An article written by a Zionist, gee, I wonder which way this article is going to lean. Come on man, u can do better then that. Or not.
You do realize that the Palestinians need to negotiate with zionists don't you?
A just settlement cannot be reached if you ignore them. You are proving my point that Israel has no one to negotiate with.
do you honestly believe they wish to negotiate?
Yes. Israel knows that the status quo cannot continue.
So lemme ask you then, have you questioned why those proposals were rejected throughout the years? If memory serves a major sticking point was surrounding the palestinian refugees STILL in camps to this day. PLO wanted right of return for them. Israel rejected out of hand. Is that really unreasonable for that right?
That probably is the largest sticking point for sure and I am not sure what the correct solution is. There are Israelis who believe there should be zero right of return. There are those who believe that every generation of displaced individuals with Palestinian heritage should be able to return. I am one who believes there should be "some" right of return but how we get to that number is difficult. Israel would be willing to accept some number of people as well as the handover of additional land regardless of internal opposition. Remember they once removed jewish settlers from Gaza by force and under the right conditions they would be willing to do that again. The question is whether there is a Palestinian government willing to accept that deal? Hamas runs the show now and they seek full destruction of Israel. How does one negotiate with them?
So with your theory, Israel doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas and Hamas doesn't want to negotiate with Israel. So now what?
The world joins nations such as Egypt in crushing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will then be able to exert control and deal with Israel without having to worry about the Islamist rejectionists.
Crushing a democratically elected government. Ok, and then what happens when "nothing" happens and the Palestinian people are "still" prisoners in their "own" country? And anther group, like Ben has stated already, comes up because again, you can't kill an idea. Just like the Zionists have an idea for Israel, the Palestinians have an idea for their own land. Goes back and forth.
Edit-here's a theory, why not America and Israel join the "rest" of the world. Seems to be them and a tiny few islands in the pacific somewhere that support any actions Israel has taken.
And Canada
Fuck Stephen Harper.
This Canadian supports that statement 100%
This Harper government does not speak for me.
Did you guys vote in the last two elections?
Of course.
So is that yes?
You trolling again?
I have learned the hard way that trolling actually means asking questions people don't want to answer.
An article written by a Zionist, gee, I wonder which way this article is going to lean. Come on man, u can do better then that. Or not.
You do realize that the Palestinians need to negotiate with zionists don't you?
A just settlement cannot be reached if you ignore them. You are proving my point that Israel has no one to negotiate with.
do you honestly believe they wish to negotiate?
Yes. Israel knows that the status quo cannot continue.
So lemme ask you then, have you questioned why those proposals were rejected throughout the years? If memory serves a major sticking point was surrounding the palestinian refugees STILL in camps to this day. PLO wanted right of return for them. Israel rejected out of hand. Is that really unreasonable for that right?
That probably is the largest sticking point for sure and I am not sure what the correct solution is. There are Israelis who believe there should be zero right of return. There are those who believe that every generation of displaced individuals with Palestinian heritage should be able to return. I am one who believes there should be "some" right of return but how we get to that number is difficult. Israel would be willing to accept some number of people as well as the handover of additional land regardless of internal opposition. Remember they once removed jewish settlers from Gaza by force and under the right conditions they would be willing to do that again. The question is whether there is a Palestinian government willing to accept that deal? Hamas runs the show now and they seek full destruction of Israel. How does one negotiate with them?
So with your theory, Israel doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas and Hamas doesn't want to negotiate with Israel. So now what?
The world joins nations such as Egypt in crushing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will then be able to exert control and deal with Israel without having to worry about the Islamist rejectionists.
Crushing a democratically elected government. Ok, and then what happens when "nothing" happens and the Palestinian people are "still" prisoners in their "own" country? And anther group, like Ben has stated already, comes up because again, you can't kill an idea. Just like the Zionists have an idea for Israel, the Palestinians have an idea for their own land. Goes back and forth.
Edit-here's a theory, why not America and Israel join the "rest" of the world. Seems to be them and a tiny few islands in the pacific somewhere that support any actions Israel has taken.
And Canada
Fuck Stephen Harper.
This Canadian supports that statement 100%
This Harper government does not speak for me.
Did you guys vote in the last two elections?
Of course.
So is that yes?
You trolling again?
