Ethnic Cleansing

The trouble with the term "ethnic cleansing" is that it loses its meaning when repeatedly used to describe situations which are so mundane and uninteresting.

This is ethnic cleansing.

Ethinc cleansing by people of the same ethic group Matt? Another massive failure of logic

i wonder if Matt would find it so mundane and uninteresting if it was his home that was being expropriated and / or bulldozed

just because the ethnic cleansing of east jerusalem is being carried out at an easy going catchee monkey pace doesnt make it any the less ethnic and any the less cleansing. its part of tthe Israeli tactic of preparing for concessions over east jerusalem whereby they will say ok you can have jurisdiction over the arab neighbourhoods but we will have jurisdiction over the jewish neighbourhoods,

oh dear there does seem to be rather more jewish neighbourhoods then their was a while ago doesnt there ?

StephenB no I would not find it mundane or uninteresting if it were my home or the home of a loved one, but it's not.

People get thrown out of their homes every day in every city in every country in the world. In Britain alone 43,000 people had their homes taken away from them in 2009 alone.

It's wrong, I feel for the people that end up homeless, but it is NOT ethnic cleansing. The OP is politicising a human tragedy, and that is sinister and cheap.

newsmax, your blog-title "Ethnic Cleansing" is a lie …

these tenants are not being forced out of the area, only out of the particular building … they are free to relocate nearby … unlike the original jewish occupants, who were ethnically cleansed, since they had to relocate to (effectively) another country

as you should know if you've actually read the haaretz article, these buildings were owned freehold by jews before the jewish nakba in 1948 (the supreme court rejected the argument that they were only leaseholders), and so they're still owned by jews

(this was always acknowledged to be the case for jewish properties in the western part of the area, but the eastern palestinians residents thought they had a document proving a payment under a superior lease … all the present decision does is to rule that there was no such lease)

Over the years the custodian general restored some of the properties to the legal Jewish owners. Other properties were bought by groups that identify themselves with the settlers - either directly by the custodian general or by the inheritors.
…
Sunday the Supreme Court rejected their appeal and ruled that Jews are the owners of the homes.
…
The legal significance of the ruling is that the status of the Palestinians living in the eastern portion of the neighborhood is now the same as that of those living in the western side - subletting Jewish owned property.

those jews either themselves (or through their heirs) seek to obtain possession, or have sold to to others who wish to do so, each time a lease comes to an end

this is normal landlord-and-tenant practice

some leases presumably will not expire for many years, others are expiring now … the present court decision does not evict anyone now, but clarifies the title so that a lower court may order possession on the expiry of each lease

why is your sympathy with the palestinian freeloaders who have enjoyed stolen jewish property for 60 years, and not with the jewish freeholders who were ethnically cleansed in 1948??

@ happygoldfish
Excellent piece!
For which Joe and his ISM buddies can have no answer, (not one that would be credible!)

Nor "newsmax, whoever he/she is?

come off it Matt i am sure not even you are persuaded.

People in the UK get evicted for failure to pay rent or for mortgage default or the landlord chooses not to renew a lease for business reasons;

not a single person in the uk has been evicted in order that the etnicity of the occupancy can be changed.

You perfectly well know that all of this activity in east jerusalem is all about increaseing the jewishness of certain neighbourhoods, neighbourhoods the israeli state is anxi0ous to hang on to when jerusalem is divided And whats in a name. call it what you want

whether we call it ethnic cleansing or not it is racist fascist behaviour, the kind of behaviour no true western style democracy would engage in.

ha ha happy only have to leave their homes and not the area. so they get to sleep under the stars and a bunch of jewish settlers move in ( more jews in the neighbourhood all part of the p-lan ) and get to sleep in the warmth and dry. give over.

not persuaded i meant

StephenB YOU know perfectly well that the ethnicity of the people involved had NOTHING to do with the court's decision but it was a dispute over ownership of the property and failure to pay rent.

Making a factually incorrect political point from someone else's misery is shameful and wrong.

Stop lying. You do yourself no credit.

stephenb, that's obviously untrue …

stephenb: not a single person in the uk has been evicted in order that the etnicity of the occupancy can be changed.

whenever a uk landlord and tenant are of different races, and the landlord seeks to move in, the ethnicity of the occupancy is changed

stephenb: … all of this activity in east jerusalem is all about increaseing the jewishness of certain neighbourhoods

and what's wrong in prinicple in increasing the jewishness of a neighbourhood? …

it happens all the time in the uk that the jewishness or blackness or asianness etc of a neighbourhood increases

do you object when that happens in your neighbourhood?

