the State Department to demand a Jewish construction project in eastern Jerusalem be immediately halted.
The construction project at the center of attention, financed by Miami Beach philanthropist Irving Moskowitz, is located just yards from Israel's national police headquarters and other government ministries. It is a few blocks from the country's prestigious Hebrew University, underscoring the centrality of the Jewish real estate being condemned by the U.S.
Netanyahu strongly rejected the State Department demand, telling a cabinet meeting Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem was not a matter up for discussion.
"Imagine what would happen if someone were to suggest Jews could not live in or purchase [property] in certain neighborhoods in London, New York, Paris or Rome," he said just after his ambassador was summoned.
"The international community would certainly raise protest. Likewise, we cannot accept such a ruling on East Jerusalem," Netanyahu told ministers.
He is a useless little clown. He's so fanatical that he will actually give the proof to all of us that he is a racist prick while still feeling that he's on the 'right' side.
I think I have been very objective on the situationm unlike you and the ultra bigoted Shogun!
Here are 2 previous threads of prove
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1013996-post1.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1089980-post1.html
Its not an issue going back to squattering in 1948, rather is about enforcing a recent sales contract between 2 willing and able parties! See the real story below!
Netanyahu to U.S.: Israel will govern itself, thank you
Believe it or not the Israel Supreme Court is a very FAIR court!
The eviction yesterday in Jerusalem was a result of a ruling by our Supreme Court that had to decide in a dispute between two parties over the legal control of a property," Netanyahu's spokesman, Mark Regev, told WND.
Continued Regev: "The Supreme Court ruled for one side and not the other. In all democracies the rulings of the courts must be upheld, and it is incumbent on the executive branch to implement such decisions."
Regev said the Israeli Supreme Court "is renowned internationally for both its independence and its professionalism. There are countless examples of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Palestinians in land disputes."
THE TRUE STORY - the Background that the Media is Neglecting to Mention!
Many of the reports failed to provide proper background regarding why the Arabs were kicked out of the home.
The housing complex is located in the Sheik Jarra neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem. The home was originally Jewish, but its Jewish occupants were chased out during countrywide anti-Jewish Arab riots in 1929. Arabs then squatted on the property, with one family, the Hejazi family, becoming the de facto occupants despite never having purchased the property.
Even though documentation shows the complex is owned by Jews and that Arabs have been squatting on it illegally for almost a century, Jewish groups say they still legally re-purchased the property from the Hejazi family.
Why the Seller Buckled at the Knees! Selling to Jews is High Treason! Wow! Imagine if Israel stated selling to Arabs was high treason (meaning we will KILL YOU)? Left asses would be in an uproar!
Following pressure from the Palestinian Authority, however, the family later denied selling the complex back to the Jews despite documentation and other evidence showing the sale went through.
The PA in April warned Palestinians against selling their homes or properties to Jews, saying those who violate the order would be accused of "high treason" – a charge that carries the death penalty.
Israel's court system twice ruled the property in question belongs to Jews.
Look at the Leftest European Media at Work! Slander the Jews to appease their ever growing disenchanted Muslim population!
Articles on the topic by Agence France-Presse and Reuters use the terms "occupied" and "East Jerusalem" to describe the area in which the house is located. Reuters called it "occupied Arab East Jerusalem."
According to international law, however, eastern sections of Jerusalem are not "occupied" but "disputed." Referring to the area as "Arab East Jerusalem" presupposes the outcome of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that have yet to take place and ignores British documentation that authenticates Jews outnumbered Arabs in eastern Jerusalem from the 19th century until Jews were expelled by Arabs in 1929.
The use of the term "East Jerusalem" is widespread. Historically, however, there was never any separation between eastern and western Jerusalem. The terminology came after Jordan occupied the eastern section of the city, including the Temple Mount, from 1947 until it used the territory to attack the Jewish state in 1967. Israel reunited Jerusalem when it won the 1967 Six Day War, although the Palestinians claim eastern sections for a future capital. .
The eviction of squatting Arabs from a Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem follows recent demands by the Obama administration for Israel to halt all "settlement activity," meaning Jewish construction, in Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank.
Last month, Israel's ambassador to Washington was summoned by the State Department to demand a Jewish construction project in eastern Jerusalem be immediately halted.
The construction project at the center of attention, financed by Miami Beach philanthropist Irving Moskowitz, is located just yards from Israel's national police headquarters and other government ministries. It is a few blocks from the country's prestigious Hebrew University, underscoring the centrality of the Jewish real estate being condemned by the U.S.
Netanyahu strongly rejected the State Department demand, telling a cabinet meeting Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem was not a matter up for discussion.
"Imagine what would happen if someone were to suggest Jews could not live in or purchase [property] in certain neighborhoods in London, New York, Paris or Rome," he said just after his ambassador was summoned.
