[wat0n]

I does not order the state to do anything, it orders the state to consider their application, not to accept it.

:lol:

It tells the State which factors can't be included in the considerations of their case. Why did you omit that part of the ruling, if not for wanting to change the meaning of the ruling in a pathetic act of denial?

I have quoted you verbatim on the first post at the top of this page, I am still waiting from you to clarify your non-sense and it appears that you never will.

I already did, but you refuse to consider my clarification, in verbatim.

I think it properly addresses your concern.

[noemon]

Why did you omit that part of the ruling, if not for wanting to change the meaning of the ruling in a pathetic act of denial?

Look wat0n, Pisa omitted the ruling trying to change its meaning, but I found the rest of it and brought it here. And here it is once again:

B. It is incumbent upon the State to consider the petitioners' request to purchase for themselves a parcel of land in the
settlement of Katzir for the purpose of building their home, and this on the basis of the principle of equality, and taking
into consideration factors relevant to the matter-- including the factors which relate to the Agency and the current
residents of Katzir -and including the legal difficulties entailed in this matter. On the basis of these considerations, the
State must decide, with appropriate speed, whether it can enable the petitioners, within the framework of the law, to
build a house for themselves within the bounds of the Katzir communal settlement.

The Israeli Court orders the State to consider the application of 2 Israeli Arabs to settle in a new exclusively Jewish neighborhood. It does not order the State to accept their application. The rest of your non-sense are inferring and we already know that you are not very good at that, besides didn't already existing law allow for that consideration anyway? Yet another claim of yours.

I already did

I am not trying to play some game with you, I am sincerely asking you to clarify your own story here and I do not see anything that you have said clarifying it, I am going to ask you again.

You said and I quote:

Again, they didn't act in bad faith here, and cannot blame them for complaining about having to pay after 1989, which they still seem to have done until 2008.

Which story is correct, your story or the descendants story? Did the Al-Kurd family pay rent or did she not pay rent?
I don't understand why you refuse to answer this simple question.

[wat0n]

Look wat0n, Pisa omitted the ruling trying to change its meaning, but I found the rest of it and brought it here. And here it is once again:

Pathetic, why don't you analyze both A and B together and deduce what the Court is ordering the State to do?

The Israeli Court orders the State to consider the application of 2 Israeli Arabs to settle in anew exclusively Jewsih neighborhood. It does not order the State to accept their application. The rest of your non-sense are inferring and we already know that you are not very good at that, besides didn't already existing law allow for that consideration anyway? :lol: Yet another claim of yours.

The Court is simply interpreting the law so the State won't be at odds with it again. Indeed, that's one of the judiciary's functions as I assume you know.

As far as quality of inferences go, sorry, I am not the one who is omitting parts of the ruling and the counterarguments to make his case. Obviously you cannot infer correctly when you selectively read the sources, which also explains your faulty historical analyses.

[noemon]

why don't you analyze both A and B together and deduce what the Court is ordering the State to do?

Because no creative imagination is necessary when the court order is clear:

Calls upon the State to consider whether to accept the application or not.

Since you ignored it I am asking you again:

I already did

I am not trying to play some game with you, I am sincerely asking you to clarify your own story here and I do not see anything that you have said clarifying it, I am going to ask you again.

You said and I quote:

Again, they didn't act in bad faith here, and cannot blame them for complaining about having to pay after 1989, which they still seem to have done until 2008.

Which story is correct, your story or the descendants story? Did the Al-Kurd family pay rent or did she not pay rent?
I don't understand why you refuse to answer this simple question.

[wat0n]

Sorry noemon, but I will remind you that repeating yourself and ignoring my arguments or refusing to address them in verbatim and quoting them fully won't help your case.

I am open for you to do so, eventually, but if you want to repeat yourself so you can have the last word, it's your right. I will say it is odd if you do so considering that you said it is a fallacy to believe it makes your case in any way whatsoever:

Repeating something ad nauseum does not make it true, it's simply a fallacy

What about you heed your own advice for once?

[noemon]

^Your post contains absolutely no argument other than ad nauseum non-sense, if you decide to post an argument or retract your contradictory stories, I will be interested to hear them, especially your al-Kurd rent claim contradictions I am sincerely interested on this, I am not asking you a rhetorical question, I am asking to clarify your contradictions.

Did the family pay rent from 1989-2008 or did she not pay rent and to whom?

[Zamuel]

Did the family pay rent from 1989-2008 or did she not pay rent and to whom?

I guess you can't figure out how to find this information for yourself ? I'm have only a peripheral interest in the case and even I know that the Owner(s) filed a petition alledging that the "Agreement" under which the property was occupied was not being honored. That agreement, as approved in a previous ruling, specified that rent would be payed and the property would be maintained to civic standards. The court found after examining all submitted evidence that the agreement was NOT being honored, that the contract was breeched, and ordered the property vacated. I don't know of a source that deals with the evidence presented ... If it's THAT important to you, I'm sure transcripts are available, inquire directly to the court ... let us know what you find out.

Zam

[noemon]

That is cute, but in Israel everyone pays rent to the ILA, though this territory is not Israeli to begin with but occupied East Jerusalem.

When wat0n spoke of the family paying rent he was talking about paying rent to the ILA, not to the claimants, as it is evident in all sources that these claimants have never been paid rent by anybody.

He also claimed that this land is privately-owned which means that private-owned land is not liable for rent, he also claimed that the claimants received the house as restitution for unpaid compensation by Jordan not because of rent arrears.

All in all it is safe to assume that he has been talking non-sense about various details and that this court case is such a sham that is impossible to imagine a coherent narrative.