I have learned the hard way that trolling actually means asking questions people don't want to answer.
So.....
I'm trying to figure out where "of course" is not an answer. Is that confusing to you? A cryptic answer?
You have anything to add to the subject matter at hand?
An article written by a Zionist, gee, I wonder which way this article is going to lean. Come on man, u can do better then that. Or not.
You do realize that the Palestinians need to negotiate with zionists don't you?
A just settlement cannot be reached if you ignore them. You are proving my point that Israel has no one to negotiate with.
do you honestly believe they wish to negotiate?
Yes. Israel knows that the status quo cannot continue.
So lemme ask you then, have you questioned why those proposals were rejected throughout the years? If memory serves a major sticking point was surrounding the palestinian refugees STILL in camps to this day. PLO wanted right of return for them. Israel rejected out of hand. Is that really unreasonable for that right?
That probably is the largest sticking point for sure and I am not sure what the correct solution is. There are Israelis who believe there should be zero right of return. There are those who believe that every generation of displaced individuals with Palestinian heritage should be able to return. I am one who believes there should be "some" right of return but how we get to that number is difficult. Israel would be willing to accept some number of people as well as the handover of additional land regardless of internal opposition. Remember they once removed jewish settlers from Gaza by force and under the right conditions they would be willing to do that again. The question is whether there is a Palestinian government willing to accept that deal? Hamas runs the show now and they seek full destruction of Israel. How does one negotiate with them?
So with your theory, Israel doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas and Hamas doesn't want to negotiate with Israel. So now what?
The world joins nations such as Egypt in crushing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will then be able to exert control and deal with Israel without having to worry about the Islamist rejectionists.
Crushing a democratically elected government. Ok, and then what happens when "nothing" happens and the Palestinian people are "still" prisoners in their "own" country? And anther group, like Ben has stated already, comes up because again, you can't kill an idea. Just like the Zionists have an idea for Israel, the Palestinians have an idea for their own land. Goes back and forth.
Edit-here's a theory, why not America and Israel join the "rest" of the world. Seems to be them and a tiny few islands in the pacific somewhere that support any actions Israel has taken.
And Canada
Fuck Stephen Harper.
This Canadian supports that statement 100%
This Harper government does not speak for me.
Did you guys vote in the last two elections?
Of course.
So is that yes?
You trolling again?
I have learned the hard way that trolling actually means asking questions people don't want to answer.
So.....
I'm trying to figure out where "of course" is not an answer. Is that confusing to you? A cryptic answer?
You have anything to add to the subject matter at hand?
No one can add anything of value to a conversation that involves religion.
Religion only on the periphery. This is about the oppresors and the oppressed. Aided by UK at the start then since good ole democratic values of the US of A.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
An article written by a Zionist, gee, I wonder which way this article is going to lean. Come on man, u can do better then that. Or not.
You do realize that the Palestinians need to negotiate with zionists don't you?
A just settlement cannot be reached if you ignore them. You are proving my point that Israel has no one to negotiate with.
do you honestly believe they wish to negotiate?
Yes. Israel knows that the status quo cannot continue.
So lemme ask you then, have you questioned why those proposals were rejected throughout the years? If memory serves a major sticking point was surrounding the palestinian refugees STILL in camps to this day. PLO wanted right of return for them. Israel rejected out of hand. Is that really unreasonable for that right?
That probably is the largest sticking point for sure and I am not sure what the correct solution is. There are Israelis who believe there should be zero right of return. There are those who believe that every generation of displaced individuals with Palestinian heritage should be able to return. I am one who believes there should be "some" right of return but how we get to that number is difficult. Israel would be willing to accept some number of people as well as the handover of additional land regardless of internal opposition. Remember they once removed jewish settlers from Gaza by force and under the right conditions they would be willing to do that again. The question is whether there is a Palestinian government willing to accept that deal? Hamas runs the show now and they seek full destruction of Israel. How does one negotiate with them?
So with your theory, Israel doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas and Hamas doesn't want to negotiate with Israel. So now what?
The world joins nations such as Egypt in crushing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will then be able to exert control and deal with Israel without having to worry about the Islamist rejectionists.