"The international community would certainly raise protest. Likewise, we cannot accept such a ruling on East Jerusalem," Netanyahu told ministers.
"Imagine what would happen if someone were to suggest Jews could not live in or purchase [property] in certain neighborhoods in London, New York, Paris or Rome," he said just after his ambassador was summoned.
"The international community would certainly raise protest. Likewise, we cannot accept such a ruling on East Jerusalem," Netanyahu told ministers.
Sometimes Israel is right. Sometimes Israel is wrong. From what I've seen, people tend to either by blatantly pro-Israel, where Israel can do no wrong, or blatantly anti-Israel, where Israel can do no right. The conversation on the Israel situation has become so polarized that we can't see the forest for the trees anymore, so to speak.
Sure. How about we focus on the issue at hand. Is Israel right or wrong in regards to this case? I'd like to find out. I want to know what the hell is going on. I've been keeping an eye on Isr/Pal 'conflict' for the past 9 years... I don't think you can summarize the problem in a few snazzy sentences.
Sometimes Israel is right. Sometimes Israel is wrong. From what I've seen, people tend to either by blatantly pro-Israel, where Israel can do no wrong, or blatantly anti-Israel, where Israel can do no right. The conversation on the Israel situation has become so polarized that we can't see the forest for the trees anymore, so to speak.
Sure. How about we focus on the issue at hand. Is Israel right or wrong in regards to this case? I'd like to find out. I want to know what the hell is going on. I've been keeping an eye on Isr/Pal 'conflict' for the past 9 years... I don't think you can summarize the problem in a few snazzy sentences.
I have focused on the issue at hand. How about if I post what I feel is relevant and you post what you feel is relevant. Also, you might want to read back through the thread, as I've posted more than a few sentences. Ironically enough, usually what I hear is that I go on too long, not that I've posted too few sentences. That's sort of a refreshing change.
I think what I see is an anti-Semite blathering, a person who does not come off as anti-Semitic but does come off as having an anti-Israel biased making a judgment without knowing the full story yet, and a person who comes off as having a pro-Israel bias making a judgment without having the full story yet. Oh, and someone who for some reason has something against tents. And I don't know if Israel is right or wrong for sure on this one personally aside from what I've already said, which is that they to be consistent in whether or not they're going to apply pre-1948 deeds. And I think that pretty much covers this thread in a few sentences (I'll leave it to you to decide if they're snazzy or not.)
Personally, I think Jerusalem should be made an international city with strict secular regulations and call it a day.
Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice; that arrangements to this end should be under effective United Nations supervision; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that territory; that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of Palestine the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them; and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval;
Sure. How about we focus on the issue at hand. Is Israel right or wrong in regards to this case? I'd like to find out. I want to know what the hell is going on. I've been keeping an eye on Isr/Pal 'conflict' for the past 9 years... I don't think you can summarize the problem in a few snazzy sentences.
I have focused on the issue at hand. How about if I post what I feel is relevant and you post what you feel is relevant. Also, you might want to read back through the thread, as I've posted more than a few sentences. Ironically enough, usually what I hear is that I go on too long, not that I've posted too few sentences. That's sort of a refreshing change.
I think what I see is an anti-Semite blathering, a person who does not come off as anti-Semitic but does come off as having an anti-Israel biased making a judgment without knowing the full story yet, and a person who comes off as having a pro-Israel bias making a judgment without having the full story yet. Oh, and someone who for some reason has something against tents. And I don't know if Israel is right or wrong for sure on this one personally aside from what I've already said, which is that they to be consistent in whether or not they're going to apply pre-1948 deeds. And I think that pretty much covers this thread in a few sentences (I'll leave it to you to decide if they're snazzy or not.)
Personally, I think Jerusalem should be made an international city with strict secular regulations and call it a day.
Thank you. I think so too. As a matter of fact, so do the United Nations.
Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice; that arrangements to this end should be under effective United Nations supervision; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that territory; that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of Palestine the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them; and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval;
UN Resolution 194
Thank you. I think so too. As a matter of fact, so do the United Nations.
Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice; that arrangements to this end should be under effective United Nations supervision; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that territory; that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of Palestine the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them; and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval;
UN Resolution 194
I've been keeping an eye on Isr/Pal 'conflict' for the past 9 years....
A big leftist antisemitic eye!
I've been keeping an eye on Isr/Pal 'conflict' for the past 9 years....
A big leftist antisemitic eye!
lame
IMO you failed to make your case.I've been keeping an eye on Isr/Pal 'conflict' for the past 9 years....
A big leftist antisemitic eye!
lame
Hey Ang, in Neser's case I am only calling it as it is! Don't shoot me for being honest!