The Status of Jeruselum and double standards

[abi]

So, the Jews were malicious and deceitful land thieves for not permitting a hostile enemy population who wanted to destroy Israel back into the territory while the conflict was still ongoing but the Arabs are to be absolved of cleansing their lands of the Jews?

What you call "the Jews" was the hostile enemy population.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This particular law was designed to allow the easy confiscation of Palestinian property because the landowners were not allowed to return. It was unjust, no other word for it and it was legalized theft.

The problem with statements like this is that it neglects the context and consequences of the war (a war, btw, which Israel neither started nor wanted). It was not "legalized theft". To label it as "legalized theft" is to impart a sinister and malicious act to Israel on the results of war. A defensive war at that. To label it as "unjust" is to forget that the people excluded from return were those deemed to be hostile enemies to the State of Israel.

I strongly disagree with that view. Israel won a war and wanted land. This was one easy way to get it. And there is NO question many Palestinians were prevented from returning and not because they were terrorists. Was it malicious? Yes. It deliberately and legally deprived people of their property. Simultaniously laws made it easier for Jews to reclaim property then for Palestinians who had higher hurdles to clear. These laws originated - as you say - as a means to create a temperorary lawful resolution for abandoned property. But they moved from being temporary emergency measures to being coded into law and used to deprive Palestinians of their property.

I'll use Wikipedia as a source, because it's convenient and it also provides references. It describes the role the absentee landowner laws played in providing Israel with a great deal of land, estimates ranging as low as 12% and as high as 70% of Israel, West Bank and Gaza.


Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia'

‘Absentees’ property’ laws were several laws which were first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel. As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[25] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[26]
...

As a result, two million dunams were confiscated and given to the custodian, who later transferred the land to the development authority. 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]​

Some of the particular laws and their effects:

The Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950
This law replaced the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948. According to Sabri Jiryis (p. 84),[32] the definition of "absentee" in the law was framed in such a way as to ensure that it applied to every Palestinian or resident in Palestine who had left his usual place of residence in Palestine for any place inside or outside the country after the adoption of the partition of Palestine resolution by the UN. Article 1(b) states that "absentee" means:

According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), 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.​

This particular law was originally designed to provide a Custodian for abandoned real, immovable property. It was a necessary step to create a lawful system to deal with abandoned property. The Custodian was granted broad powers to return land to its Arabs owners, or to retain it, or dispose of it. What else was to be done in the immediate aftermath of a war of destruction of the Jewish State? What other options would you suggest?

The law is effectively still in effect (supplanted by later laws essentially doing the same thing). How much was actually returned to the Arab owners?

Yes, I know, I know. You believe that just two years after an attempted war of annihilation, in the midst of on-going and continued hostilities, that the hostile enemies of Israel should be granted the right to return. The UN believed it too. That is why 194 reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Here's the problem. There is still no peace. The conflict is still on-going. While it is a lovely idealistic notion to imagine that there should be no consequences to war and that war can be made just and that things can just go back to normal -- that is not the real world. Had a right of return been immediately implemented it would only have resulted in further physical conflict. Or the destruction of Israel. Or the decimation of the Arab Palestinians.

Their property should not have been confiscated if they were not allowed to return. That's just wrong.

Why is the law still in effect and in use?

Again, I will state that Israel has shown remarkable restraint. Israel chose NOT to empty her territory of all Arabs as hostiles (in sharp contrast to not only the Arab Palestinians and Jordanians -- but the entire Arab ME).

The alternative is to give compensation to the refugees and their descendants -- ALL of them, including the nearly 1 million Jews who lost their property and businesses in ME countries despite the fact that they were not engaged in the hostilities and were citizens of those countries. Why does no one ever demand things be made right for them? THAT is unjust.

Ok - now you're deflecting. Why can't we discuss this particular issue without the "what abouts"? What occurred to Jews in other nations is between those individuals and those nations. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it and shouldn't be punished for it or should they? The other thing to keep in mind is unlike the Palestinians, the expelled Jews have been welcomed into Israel and provided with decent housing and new lives.

I'm going to write a longer response to this post a bit later when I have time. (Making gingerbread granola for my family for Xmas morninG breakfast. Yes. We celebrate Xmas. Some of us also celebrate Hanukkah. It's complicated.)

But the short response is this:

So, the Jews were malicious and deceitful land thieves for not permitting a hostile enemy population who wanted to destroy Israel back into the territory while the conflict was still ongoing but the Arabs are to be absolved of cleansing their lands of the Jews?

Enjoy! My mother puts up a menorah, she is kind of all inclusive, and she has a cute one with cats holding the candles

Short response is - no, not as broad as that. But the laws were also quite clearly designed to gain land (which was needed) and make it difficult for Palestinians to reclaim land whether or not they were hostile. Do you really think intentions were so angelic?) No one said Arabs were to be absolved, but are the Palistinians responsible and to be punished for what other Arab nations did?

Do you believe that the Palestinians were not aggressive towards the Jews from 1920 until 1948?

Who started the attacks against Jews post 1947 UN partitions?
The Palestinians or the Arab Nations?

That only the five to seven Arab Nations were responsible for what happened?

The Zionist's settler colonial project was an aggression against Palestine. This commenced without provocation from the Palestinians.

 

[flacaltenn]

This really should stay on the ORIGINAL topic of Jerusalem. At this point, the discussion is no different from 99 other threads in the forum.. How about confining the discussion to the dispensation of Jerusalem and the possible strategic reasons for the announcement?

 

[flacaltenn]

Thread closed until tomorrow. May re-open.