Crushing a democratically elected government. Ok, and then what happens when "nothing" happens and the Palestinian people are "still" prisoners in their "own" country? And anther group, like Ben has stated already, comes up because again, you can't kill an idea. Just like the Zionists have an idea for Israel, the Palestinians have an idea for their own land. Goes back and forth.
Edit-here's a theory, why not America and Israel join the "rest" of the world. Seems to be them and a tiny few islands in the pacific somewhere that support any actions Israel has taken.
And Canada
Fuck Stephen Harper.
This Canadian supports that statement 100%
This Harper government does not speak for me.
Did you guys vote in the last two elections?
yes.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
An article written by a Zionist, gee, I wonder which way this article is going to lean. Come on man, u can do better then that. Or not.
You do realize that the Palestinians need to negotiate with zionists don't you?
A just settlement cannot be reached if you ignore them. You are proving my point that Israel has no one to negotiate with.
do you honestly believe they wish to negotiate?
Yes. Israel knows that the status quo cannot continue.
So lemme ask you then, have you questioned why those proposals were rejected throughout the years? If memory serves a major sticking point was surrounding the palestinian refugees STILL in camps to this day. PLO wanted right of return for them. Israel rejected out of hand. Is that really unreasonable for that right?
That probably is the largest sticking point for sure and I am not sure what the correct solution is. There are Israelis who believe there should be zero right of return. There are those who believe that every generation of displaced individuals with Palestinian heritage should be able to return. I am one who believes there should be "some" right of return but how we get to that number is difficult. Israel would be willing to accept some number of people as well as the handover of additional land regardless of internal opposition. Remember they once removed jewish settlers from Gaza by force and under the right conditions they would be willing to do that again. The question is whether there is a Palestinian government willing to accept that deal? Hamas runs the show now and they seek full destruction of Israel. How does one negotiate with them?
So with your theory, Israel doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas and Hamas doesn't want to negotiate with Israel. So now what?
The world joins nations such as Egypt in crushing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will then be able to exert control and deal with Israel without having to worry about the Islamist rejectionists.
Crushing a democratically elected government. Ok, and then what happens when "nothing" happens and the Palestinian people are "still" prisoners in their "own" country? And anther group, like Ben has stated already, comes up because again, you can't kill an idea. Just like the Zionists have an idea for Israel, the Palestinians have an idea for their own land. Goes back and forth.
Edit-here's a theory, why not America and Israel join the "rest" of the world. Seems to be them and a tiny few islands in the pacific somewhere that support any actions Israel has taken.
And Canada
Fuck Stephen Harper.
This Canadian supports that statement 100%
This Harper government does not speak for me.
Did you guys vote in the last two elections?
Of course.
So is that yes?
You trolling again?
I have learned the hard way that trolling actually means asking questions people don't want to answer.
So.....
I'm trying to figure out where "of course" is not an answer. Is that confusing to you? A cryptic answer?
You have anything to add to the subject matter at hand?
yeah, I'm not sure where "of course" doesn't obviously mean "yes". either way.....
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
How is this even fucken possible in 2015? Another Palestinian family being evicted from their OWN home theyve rented since 1953! All for more settlements. Straight bullshit. Can't wait to hear the defenders of these acts.
And some have an issue with Israel negotiating with Hamas yet this is ok. Let's kick people out of their own homes and build settlements for people that don't belong there. Yes, anyone stealing land illegally does NOT belong there.
Third - fuck Stephen Harper. He does not speak for me. And....of course.... I voted.
Canadians have traditionally been way more critical of Israel than the US, in public opinion and diplomatically. Even since Harper's reign began, and Canadians have become subjected by our government, and (by proxy or not?) our media, to constant US-style fear mongering over 'Islamic' terrorism, support is still pretty evenly divided between the two sides, with a majority favouring neutrality. However...ALL THREE of the major political parties now show basically unequivocal support for Israel (what happened to 'opposition parties'?). Harper has taken our relations with Israel to unprecedented levels...completely out of balance with public opinion.....which basically proves the point about the Israel lobby's influence over government (and also Harper's religious extremism).
How is this even fucken possible in 2015? Another Palestinian family being evicted from their OWN home theyve rented since 1953! All for more settlements. Straight bullshit. Can't wait to hear the defenders of these acts.
How is this even fucken possible in 2015? Another Palestinian family being evicted from their OWN home theyve rented since 1953! All for more settlements. Straight bullshit. Can't wait to hear the defenders of these acts.
