Lots of people know about Sheikh Jarra, where a long legal process eventually resulted in the eviction of a few Palestinian families who refused to pay rent; they were replaced by Jews. Palestinians in the same building who do pay are still there, and not going anywhere. This is turning into a cause célèbre for the anti-Israel crowd.
Meanwhile, about two miles to the south the opposite story has finished its wending through the courts. A Jewish group purchased a plot of land in the Arab section of Silwan and built a seven-story apartment building there. They called it Beit Yonatan, Jonathan's House, in honor of Jonathan Pollard. In this case, it was the Jews who lost the ensuing court case; my understanding is that they built significantly higher than the zoning rules allow, in their attempt to fit as many Jews as possible into the little space they had acquired.
The mayor, Nir Barkat, has been dragging his feet in complying to the court order to evict the Jews and seal the building. I know the mayor personally, though not that well; some people I know know him very well. I believe him when he says his intention was to hammer out an agreement that would resolve all the illegal building issues in Silwan; that's the way he works. The State Prosecutor, however, isn't an elected politician, he's a lawyer, and he has been demanding that the mayor follow the law first, and perhaps resolve the larger issue later. So the mayor has announced he'll comply: he'll enforce all the court decisions, those against the Jews and those against the Arabs - although, he warns, enforcing the decisions against Palestinians will probably lead to riots. (And undoubtedly they'll lead to wall-to-wall condemnation of Israel, from the White House down).
It's like watching a train wreck about to happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Yaacov - from what I understand, the court ruling was based on Ottoman era documents which were disproved: the building had only been rented to a Jewish group and not sold. Even if it was originally owned by Jews, does this mean that Palestinians should have the right to property they owned pre-1948?
What? Now you've lost me.
OK well let's stick to the second question, which surely you understand. Should this mean that Palestinians should have rights over property they owned pre-1948? Should Palestinians be allowed to return to these properties?
OK well let's stick to the second question, which surely you understand. Should this mean that Palestinians should have rights over property they owned pre-1948? Should Palestinians be allowed to return to these properties?
Alex
Palestinians DO have rights to their pre-1948 properties, providing they did not sell them to individuals or governmental organizations, pre-or post-state. Absentee properties are held in some kind of trust.
Alex -
I don't see how your question relates to my post. None of the cases in it are what you're asking about. Beit Yonatan has nothing to do with who owned what pre-1948: the plot was purchased recently. The 200 buildings that the courts have said should be demolished are not built on Jewish property; their problem is that they were built illegally. The Palestinians evicted in Sheikh Jarrah refused to pay rent.
I expect you know this, and are trying to frame the discussion so as to fit some agenda. Fine - but at least base the agenda upon facts.
I see you've spent time in India. I think what we need here is similar to what they've got there: Property left behind in India by the people who became Pakistanis can't be claimed by them, and vice versa. But that's my personal opinion, not a legal deposition. Within each state, citizens can own legally acquired property, irrespective of their ethnic identity. Thus, if a Jewish Israeli sells property to an Arab Israeli, no problem. Indeed,that's the situation.
Yaacov - they have been asked to pay the rent to people whose ownership documents are dubious to say the least. That's the problem.
Alex,
Let's say you're renting an apartment. Your part of the deal is to pay rent. If there's an argument among different people about who owns the apartment, you are still supposed to pay the rent; they'll have to figure out among themselves who gets your money.
Unless, you seem to be saying, the renters are Palestinians and the owners (according to the courts) are Jews. Then it's a matter of human rights.
I never cease to be amazed by the lengths people will go, or in this case, the lengths they'll stretch human rights to, in order to prove the Israelis are Bad.
Anyway, the whole point of this post was about how the lawyers are insisting on equal application of the law, while a politician sees how that's going to cause an explosion but has given up trying to avert it since the lawyers don't allow him the leeway. You tried to hijack the matter in another direction. Time to let it be, don't you think?
If there's an argument among different people about who owns the apartment, you are still supposed to pay the rent; they'll have to figure out among themselves who gets your money.
R' Yaakov, surely you remember this frequent phrase in the last few tractates: "Hamotzi mechavero alav haraya"?
In this case I understood that the court did decide who owned it - but why would the owners have an obligation to pay rent to anyone in the absence of this decision?
Joe in Australia
if I rent a place around here I sign or agree to a verbal contract and this contract obliges me to pay someone. If somebody else contests the right of my contract-partner to collect the rent I have to go on paying until the law or my contract-partner tells me to do otherwise
As far as I am concerned legal fights of my contract-partner do not concern me unless I get an OFFICIAL order from state authorities to take notice resp. from my contract partner himself. Not even common knowledge all around the town or the county or the whole world entitles me to make my own decision on whom I owe rent to
I am not a lawyer so this is only my common sense view of how a contract obliges me to behave.
Silke
Silke,
You're correct, but you have to look at the consequences of your failure to follow the terms of the contract. The person you've been paying rent to - call him Jones - will go to court and try to get an eviction order. You will tell the court that Jones has no right to evict you, because he's not the owner of the property, and in fact he needs to return the money you paid. And you will file a request that the other person claiming rent - call her Smith - come to court to defend her right. If you wanted to you could actually have gone to court yourself to begin this whole process, but it would cost you more.
Joe -
I don't think anyone claimed to be the alternative owner.The renters said something along the line of "the Jews can't be the owners so we'll not pay". The court eventually rejected this.
As for ha-mozi mehavero, yes, but it seemed to me in many of the cases unclear which side the motzi was.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=168591
Post a Comment