(and of course there are plenty of uk local authorities who actually practise positive discrimination in some areas in order to get minorities into certain estates)

Stephen B the Jewbaiter who has singularly failed to find any evidence that Avigdor Lieberman is a fascist now believes that since Arab tenants fail to pay rent their eviction by Jewish landlords after due process amounts to ethnic cleansing. So you would support any Afro-Carribean who is evicted from his house in Brixton by a white landlord having the right to take his landlord to a Human Rights court for being ethnically cleansed. And you claim you are are not a Jewbaiter?

stephen b, zair, ibrows are not interested in facts. They just have an obsessive hatred of Jews, so tey show up on this site to spew teir hatred.

stephenb, please provide evidence that the eviction is based on ethnicity. I await your evidence...

oh these tough epistemological questions.....how do i know this how do i know that how does anyone know anything

how do i know that water boils at 100 degreees at sea level what does it mean to know something

patterns of behaviour water has exhibited this pattern of behaviour israel has exhibited this pattern of behaviour try being an arab and getting planning permission in east jerusalem

and yes i am familiar with the story of the turkey who concluded that because every time the man comes into the coup he fed it man coming into the coup means food. except that one christmas eve he wrings its neck.

you all know as well as i do that the battle for east jerusalem is being fought house by house and that the israeli alleged " judiciary " is in the israeli vanguard. An alleged judiciary that has no jurisdiction since the annexation of east jerusalem was entirely illegal. The Israeli judiciary has as much legitamacy in east jerusalem as the Ballymena Orange Lodge has on the Falls Road

happy positive discrimination may be right and it may be wrong but point me to an instance where someone has been EVICTED to further the cause of positive discrimination

Adves when did i claim not to be a jew baiter ? the expression is so ludicrous i wouldnt even give it the time of day. Ackshally there isent a bigger fan of jewishness in the whole world then me. But what the state of israel has become is while not anti semitic is certainly contra semitic.

in fact i sometimes think im the only half decent jew on these blogs an im a freakin catholic

newsmax seems to know more than the Israeli Court

The reason they did not have title to the house was that Jews were "ethnically cleansed" from there 1n 1948.

Don't try to make something out of nothing, SOF

everyone knows more then the israeli " court " oops epistemology again i really must do something about my mind iris stay out of this

Stephenb - I suggest you look up the definition of a Jewbaiter. There simply can be only one reason for you to be so exercised by the fact that following due process a Jewish landlord obtained legal possession from a tenant who has defaulted on his tenancy agreement be that tenant a Jew or as in this case an Arab you are a Jewbaiter. Last time I looked there never was any "Palestinian" sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem - maybe you are unaware of the fact that Arabs have bought apartments in Pisgat Ze'ev and then hang out notices that they only let to Arabs - so much for ethnic cleansing. I also find it comforting that those Jews who choose to sell to Arabs are not being murdered for doing so.

stephenb, I'll ask again:

please provide evidence that the eviction is based on ethnicity. I await your evidence...

stephenb: … all of this activity in east jerusalem is all about increaseing the jewishness of certain neighbourhoods

stephenb, i repeat (since you've avoided answering) …

what's wrong in prinicple in increasing the jewishness of a neighbourhood? …

it happens all the time in the uk that the jewishness or blackness or asianness etc of a neighbourhood increases

do you object when that happens in your neighbourhood?

happy i dont give a flying chit about the ethnic make up of my neighbourhood and if it changed i doubt i would notice

race is your hang up not mine.

There is nothing wrong with the jewishness of a neighbourhood increasing but everything wrong with increasing the jewishness or blackness or irishness of a neighbourhood at the point of a gun by a government that has no legal jurisdiction over the neighbourhood backed up by a puppet alleged " judiciary " that equally has no legal jurisdiction.

we all know what tthis is about so quit trying to be cute.

like i said try being an arab and getting planning permission in easr jerusalem. The israeli alleged " judiciary " is the laughing stock of the entire western world not helped by the " rape by deception " farce

More antisemitic lies from stephenb "at the pouint of a gun". A libel against the Jews.

I'll ask you again stephen, as you have failed to answer twice - please provide evidence that the eviction is based on ethnicity. I await your evidence...

