THREAD 1/ SHEIKH JARRAH:
It all started with a court eviction of Palestinian tenants in Sheikh Jarrah that refuse to pay rent of property that turn out to be legally owned by Jews for more than 100 years.
It all started with a court eviction of Palestinian tenants in Sheikh Jarrah that refuse to pay rent of property that turn out to be legally owned by Jews for more than 100 years.
2/ This is not supposed to be a political matter but it has become one because the tenants are Palestinian and the owners are Jewish. If both the owners and tenants were to be Palestinian, we all know we wouldn’t even be hearing about this.
3/ The point is: the court is strictly analysing ownership documents and rules accordingly and cannot interfere with the political issue behind it.
East Jerusalem is considered by the international community as occupied area. Israel disputes that but that is not the issue here.
East Jerusalem is considered by the international community as occupied area. Israel disputes that but that is not the issue here.
4/ We are dealing with a private property matter that regularly happens between Jews amongst themselves and Palestinians amongst themselves. This case is not supposed to be any different.
Israel critics have adopted the position that property rights should depend on ethnicity...
Israel critics have adopted the position that property rights should depend on ethnicity...
5/ and that Jews cannot be owners of property in East Jerusalem. As it all comes down to: the question is if Jews are allowed to even have legally owned property in East Jerusalem. If we strictly apply international law the answer is YES.
6/ However, the Israel critics are actually continuing the bigoted position of the Jordanian rule that denied Jews any property rights.
After 67 war, Israel of course reinstated the property rights of everyone regardless of ethnicity by passing a law in 1970 which...
After 67 war, Israel of course reinstated the property rights of everyone regardless of ethnicity by passing a law in 1970 which...
7/ preserved the rights of private parties also for those who received ownership title from the Jordanians; and those are only Arabs because Jordanians denied Jewish ownership of property. Yet despite the discrimination of previous regimes..
8/ this law allows the Jordanian title to be lawful.
This means that Israel did not grant anyone ownership based on ethnicity, on the contrary, Israeli law respected the property rights by the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate of Palestine and the Jordanian occupation..
This means that Israel did not grant anyone ownership based on ethnicity, on the contrary, Israeli law respected the property rights by the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate of Palestine and the Jordanian occupation..
9/ and that despite the fact they have discriminated against the Jews in their property laws.
As for the ones screaming International law: claiming this is occupied Palestinian territory does not mean individual Jews cannot own property in that land.
As for the ones screaming International law: claiming this is occupied Palestinian territory does not mean individual Jews cannot own property in that land.
10/ I challenge you to find one article in international law that allows Israel or any other entity to deny property rights to Jews.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
