Why were these thrown out?

[ZEE]

lets put your ass in a box and ship you over there

[BeBMan]

If you want to ask about the background, doing so is easy enough. We're not mind-readers, though, so you have to actually do so.



You also included it in your original question. What the settlers want is immaterial except for the purpose of starting the legal proceedings.



No. I answered your question as it was asked. Like I've said before, why the court ruled the way it did is a different question than why the Arabs were evicted.

Quite frankly, this is splitting hairs to me. If you think I wasn't clear in the OP, fine. But please don't tell me what I actually meant when asking.

[Zkribbler]

Assuming the Jewish families' claims to the property had merit, eviction was a proper and perfectly ordinary remedy.

Jewish families owning property in East Jerusalem??

The State of Israel has, plain and simple, made it legal for its Jewish citizens to steal land from its Muslim citizens. Injustice like this can lead nowhere but to decades of unnecessary bloodshed.

[KrazyHorse]

BeBro, I'm not sure if it was lost in the translation, but your question struck me (and solomwi, apparently) as implying that the eviction was based solely on the desire of some Jewish settlers to grab land belonging to Palestinians.

[Kuciwalker]

How is this different from one of you evicting me because you bought an apartment and found me living in the bathroom?

[KrazyHorse]

Property rights are not as clear cut in East Jerusalem as they are in Fairfax...

[Kuciwalker]

Obviously, if the Supreme Court had to rule on it. But given that no one here knows any of the facts or laws behind that decision, there isn't much basis for complaint.

[KrazyHorse]

a) Solomwi posted a better summary of the facts. there were at least 2 changes in sovereignty between the basis of the Israelis' claims and today

b) Discounting the template anti-Israel criticism from the usual retards, the response in this thread has been pretty measured. I'm pretty suspicious in general of the equity of Israeli court decisions regarding the property rights of Palestinians given their past. They aren't kangaroo courts, but they often don't live up to my standards

[Zkribbler]

How is this different from one of you evicting me because you bought an apartment and found me living in the bathroom?

What if you were the legal owner of the apartment, and the people who sold it to me had no right to do so?

[Kuciwalker]

a) Solomwi posted a better summary of the facts. there were at least 2 changes in sovereignty between the basis of the Israelis' claims and today

1) I missed that post by Solomwi, thanks
2) It reads to me like there are actually 2 changes in sovereignty between the Palestinians' claim, at least their most recent one, which the article said was based off of Ottoman documents.
3) It seems to me after this time period adverse possession would have applied... though I have no idea if that's even a legal doctrine in Israel.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci, read again. they Israelis' claim is based on possession which ceased "in the 20s and 30s" (meaning that the original title must have been acquired prior to that, according to them).

The Palestinians have some sort of legal claim based on:

a) Ottoman era documents
b) The actions of the Jordanian gov't
c) Possession

The third of these is by far the strongest claim that anybody has to this property, given the "complex" legal history of the area. By the way, if we're NOT recognizing adverse possession now I'm looking forward to the tens of thousands of successful lawsuits against property owners in Israel proper...

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, read again. they Israelis' claim is based on possession which ceased "in the 20s and 30s" (meaning that the original title must have been acquired prior to that, according to them).

Yeah, I misread the article.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, I think adverse possession didn't apply because of this:

In 1972, two Israeli organizations - the Sephardic Community Committee and the Knesset Yisrael Committee - began notifying the residents that they owed rent, and initiated a process with the Israel Lands Administration to register the land in their names, also based on 19th-century Ottoman-era documents.

In 1982, the two committees brought a lawsuit against 23 families for rent delinquency.

My understand is that adverse possession doesn't apply if the original owner attempts to expel the squatter.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci, the clock started in the 30s and stopped in 1972.

This is as good a claim as many people in Israel proper have to their land...

[Lancer]

**** em, those people were already in the street.