How is this even fucken possible in 2015? Another Palestinian family being evicted from their OWN home theyve rented since 1953! All for more settlements. Straight bullshit. Can't wait to hear the defenders of these acts.
Wait, so the land's owner sold the land and the new owners want the renters out so they can move in and you think this is a crime?
That's what u got from the article? Damn, I mite have re read it again cuz that's not what I got from it. I should be pleased that u actually read the article but seeing your response, I doubt u read it clearly. But nice to see u support settlers taken land that doesn't belong to them. You got any land there? Just curious.
You should read it to the bottom and read between the lines. As is often the case in this region, the facts are much more complicated and most of these facts are omitted from the press coverage. Unfortunately we do not have an author's name in this case, but to me the bias is pretty obvious. That aside, read the last two paragraphs: "Jewish groups have bought property there through shadowy frontmen and straw companies. Selling land to Israeli settlers is viewed as treason by the Palestinians and carries a penalty of life imprisonment. Some alleged perpetrators have been killed."
Why would the author mention these facts if not for the reason that this eviction was over land purchased from an Arab by an Israeli? In most cases, the "shadowy" (again, an unnecessary editorialized comment by the author revealing bias) frontmen are in place in order to PROTECT the Arab selling the land since they could be imprisoned or killed if they openly sold land to an Israeli. Just think about that for a moment. They could be imprisoned or killed if they sell their own land.
Nowhere in the article does it mention that this family being evicted owns this property in question or that an Arab property owner is being evicted for "settlers." That's just your assumption, and based on how this piece is written, I can't say I blame you or anyone for coming to this conclusion, though it is sadly not the facts.
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
And wether a shadowy buyer buys the house from said Arab, wouldn't they find out that he sold it anyways?
The point of the middleman is for the seller to be able to claim ignorance and hopefully not face these draconian penalties for selling his property to the buyer and for the price of his choosing.
Nart, in this case I'm going to have to agree with JohnnieBeBlue. While the motives of the sale are disturbing (land acquisition for expansionism), this becomes a legal issue regarding tenant's rights when a residence moves over from Palestinian jurisdiction to Israeli. I don't know about foreign purchase regulations in the region, but those aside, I would assume you or I would have the very same right to purchase a Palestinian or Israeli residence and evict a tenant if we so chose (depending on Israeli tenancy laws, which it seems like prefer the landlord).
Personally, my issue is that if a Palestinian somehow could afford to buy Israeli land or an Israeli home (difficult when Israeli GDP per capita hovers above 10x that within the Palestinian territories), he or she would not be able to frictionlessly be able to move between his or her friends and family in the West Bank or Gaza, and Israel.
This got me questioning the legality for Arabs to purchase land within Israel, and I stumbled upon this. I know that CAMERA is highly biased, but I was quite surprised to read some of this. Wonder if anyone can confirm or deny any of this. http://www.meforum.org/370/can-arabs-buy-land-in-israel
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
Benjs could just be postulating here. If these tenants are correct in their description then the land they are on was previously Jordanian from 1953 all the way through until 1967 when it became Israeli. If that's the case are they not Jordanian themselves? At what point did they self-identify as Palestinian? What makes this occupied Palestinian land as opposed to surrendered Jordanian land that they don't intend to reclaim. All important points to ponder when deciding who this property belongs too.
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
Benjs could just be postulating here. If these tenants are correct in their description then the land they are on was previously Jordanian from 1953 all the way through until 1967 when it became Israeli. If that's the case are they not Jordanian themselves? At what point did they self-identify as Palestinian? What makes this occupied Palestinian land as opposed to surrendered Jordanian land that they don't intend to reclaim. All important points to ponder when deciding who this property belongs too.
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
Benjs could just be postulating here. If these tenants are correct in their description then the land they are on was previously Jordanian from 1953 all the way through until 1967 when it became Israeli. If that's the case are they not Jordanian themselves? At what point did they self-identify as Palestinian? What makes this occupied Palestinian land as opposed to surrendered Jordanian land that they don't intend to reclaim. All important points to ponder when deciding who this property belongs too.
