That would be during the time when Jordan occupied the Old City of Jerusalem and evicted every Jew who lived there, destroyed each of the thirty-plus synagogues, and desecrated centuries old Jewish cemeteries and other religious structures.

in the present?

It could almost appear that there is some sort of justification for evicting Palestinians or something

oberliner
1. "...have rented their home since 1953 when the Old City was ruled by Jordan."

View profile
That would be during the time when Jordan occupied the Old City of Jerusalem and evicted every Jew who lived there, destroyed each of the thirty-plus synagogues, and desecrated centuries old Jewish cemeteries and other religious structures

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113497965#post1

Was it sold to someone else?

so you're right the new owner-Israel which has been evicting Arab families from houses previously owned by Jews

How about someone in Israel be evicted from one of the hundreds of thousands of homes confiscated from displaced Palestinians, and these Jerusalemites can live there! Israel can rebuild one of the hundreds of demolished or ruined mosques for them to worship at.

What becomes of the evicted Israelis? I'unno. Put 'em in a refugee camp somewhere for seventy years i guess, is it important?

It has been charged that the provision contained in the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement prohibiting unilateral steps that alter the status of the West Bank implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is disingenuous. The prohibition on unilateral measures was designed to ensure that neither side take steps that would change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or a unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status talks. The building of homes has no effect on the final permanent status of the area as a whole. Were this prohibition to be applied to building, it would lead to the unreasonable interpretation that neither side is permitted to build houses to accommodate the needs of their respective communities.

As the Israeli claim to these territories is legally valid, it is just as legitimate for Israelis to build their communities as it is for the Palestinians to build theirs. Yet in the spirit of compromise, successive Israeli governments have indicated their willingness to negotiate the issue and have adopted a voluntary freeze on the building of new settlements as a confidence-building measure.

Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.

Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" when control passed into the hands of Israel.

Yet even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were to apply to the territories, Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War, against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred during that period. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, Article 49 (entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations&quot was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens to the territory and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the total territory of the West Bank.

might believe you wrote it.

http://zionism-israel.com/issues/are_settlements_legal.html

Whoever wrote this nonsense is either unaware of international law, and the US
position or perhaps they just don't care what crap they post..I don't know.

I could not find any names associated with the website, just
a general description under the guise of volunteers as authors.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/about.htm

Once there was a fan of androids who owned 100 acres of farmland. This person fought with his bad neighbor and the bad neighbor put up a fence blocking android fan from access to 78 of the 100 acres. This Bad neighbor also erected structures, diverted the creek so that android fan had no access to water, and planted crops on the illegally seized land.

Bad neighbor has been found to be in violation of the law and he ignores the law.

What would you counsel android fan to do?

1) forget about the land. You did not properly develop it anyway.
2) Move somewhere else and hope it does not happen again.
3) wait over 66 years as the world community does nothing because bad neighbor is friends with biggest neighbor?
4) fight back

Throughout history various groups of people have been forced to leave their homes and start over somewhere else.

For example, European Jews.

might makes right now trumps International Law?

Your position would eliminate all law in favor of war. You might want to rethink.

not surprised at all.

amazing how ideology often trumps morality

If I were a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem and the conditions you described were taking place, I would probably move to Ramallah if I could.

Just like if I was a Jew living in East Jerusalem back before it was annexed by Jordan, I would have moved to Tel Aviv.

and back through history until everyone was living in the Rift Valley?

Sounds like an excuse and rather disgusting rationale for dispossession and genocide.

but they make great pretzels.

Only Arabs get evicted, and also not given alternative housing, as that would negate the whole idea of evicting them in the first place. If the same rule applied equally, then perhaps Israel could evict those Jewish families in Western Jerusalem living on JNF lands, which actually is mostly stolen Palestinian lands. After all, there is a severe housing shortage for Arabs in East Jerusalem. But then again, two wrongs don’t make a right.

By making itself an illegal occupier in its own capital, Israel’s insistence on an undivided Jerusalem becomes just an empty slogan. Almost every single Jewish person living in East Jerusalem is living there illegally, and could be evicted. Now, if Jews and Arabs in EJ were treated equally and were living in mixed neighbourhoods, it would be quite difficult to dislodge Jews from their homes; it would be apartheid to do so.

I can’t see an easy fix to this.

Jews get evicted for building without permits.
Arabs are often given alternate housing.
Western Jerusalem is not mostly stolen Palestinian lands.
There is not a severe housing shortage for Arabs in East Jerusalem.

Literally every single thing you have written in your post is not true.

It would actually be better if I was wrong, so if you could, I would really appreciate it.