Why were these thrown out?

[Kitschum]

The problem is that they are corrupt bastards who deny their people basic human rights, and line their pockets with money from the public treasury. The solution is to shift attention over to Israel and the Palestinian refugees. If they were to ever allow the Palestinians to resettle, they'd lose that issue, and the people would start looking more closely at their mismanagement of the region. You can dispute that, it's certainly a cynical way of looking at things, but I think it's the most realistic view of the problem.

It is not even ****ing addressing the problem which is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - NOT, I repeat, NOT the "Arabs" as a collective. Your comprehension of this issue is abysmal.

Palestinians will continue to live in misery so long as people like Hosni Mubarak and Bashar Al-Assad can score political points on their backs. If it weren't for their corruption and exploitation of the crisis, the Palestinians could have been resettled decades ago, just like the Germans in East Prussia were.

They should not need to resettle, i.e. be ethnically cleansed. How hard it this to understand?

Edit: Nobody is disputing Russia's right to Kaliningrad. Nobody is recognizing Israel's right to East Jerusalem. This should tell you something.

[KrazyHorse]

There is no evidence of adverse possession since the '30s - assuming that is even a concept of Israeli law. Clock starts in '56, or perhaps in '67 depending on circumstances.

YOU have no evidence of adverse possession since the 30s. I'm simply making the reasonable assumption that SOMEBODY's been living there continuously.

[Kitschum]

YOU have no evidence of adverse possession since the 30s. I'm simply making the reasonable assumption that SOMEBODY's been living there continuously.

It is reasonable to assume that the timeline as posted by Solomwi contains the most relevant facts of the case, which do not support your version of events.

The land was abandoned in the 20s and 30s. The families moved in in '56. We don't know whether they paid rent, but if they did, that would not be hostile use of the property, and the clock would start with the Israeli occupation in '67.

[KrazyHorse]

It is reasonable to assume that the timeline as posted by Solomwi contains the most relevant facts of the case

Are you honestly this dense?

a) The article itself explains that a lawyer for the Pals had already ceded ownership claims (though the families deny they gave permission for him to do so). Therefore, facts regarding the legal status of an adverse possession claim are irrelevant.

b) Whoever wrote the article is ALMOST CERTAINLY not an expert in adverse possession law, therefore would not be a good judge as to what was legally important in such a case

at Kitschum thinking that a general news article on a complex legal case is going to include all the relevant information.

[Kitschum]

a) The article itself explains that a lawyer for the Pals had already ceded ownership claims (though the families deny they gave permission for him to do so). Therefore, facts regarding the legal status of an adverse possession claim are irrelevant.

We were discussing adverse possession, so this is all irrelevant. You are avoiding the issue.

b) Whoever wrote the article is ALMOST CERTAINLY not an expert in adverse possession law, therefore would not be a good judge as to what was legally important in such a case

at Kitschum thinking that a general news article on a complex legal case is going to include all the relevant information.

That's not laughing, that's squirming.

These are facts, which you are apparently avoiding for some reason. In 1948 the property is seized by the Jordanians, a fact that is not going to be recognized by Israeli law (as evidenced by its general policy of returning property to the previous owners). In 1956 Palestinian refugees are settled on the land, perhaps believing that they are also the new owners of it. In 1967 Israel occupies East Jerusalem. In 1972 at the latest the land has been returned to its rightful (Jewish Israeli) owners, and the Palestinians living on the land are notified. There are 5, or at the most 16, years of adverse possession.

[KrazyHorse]

We were discussing adverse possession, so this is all irrelevant. You are avoiding the issue.

No, I'm not, you ****ing moron.

You claimed that the article would contain all relevant facts to the case. If there is no adverse possession claim due to a lawyer ceding the families' right to such a claim then facts relating to the legality of an adverse possession claim are NO LONGER RELEVANT AND THEREFORE MIGHT NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE, EVEN GIVEN YOUR STANDARDS.

[KrazyHorse]

These are facts, which you are apparently avoiding for some reason. In 1948 the property is seized by the Jordanians, a fact that is not going to be recognized by Israeli law (as evidenced by its general policy of returning property to the previous owners). In 1956 Palestinian refugees are settled on the land, perhaps believing that they are also the new owners of it. In 1967 Israel occupies East Jerusalem. In 1972 at the latest the land has been returned to its rightful (Jewish Israeli) owners, and the Palestinians living on the land are notified. There are 5, or at the most 16, years of adverse possession.

You must be retarded. WHO WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND BETWEEN THE 30s AND 1956?

Adverse possession can CHAIN BETWEEN POSSESSORS

[KrazyHorse]

According to you, it wasn't mentioned in the article, so NOBODY was living there....in an overcrowded, hotly-contested city.

[Kitschum]

We were discussing adverse possession, so this is all irrelevant. You are avoiding the issue.

No, I'm not, you ****ing moron.

You claimed that the article would contain all relevant facts to the case. If there is no adverse possession claim due to a lawyer ceding the families' right to such a claim then facts relating to the legality of an adverse possession claim are NO LONGER RELEVANT AND THEREFORE MIGHT NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE, EVEN GIVEN YOUR STANDARDS.

If you would prefer an imaginary discussion with some imaginary friends of yours just say the word and I will stop embarrassing you. CAPITAL LETTERS DO NOT HELP YOUR CASE

1) You brought up adverse possession, not me.

2) You do not know that there is no adverse possession (or the Israeli equivalent) claim, because, as you should know, the familes were disputing their own lawyer's right to conclude the deal. If you know more about the case, feel free to share that information.

[KrazyHorse]

2) You do not know that there is no adverse possession (or the Israeli equivalent) claim, because, as you should know, the familes were disputing their own lawyer's right to conclude the deal. If you know more about the case, feel free to share that information.

Could you please read the article? It states explicitly that all decisions since the lawyer's actions HAVE BEEN BASED ON THIS PRECEDENT. Presumably, the families have been unable to get the courts to accept that they even have a RIGHT to make the argument that they own the land.

And YES, CAPS LOCK DOES HELP MY CASE BECAUSE IT EMPHASIZES HOW IDIOTIC IT IS TO PRESUME THAT AN ARTICLE IN A NEWSPAPER CONTAINS ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS.

[Kitschum]

Could you please read the article? It states explicitly that all decisions since the lawyer's actions HAVE BEEN BASED ON THIS PRECEDENT. Presumably, the families have been unable to get the courts to accept that they even have a RIGHT to challenge the lawyer's actions.

SO NOW YOU ARE PRESUMING THINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ARTICLE? BESIDES NOT ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT I WAS RESPONDING IN THE FIRST CASE TO YOUR DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBLE ADVERSE POSSESSION ISSUE. ARE YOU FEELING GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF? HAVE YOU BEEN DRINKING YOU ****ING MORON?

[KrazyHorse]

Kitschy, you ****ing idiot, it's a hell of a lot more reasonable to presume that SOMEBODY was living there rather than NOBODY.



It's in ****ing EAST JERUSALEM. Not the ****ing desert.

[Kitschum]

**** YOU I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR ALL YOUR DELAYING TACTICS AND REFUSALF OF DISCUSSING THE FACTS. I HAVE TO GO TO WORK. DO YOU HAVE AS BIG OF A HARD ON AS I DO?

[KrazyHorse]

Wiggy?

[Kitschum]

Well, I would explain to you that UNRWA would not exactly be solving the refugee problem if they resettled refugees in homes that were already inhaibited, but I don't think you would listen. Let's call it a draw.