East Jerusalem never became Israeli land. It was illegally occupied in 1967. The entire international community recognizes this - including the US and Canada. My understanding is that under the Ottoman empire, the entire region was considered Palestina. For about 600 years. Jews and arabs in the area were all considered Palestinians, and lived in relative peaceful coexistence. It wasn't until the Zionist movement began that tensions rose between the groups..... Palestine was created at the same time as Israel. So you could flip all of your questions around and ask them of Israel. The whole 'Palestine never existed - they're Jordanians, and Jordan doesn't even want them' line of thinking is usually reserved for the most indoctrinated Zionists, so you're walking the line of extremism here....These people do not have equal rights in Jerusalem, they have been marginalized and systematically removed to allow further Israeli control. Whether you like it or not, they exist, and they deserve equal rights; whether sovereign or within Israel (two state or one state). This line of thinking excuses all Israeli discrimination on the grounds that the arabs in the area have no claim to the land their families have lived on for centuries.
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
Benjs could just be postulating here. If these tenants are correct in their description then the land they are on was previously Jordanian from 1953 all the way through until 1967 when it became Israeli. If that's the case are they not Jordanian themselves? At what point did they self-identify as Palestinian? What makes this occupied Palestinian land as opposed to surrendered Jordanian land that they don't intend to reclaim. All important points to ponder when deciding who this property belongs too.
East Jerusalem never became Israeli land. It was illegally occupied in 1967. The entire international community recognizes this - including the US and Canada. My understanding is that under the Ottoman empire, the entire region was considered Palestina. For about 600 years. Jews and arabs in the area were all considered Palestinians, and lived in relative peaceful coexistence. It wasn't until the Zionist movement began that tensions rose between the groups..... Palestine was created at the same time as Israel. So you could flip all of your questions around and ask them of Israel. The whole 'Palestine never existed - they're Jordanians, and Jordan doesn't even want them' line of thinking is usually reserved for the most indoctrinated Zionists, so you're walking the line of extremism here....These people do not have equal rights in Jerusalem, they have been marginalized and systematically removed to allow further Israeli control. Whether you like it or not, they exist, and they deserve equal rights; whether sovereign or within Israel (two state or one state). This line of thinking excuses all Israeli discrimination on the grounds that the arabs in the area have no claim to the land their families have lived on for centuries.
Thanks Kyle - things get so much clearer when you chip in!
I do have one question, and forgive me if this is silly... Is there such a thing as a legal occupation? My understanding is that the area of the West Bank was occupied by Jordan before (i.e. they wouldn't be considered Jordanians per se), so I'm truly curious how that occupation was legitimized back then. I guess it's possible that their degree of subjugation to Jordanian rule wasn't quite as extreme (which would seem likely to me).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
Benjs could just be postulating here. If these tenants are correct in their description then the land they are on was previously Jordanian from 1953 all the way through until 1967 when it became Israeli. If that's the case are they not Jordanian themselves? At what point did they self-identify as Palestinian? What makes this occupied Palestinian land as opposed to surrendered Jordanian land that they don't intend to reclaim. All important points to ponder when deciding who this property belongs too.
East Jerusalem never became Israeli land. It was illegally occupied in 1967. The entire international community recognizes this - including the US and Canada. My understanding is that under the Ottoman empire, the entire region was considered Palestina. For about 600 years. Jews and arabs in the area were all considered Palestinians, and lived in relative peaceful coexistence. It wasn't until the Zionist movement began that tensions rose between the groups..... Palestine was created at the same time as Israel. So you could flip all of your questions around and ask them of Israel. The whole 'Palestine never existed - they're Jordanians, and Jordan doesn't even want them' line of thinking is usually reserved for the most indoctrinated Zionists, so you're walking the line of extremism here....These people do not have equal rights in Jerusalem, they have been marginalized and systematically removed to allow further Israeli control. Whether you like it or not, they exist, and they deserve equal rights; whether sovereign or within Israel (two state or one state). This line of thinking excuses all Israeli discrimination on the grounds that the arabs in the area have no claim to the land their families have lived on for centuries.
Thanks Kyle - things get so much clearer when you chip in!
I do have one question, and forgive me if this is silly... Is there such a thing as a legal occupation? My understanding is that the area of the West Bank was occupied by Jordan before (i.e. they wouldn't be considered Jordanians per se), so I'm truly curious how that occupation was legitimized back then. I guess it's possible that their degree of subjugation to Jordanian rule wasn't quite as extreme (which would seem likely to me).
