Now back to Israel as usual

badbrains

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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?

BS44325

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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.

badbrains

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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.

Wow, smh

Drowned Out

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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.

badbrains

Boehner 'shocked' by report of Israeli spying:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/boehner-israel-shock-spying-report/70371054/

benjs

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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).

BS44325

benjs said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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.

badbrains

I believe the owner of the land is Jordanian. That's what I'm getting.

benjs

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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.

BS44325

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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?

benjs

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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?

This is a bit of a deflection from the original question, no?

Frankly, I don't care whether a Jordanian/Palestinian/Israeli owned the land in the past. The implicit assumption is that either a Jewish lobby, the Israeli government, or an Israeli Jew purchased the land. What right does said person/entity have to go against explicit Israeli founding values (equal rights for all citizens regardless of race or religion, as stipulated by Balfour) to evict an Arab family for being an Arab family? I get the feeling there aren't too many Jews being evicted to make room for Jewish settlements...

BS44325

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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?

This is a bit of a deflection from the original question, no?

Frankly, I don't care whether a Jordanian/Palestinian/Israeli owned the land in the past. The implicit assumption is that either a Jewish lobby, the Israeli government, or an Israeli Jew purchased the land. What right does said person/entity have to go against explicit Israeli founding values (equal rights for all citizens regardless of race or religion, as stipulated by Balfour) to evict an Arab family for being an Arab family? I get the feeling there aren't too many Jews being evicted to make room for Jewish settlements...

If the family is being evicted for just being Arab then that certainly is a problem but that isn't necessarily what is happening here. It seems that an Arab landlord is making a sale and the question is whether the tenant has a right to remain after the sale whether they are arab or not. That would depend on the lease agreement they have.

benjs

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

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?

This is a bit of a deflection from the original question, no?

Frankly, I don't care whether a Jordanian/Palestinian/Israeli owned the land in the past. The implicit assumption is that either a Jewish lobby, the Israeli government, or an Israeli Jew purchased the land. What right does said person/entity have to go against explicit Israeli founding values (equal rights for all citizens regardless of race or religion, as stipulated by Balfour) to evict an Arab family for being an Arab family? I get the feeling there aren't too many Jews being evicted to make room for Jewish settlements...

If the family is being evicted for just being Arab then that certainly is a problem but that isn't necessarily what is happening here. It seems that an Arab landlord is making a sale and the question is whether the tenant has a right to remain after the sale whether they are arab or not. That would depend on the lease agreement they have.

This is a valuable lesson for me in not taking anything at face value. Truly, at first, I'd assume 9 out of 10 people would call 'foul play' upon reading the article. Now, at best it seems poorly written, and at worst potentially slanderous (depending on the true ownership of the residence). The fact that they're being evicted "to make way for Jewish settlements" seems to be nothing more than hyperbole without supporting evidence as well.

Does this make Israel heroic? Nope. But with significant details omitted, I see no reason to criticize them on this count: there are plenty more justifiable causes for criticism if need be.

badbrains

I just googled Palestinian family evicted and shit, too many fucken stories to list. But I found this article about what we're talking about. It's a lot more complicated then I first thought:

http://972mag.com/palestinian-family-under-threat-of-eviction-by-settlers/104674/

Drowned Out

benjs said:

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).

I'm no expert on international law...but I believe a legal occupation would be one voted on and agreed to by the UN.

BS44325 said:

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?

This land has changed hands a number of times over the years...it's pretty mind boggling to go back thru decades, then centuries, and decide at what point do you declare which group the rightful, historical owners. The facts on the ground, as they stand today, are that the policies enacted in East Jerusalem have only one goal - expel as many Palestinians as possible, and move Jews into the city to replace them. They accomplish this via one-sided absentee laws, one-sided construction permits, one-sided funding for infrastructure and social programs, expropriation, one-sided processes for citizenship (for people BORN in the fuckin place), revoking residency permits, building walls, declaring Palestinian land 'Israeli national parks', limiting Palestinians ability to find and keep jobs, cutting off utilities, and any other way they can find to either use discriminatory laws to remove Palestinians from the land, or make their lives miserable enough that they move from East Jerusalem. Basically the same things that are happening all over the occupied territories, but in a much more concentrated environment, with the added aggravations of being adjacent to 'holy' land....
The family mentioned in the OP says that they are the only Palestinian family left in their apartment building (they claim most of the buildings around them are occupied entirely by Jewish settlers), and have been fighting for their home in court for over 20 years. http://www.maannews.com/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=759929 . Good info on discrimination as well.
Click around B'tselem's (Israeli human rights org) East Jerusalem page for more info on the Israeli's tactics in East Jerusalem:

http://www.btselem.org/topic/jerusalem

mickeyrat

Until the creation of Israel as a state, Britain maintained Palestine as a colonial property. So being in control of territory doesnt mean "ownership" per se.

benjs

mickeyrat said:

Until the creation of Israel as a state, Britain maintained Palestine as a colonial property. So being in control of territory doesnt mean "ownership" per se.

Yep... I'd read that the British didn't actually have any sovereignty over the region.

JohnnieBeBlue

badbrains said:

I just googled Palestinian family evicted and shit, too many fucken stories to list. But I found this article about what we're talking about. It's a lot more complicated then I first thought:

http://972mag.com/palestinian-family-under-threat-of-eviction-by-settlers/104674/

Propaganda posing as a news article. The author almost gets away with it until:
"Last Monday, Israeli and Palestinian activists went to the Sub Laban home in order to prevent a possible eviction. Due to our presence, the police agreed to wait and see whether the family’s lawyer will be able to get the court to delay the eviction."
So, no, not an unbiased reporter. Actually, a self described "activist."

benjs

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

I just googled Palestinian family evicted and shit, too many fucken stories to list. But I found this article about what we're talking about. It's a lot more complicated then I first thought:

http://972mag.com/palestinian-family-under-threat-of-eviction-by-settlers/104674/

Propaganda posing as a news article. The author almost gets away with it until:
"Last Monday, Israeli and Palestinian activists went to the Sub Laban home in order to prevent a possible eviction. Due to our presence, the police agreed to wait and see whether the family’s lawyer will be able to get the court to delay the eviction."
So, no, not an unbiased reporter. Actually, a self described "activist."

How do you learn anything if you're only willing to accept facts from those without bias? Essentially, you're left with articles written by robots. And depending on who programmed the robot, those might not be fair game either. Seems to me better to read from multiple biases than none.

How can you write this off as propaganda without knowing whether the document is factually accurate or not?

JohnnieBeBlue

benjs said:

JohnnieBeBlue said:

badbrains said:

I just googled Palestinian family evicted and shit, too many fucken stories to list. But I found this article about what we're talking about. It's a lot more complicated then I first thought:

http://972mag.com/palestinian-family-under-threat-of-eviction-by-settlers/104674/

Propaganda posing as a news article. The author almost gets away with it until:
"Last Monday, Israeli and Palestinian activists went to the Sub Laban home in order to prevent a possible eviction. Due to our presence, the police agreed to wait and see whether the family’s lawyer will be able to get the court to delay the eviction."
So, no, not an unbiased reporter. Actually, a self described "activist."

How do you learn anything if you're only willing to accept facts from those without bias? Essentially, you're left with articles written by robots. And depending on who programmed the robot, those might not be fair game either. Seems to me better to read from multiple biases than none.

How can you write this off as propaganda without knowing whether the document is factually accurate or not?

You make a good point. I don't mean to completely write it off as propaganda. I'm just saying that the author clearly has chosen sides and has an agenda. Some of the article may be true, but I would be highly skeptical considering some of the inflammatory language and accusations thrown around.