I'm beginning to think you're making accusations without evidence - it couldn't be, surely?!

Please be very careful with the 'rape by deception farce'.

As with all of these arguments it's important to look at as much evidence as possible.

http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/09/05/israel-rape-by-deception-turns-ou...

All of these arguments, as in this thread, often reach 'impasse' because even when all sides purport to have read and cogitated on the same evidence, 'the sides' simply don't interpret said evidence in the same way; from ground level bloggers to international lawyers.

That's why, in my opinion, the art of the peace negotiator is indeed fraught and highly specialised.

stephenb: … all of this activity in east jerusalem is all about increaseing the jewishness of certain neighbourhoods

stephenb: There is nothing wrong with the jewishness of a neighbourhood increasing …

well. i'm glad you're thinking clearly

stephenb: … but everything wrong with increasing the jewishness or blackness or irishness of a neighbourhood at the point of a gun by a government that has no legal jurisdiction over the neighbourhood backed up by a puppet alleged " judiciary " that equally has no legal jurisdiction.

an occupying power has a perfect right (indeed, duty) to administer the civil law of the occupied country in the same way as before occupation

what's the difference between israeli jurisdiction over east jerusalem and the 1948-1967 arab (jordanian) jurisdiction over it?

(if you're referring to the legality of the annexation of east jerusalem, that annexation didn't change the law of landlord and tenant, nor the way the israeli courts or police deal with it)

landlord and tenant law in east jerusalem has not changed since the british took over in 1922 (and, i think, was the same as under the turks)

what is your objection to the israelis adminstering it in the same way as the jordanians and the british did?

even these palestinians tenants accept that their landlords were always jewish, and that their leases are about to expire

are you now saying ("catch 22") that there is nothing wrong with the jewishness of a neighbourhood increasing, except when it is done by exactly the same decision of an israeli court as a jordanian or british court would have made?

stephenb: The israeli alleged " judiciary " is the laughing stock of the entire western world …

Matt has stated he does care as its not his house. Well you have come across as a great guy once again!

Likewise, matt, Jonathan and others still can't except that Lieberman's plan to transfer Palestinians from Israel is ethnic cleansing, yet if such a policy were directed at Jews, they would be screaming from the trees about the anti-semitism.

It clear, they simply don't care about the Palestinians rights.

ibrows: Likewise, matt, Jonathan and others still can't except that Lieberman's plan to transfer Palestinians from Israel is ethnic cleansing, yet if such a policy were directed at Jews, they would be screaming from the trees about the anti-semitism.

you mean if the border was re-drawn so that jews on the west bank found that they were now in israel?

why would that be anti-semitic?

ibrows: Matt has stated he does care as its not his house.

uhh? where has matt said that??

hmm … since you never replied to my post of yesterday on the same topic, of lieberman's plan , i'll repeat it here …

happygoldfish: ibrows, your lying about lieberman only makes him seem reasonable by comparison! …

what lieberman advocates is not ethnic cleansing

ethnic cleansing was defined by a 1993 un commission (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing ) as …

the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous

and of course, dictionaries agree that it involves expulsion (or killing)

lieberman is only advocating re-drawing the international boundary according to racial criteria …

we can argue over whether that's racist, but perhaps it suffices to point out that that is the way almost every international partition is decided, including the 1947 uk partition of kashmir, and the 1947 un partition of palestine into (i quote) a "jewish state" and an "arab state"

ibrows, it is not a "right" to be a squatter, or to live on property you do not own.

happy the occupying power has the right and duty to administer the civil law of occupied territory to the extent that the occupation was legal.

While it may have been legal in the first instance it became illegal once it was clear that israel was not making any effort to disengage in a reasonable time and indeed began transferring israeli citizens to the territory.

The israeli alleged judiciary has no right to administer the laws relating to tenancy in EJ or any other law.

In any event israel claims that EJ is not occupied but , following annexation, is part of the sovereign territory of Israel. So you cant have it both ways ie you cant claim EJ is israel and yet appeal to the rights of occupying powers in respect of its administration.

which is it happy ?

lieberman is only advocating re-drawing the international boundary according to racial criteria

Oh, that's alright then.

Isn't that what the Germans did when they created the Government General in occupied Poland?