This is my same question. Was this land Jordanian land prior to 1967 or not? The tenants being evicted describe it as such.
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
Benjs could just be postulating here. If these tenants are correct in their description then the land they are on was previously Jordanian from 1953 all the way through until 1967 when it became Israeli. If that's the case are they not Jordanian themselves? At what point did they self-identify as Palestinian? What makes this occupied Palestinian land as opposed to surrendered Jordanian land that they don't intend to reclaim. All important points to ponder when deciding who this property belongs too.
East Jerusalem never became Israeli land. It was illegally occupied in 1967. The entire international community recognizes this - including the US and Canada. My understanding is that under the Ottoman empire, the entire region was considered Palestina. For about 600 years. Jews and arabs in the area were all considered Palestinians, and lived in relative peaceful coexistence. It wasn't until the Zionist movement began that tensions rose between the groups..... Palestine was created at the same time as Israel. So you could flip all of your questions around and ask them of Israel. The whole 'Palestine never existed - they're Jordanians, and Jordan doesn't even want them' line of thinking is usually reserved for the most indoctrinated Zionists, so you're walking the line of extremism here....These people do not have equal rights in Jerusalem, they have been marginalized and systematically removed to allow further Israeli control. Whether you like it or not, they exist, and they deserve equal rights; whether sovereign or within Israel (two state or one state). This line of thinking excuses all Israeli discrimination on the grounds that the arabs in the area have no claim to the land their families have lived on for centuries.
Thanks Kyle - things get so much clearer when you chip in!
I do have one question, and forgive me if this is silly... Is there such a thing as a legal occupation? My understanding is that the area of the West Bank was occupied by Jordan before (i.e. they wouldn't be considered Jordanians per se), so I'm truly curious how that occupation was legitimized back then. I guess it's possible that their degree of subjugation to Jordanian rule wasn't quite as extreme (which would seem likely to me).
This is my same question. Was this land Jordanian land prior to 1967 or not? The tenants being evicted describe it as such.
What I'm reading is it went from the hands of the Ottoman Empire over to become part of the British Mandate of Palestine (the people being self-governed as per the terms of the Mandate). Jordan then occupied the region in '48, and annexed in '50.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But the facts are settlers are taking land from the Palestinians illegally and that's not debatable. Even the US is somewhat admitting that although ain't doing shit about it.
That's my entire point. No land was taken. There was no theft. This was a property owner making a sale, unless that's also now illegal.
The other interesting point in the article is that it states the land was previously owned by Jordan prior to the war. If Jordan doesn't want it back I am not exactly sure how it is automatically assumed to be Palestinian land?
The UN Partition Plan cordoned off a region for the "Jewish state" - the implicit assumption that the remainder was for Arabs. Fast forward a few years to the conclusion of the War of Independence... Anything I've read about the Armistice Lines of '49 mark off "Jewish" territory and "Arab" territory. I see both of these as valid grounds to assume the land ought to have defaulted to the indigenous Arabs of the land.
Well according to the article linked above this specific land was Jordanian land pre-1967. That's how the long-standing tenants describe it.
From the article:
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
Benjs could just be postulating here. If these tenants are correct in their description then the land they are on was previously Jordanian from 1953 all the way through until 1967 when it became Israeli. If that's the case are they not Jordanian themselves? At what point did they self-identify as Palestinian? What makes this occupied Palestinian land as opposed to surrendered Jordanian land that they don't intend to reclaim. All important points to ponder when deciding who this property belongs too.
East Jerusalem never became Israeli land. It was illegally occupied in 1967. The entire international community recognizes this - including the US and Canada. My understanding is that under the Ottoman empire, the entire region was considered Palestina. For about 600 years. Jews and arabs in the area were all considered Palestinians, and lived in relative peaceful coexistence. It wasn't until the Zionist movement began that tensions rose between the groups..... Palestine was created at the same time as Israel. So you could flip all of your questions around and ask them of Israel. The whole 'Palestine never existed - they're Jordanians, and Jordan doesn't even want them' line of thinking is usually reserved for the most indoctrinated Zionists, so you're walking the line of extremism here....These people do not have equal rights in Jerusalem, they have been marginalized and systematically removed to allow further Israeli control. Whether you like it or not, they exist, and they deserve equal rights; whether sovereign or within Israel (two state or one state). This line of thinking excuses all Israeli discrimination on the grounds that the arabs in the area have no claim to the land their families have lived on for centuries.
