Ethnic smearing

Earlier this week, Israel evicted a group of Palestinians from a building in Jerualem. The New York Times reported:

Thirty-eight members of the Ghawi family were removed from six apartments that made up one of the houses. There are 17 people in the Hanoun family.

The houses were built in the 1950s by a United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees when the area was under Jordanian control. Jordan gave the families ownership of the houses but had not formally registered the buildings in their names by the time the 1967 war broke out, according to the families’ lawyer, Hosni Abu Hussein.

In the early 1970s, a Jewish association claimed ownership of the land around the tomb, based on property deeds from Ottoman times. At first the Palestinian families agreed to pay rent to the association to continue living there as protected tenants. Mr. Abu Hussein said they stopped paying when he learned that the Jewish deeds had been forged.

Eviction orders were issued, though the authenticity of the property deeds is still debated in Israeli courts.

Robert H. Serry, the United Nations special Middle East coordinator, who visited the Hanoun home in the spring, said in a statement that he deplored the evictions, which he described as “totally unacceptable actions by Israel.”

The British Consulate, in Sheikh Jarrah, said in a statement that its officials were “appalled” by the evictions.

Those responses were mild compared to that of terror supporter, Helena Cobban, who referred to the actions as “ethnic cleansing.”

But Barry Rubin writes:

In fact, the matter in hand was an Israeli Supreme Court–an institution that has often ruled on the side of Palestinian plaintiffs–decision in a 30-year-old case. Individual Israeli citizens have been going through courts for years to regain their property seized by Jordan’s government after the 1948 war.

The court ruled that their ownership documents were legitimate, while those provided by the Palestinians were counterfeited. It was not hard to prove the latter point since it is on record that they were moved into the property by Jordan’s government without any ownership on their part. While there have been politically motivated battles or questionable claims over property, this is not one of them. There is certainly room for debate on this complex issue but not simplistic condemnation.

Think about the absurdity of a U.S. secretary of state publicly focusing on a routine property case involving two houses as if it were some massive human rights’ violation.

Just Journalism asked a question that few other reporters bothered asking and got a response.

Just Journalism contacted Ir Amim, an Israeli organisation dedicated to advocacy on behalf of Arab residents of east Jerusalem, and asked about the circumstances of the evictions. A representative replied:

“Indeed, the legal issues revolving the Sheikh Jarrah’s evictions are quite complex. In short, the Israeli court have accepted the settlers’ claim of ownership over the property, but recognized the Palestinian residents to be protected tenants. Some of the 28 families continued to pay the rent, but some did not accept the court’s ruling and therefore did not pay the rent. Against those, the court issued eviction orders.”

According to the advocacy group’s own report, the case was brought by the landlords against the Ghawi and Hanun families ‘on the grounds of rent delinquency’. In other words the two families were evicted because they refused to pay their rent.

Then the United States doesn’t care one whit for Israeli law and has made matters worse by making a diplomatic incident out of it. Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren was called to the State Department for a rebuke. And in Jordan, Secretary of State Clinton responded to a question, while standing next to Jordan’s Foreign Minister, about the evictions.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think these actions are deeply regrettable. I have said before that the eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations, and I urge the Government of Israel and municipal officials to refrain from such provocative actions. Both sides have responsibilities to refrain from provocative actions that can block the path toward a comprehensive peace agreement. Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot be used to prejudge the outcome of negotiations, and they will not be recognized as changing the status quo.

At the very same press conference Jordan rejected an American call for extending confidence building measures towards Israel. How did Secretary Clinton respond?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Minister.

Why should Israel have any confidence in American mediation?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.