The expulsion and appropriation of land owned and lived on by Palestinians is part of israel's policy, both on a national and local level. It's cruel, it's racist, it's apartheid and it's undignified.

stephenb, I take it that you regard the entire area of western Poland as illegally occupied German territory, and that all Polish settlers should be removed and ethnic Geramsn allowed a right of return/ i take it you are up in arms about this?

Hypocrite.

stephen b has spectacularly failed to provide a scrap of evidence that the evictions were based on race - but then most obsessive Israel bashers don't do facts.

Amber there is no need to get all pissy hissy just cuz i have decided to marry happy and not you

she is a permeable borders kinda person just like me didnt you know

there is a good catholic bot out there somwhere for you i just know it

i meant a good catholic boy not bot but i guess you figured that figuring being your strong point

stephenb, as you admit you are full of bs, do you retract your statement that the eviction is based on race?

nooooooooooooooo of course i dont

So stephenb makes accusation without any evidence to back them up.

You are a complete idiot, and a racist piece of crap to boot.

stephenb:

… the occupying power has the right and duty to administer the civil law of occupied territory to the extent that the occupation was legal.

While it may have been legal in the first instance it became illegal once it was clear that israel was not making any effort to disengage in a reasonable time and indeed began transferring israeli citizens to the territory.

sorry, stephenb, but law (even international law) isn't a matter of personal opinion … you can't base arguments on the law being what you want it to be

no international lawyers seriously question the (continued) legality of the israeli occupation (as opposed to the legality of particular actions under the occupation), and the international court of justice has certainly not done so, despite having had the opportunity

neither customary nor conventional international law imposes any limit on how long-term an occupation may be (btw, "long-term" does seem to be the vital word on an internet search) …

it entitles the occupier to remain in occupation pending a peace treaty, and although it is arguable that customary international law has made unreasonable delay illegal, in israel's case that has been superseded by the un security council's intervention, and particularly its ruling in resolution 242 that israel is entitled to secure borders before withdrawing

see the section "long-term occupations and the law of occupation" at pages 144-149 of the international law of occupation by eyal benvenisti, 1992, and particularly …

As Oppenheim succinctly described this principle, if a belligerent succeeds in occupying the whole, or even a part, of enemy territory, he has realised a very important aim of warfare. He can now … keep it for the time being as a pledge of his military success, and thereby impress upon the enemy the necessity of submitting to terms of peace

(you may also be interested in the occupation of justice: the supreme court of israel and the occupied territories by david kretzmer, 2002, though it doesn't deal with the issue of how long-term an occupation can be)

stephenb: In any event israel claims that EJ is not occupied but , following annexation, is part of the sovereign territory of Israel. So you cant have it both ways ie you cant claim EJ is israel and yet appeal to the rights of occupying powers in respect of its administration.
which is it happy ?

why does it matter (in this landlord-and-tenant case)?

if ej is legally annexed, then israel obvously has the right to administer (and make) landlord-and-tenant law, but if the annexation is illegal, then it's still occupied territory, and so israel has the right (and duty) to administer the existing turkish-british landlord-and-tenant law

(and even if the settlements are illegal, that does not make the occupation itself illegal, nor does it affect the question of delay, unless of course they were to indicate that israel has no intention of ending the occupation, which is contra-indicated by being consistent with the re-drawing of boundaries alluded to in resolution 242 itself)

stephenb: Amber there is no need to get all pissy hissy just cuz i have decided to marry happy and not you

erm … you do know i'm a fish, don't you?

yankeeuxb, that's ridiculous …

yankeeuxb:

lieberman is only advocating re-drawing the international boundary according to racial criteria

Oh, that's alright then.
Isn't that what the Germans did when they created the Government General in occupied Poland?

… the population of the general government (in german, "generalgouvernement") area was about 12 million, comprising almost entirely ethnic poles and jews, and virtually no ethnic germans … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_General …

"Where 12 million Poles now live, is to be populated by 4 to 5 million Germans. The Generalgouvernement must become as German as the Rhineland."

if the boundary had been drawn on racial criteria, the homes of those 12 million poles and jews would have remained in poland

germany re-drew the boundary contrary to racial criteria!

do try to concentrate!

erm you do know that I am a fish dont you ?

well I knew you was a bit slippery but I was hoping maybe a mermaid

you are racist scum

stephenb: well I knew you was a bit slippery but I was hoping maybe a mermaid

i see … so, for you, half a girl is better than none at all?!

no, stephenb, i'm not the slippery one who's trying to change the subject!