I recognize that they exist and I recognize they should have rights. I also recognize that the Arab private property owners should have the right to sell their land at top dollar to whoever they like without the threat of death from the Palestinian Authority. If this land was originally surrendered Jordanian land then by what right does the Palestinian Authority have to threaten an Arab private property owner who's ownership pre-dates the Palestinian Authority?
Comments
So.....
You have anything to add to the subject matter at hand?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
http://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-protest-planned-jerusalem-evictions-170854674.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw
Canadians have traditionally been way more critical of Israel than the US, in public opinion and diplomatically. Even since Harper's reign began, and Canadians have become subjected by our government, and (by proxy or not?) our media, to constant US-style fear mongering over 'Islamic' terrorism, support is still pretty evenly divided between the two sides, with a majority favouring neutrality.
However...ALL THREE of the major political parties now show basically unequivocal support for Israel (what happened to 'opposition parties'?). Harper has taken our relations with Israel to unprecedented levels...completely out of balance with public opinion.....which basically proves the point about the Israel lobby's influence over government (and also Harper's religious extremism).
"Jewish groups have bought property there through shadowy frontmen and straw companies. Selling land to Israeli settlers is viewed as treason by the Palestinians and carries a penalty of life imprisonment. Some alleged perpetrators have been killed."
Why would the author mention these facts if not for the reason that this eviction was over land purchased from an Arab by an Israeli? In most cases, the "shadowy" (again, an unnecessary editorialized comment by the author revealing bias) frontmen are in place in order to PROTECT the Arab selling the land since they could be imprisoned or killed if they openly sold land to an Israeli. Just think about that for a moment. They could be imprisoned or killed if they sell their own land.
Nowhere in the article does it mention that this family being evicted owns this property in question or that an Arab property owner is being evicted for "settlers." That's just your assumption, and based on how this piece is written, I can't say I blame you or anyone for coming to this conclusion, though it is sadly not the facts.
Personally, my issue is that if a Palestinian somehow could afford to buy Israeli land or an Israeli home (difficult when Israeli GDP per capita hovers above 10x that within the Palestinian territories), he or she would not be able to frictionlessly be able to move between his or her friends and family in the West Bank or Gaza, and Israel.
This got me questioning the legality for Arabs to purchase land within Israel, and I stumbled upon this. I know that CAMERA is highly biased, but I was quite surprised to read some of this. Wonder if anyone can confirm or deny any of this. http://www.meforum.org/370/can-arabs-buy-land-in-israel
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Rafat Sub Laban, who lives there with his parents, his sister and his brother's wife and children, said the family have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan.
According to the article it says they've been renting since 1953. And according to the year Ben had in his post, it stated the land was divided in 1949. Correct? Is my calculations wrong? Am I missing something here? 49 come before 53?
My understanding is that under the Ottoman empire, the entire region was considered Palestina. For about 600 years. Jews and arabs in the area were all considered Palestinians, and lived in relative peaceful coexistence. It wasn't until the Zionist movement began that tensions rose between the groups.....
Palestine was created at the same time as Israel. So you could flip all of your questions around and ask them of Israel. The whole 'Palestine never existed - they're Jordanians, and Jordan doesn't even want them' line of thinking is usually reserved for the most indoctrinated Zionists, so you're walking the line of extremism here....These people do not have equal rights in Jerusalem, they have been marginalized and systematically removed to allow further Israeli control. Whether you like it or not, they exist, and they deserve equal rights; whether sovereign or within Israel (two state or one state). This line of thinking excuses all Israeli discrimination on the grounds that the arabs in the area have no claim to the land their families have lived on for centuries.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/boehner-israel-shock-spying-report/70371054/
I do have one question, and forgive me if this is silly... Is there such a thing as a legal occupation? My understanding is that the area of the West Bank was occupied by Jordan before (i.e. they wouldn't be considered Jordanians per se), so I'm truly curious how that occupation was legitimized back then. I guess it's possible that their degree of subjugation to Jordanian rule wasn't quite as extreme (which would seem likely to me).
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1