But seriously what can be expected in a place where 2 Israelis need to go to the Supreme Court to complain that their application for housing in Israel cannot be accepted because they are Muslim so that they can settle in a new development that is exclusively for Israeli Jews, and these are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian in the occupied territories, from that alone one can deduce the level of discrimination.

[wat0n]

When wat0n spoke of the family paying rent he was talking about paying rent to the ILA, not to the claimants, as it is evident in all sources that these claimants have never been paid rent by anybody.

He also claimed that this land is privately-owned which means that private-owned land is not liable for rent, he also claimed that the claimants received the house as restitution for unpaid compensation by Jordan not because of rent arrears.

:lol:

I did not claim that they paid rent to the ILA. Indeed, you cannot possibly infer that from anything I've said and any sources I've cited, even more so since this is not the first time in which I say explicitly that they laid rent to the Jewish owners of the title deed.

It also isn't even possible to infer from your sources that all land in Israel is publicly owned when they say explicitly that the ILA manages 93% of the land and that 7% of it is privately managed.

All in all it is safe to assume that he has been talking non-sense about various details and that this court case is such a sham that is impossible to imagine a coherent narrative.

It certainly doesn't make any sense if you refuse to read the sources I provided in full. But then, why would you do that if you wanted to know what happened?

[noemon]

Since I edited while you posted here it is again:

But seriously what can be expected in a place where 2 Israelis need to go to the Supreme Court to complain that their application for housing in Israel cannot be accepted because they are Muslim so that they can buy a house in a new development that is exclusively for Israeli Jews like all new developments, and these are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian in the occupied territories, from that alone one can deduce the level of discrimination.

Your post is just rambling and refusing to clarify any of your own claims. Whatever cheap excuse you imagine to have brought forward has been trashed like all the rest.

Your claim that this family paid rent to the claimants between 1989-2008 is not in any source, wat0n.

[wat0n]

Since I edited while you posted here it is again:

But seriously what can be expected in a place where 2 Israelis need to go to the Supreme Court to complain that their application for housing in Israel cannot be accepted because they are Muslim so that they can settle in a new development that is exclusively for Israeli Jews, and these are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian in the occupied territories, from that alone one can deduce the level of discrimination.

So, to you, it is outrageous that Israeli nationals believed they suffered from an illegal discrimination, sued, won the case and managed to force the State to stop discriminating against them.

To me, it looks like the rule of law was at work and that the executive cannot do as it pleases.

Your post is just rambling and refusing to clarify any of your own claims. Whatever cheap excuse you imagine to have brought forward has been trashed like all the rest.

Your claim that this family paid rent to the claimants between 1989-2008 is not in any source, wat0n.

That the family was to pay rent to the claimants should not be in dispute as it is stated clearly in the original article:

It appears, however, that the land was previously owned in the late 19th century by Jews - it is close to an old Jewish tomb long popular with pilgrims. In 1967, when Israel captured east Jerusalem, the property was taken by the custodian for absentee property, an Israeli institution that had also taken control of all property left behind by the 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were forced out in the 1948 war.

Two Jewish groups began a legal process to reclaim ownership of the property and in 1972 the court gave control of the land to the heirs of two rabbis who appeared to be the 19th century owners.

The al-Kurd family say their Israeli lawyer made the agreement without their knowledge.

The couple became 'protected tenants', liable to pay rent to their new Israeli landlords but they refused on principle.

Allow me to make it even easier for you:

The couple became 'protected tenants', liable to pay rent to their new Israeli landlords but they refused on principle.

liable to pay rent to their new Israeli landlords

The article doesn't state clearly the exact moment they stop paying rent, so I assumed that they stopped paying in 2008 since that's when the Court ruled for eviction, as I find it hard to believe that it would take all that long to enforce a private contract. Indeed, I stated quite clearly too that this is what seems to have happened:

Again, they didn't act in bad faith here, and cannot blame them for complaining about having to pay after 1989, which they still seem to have done until 2008.

If they actually stopped paying rent to the title deed owners before 2008, I'm not sure of why this would be an indictment against the Court, anyway, as it would suggest it was not eager to evict them. After all, if the justices wanted to evict them since they one, they would have done so as soon as possible rather than wait for an unspecified number of years.

In this sense, I'm actually assuming the al-Kurd family was acting in good faith as no other evidence suggests they had stopped doing so.

Also, quote me in verbatim saying the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA. You made a specific claim here so you'll have to defend it.

[noemon]

So, to you, it is outrageous that Israeli nationals believed they suffered from an illegal discrimination, sued, won the case and managed to force the State to stop discriminating against them.
To me, it looks like the rule of law was at work and that the executive cannot do as it pleases.

It proves that Israeli law operates according to racial standards and that the only thing the courts did was to advise the state, not to to enforce it to apply what everywhere else is just granted. The Court itself recognized the racial discrimination of the Jewish-only state-of-affairs, it did not supersede it.

That the family was to pay rent to the claimants should not be in dispute as it is stated clearly in the original article. The article doesn't state clearly when did they stop paying rent, so I assumed that they stopped paying in 2008

Look for the bolded text in the quote you just provided because in the next post you will be talking about 'quoting'.

It appears, however, that the land was previously owned in the late 19th century by Jews - it is close to an old Jewish tomb long popular with pilgrims. In 1967, when Israel captured east Jerusalem, the property was taken by the custodian for absentee property, an Israeli institution that had also taken control of all property left behind by the 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were forced out in the 1948 war.

The couple became 'protected tenants', liable to pay rent to their new Israeli landlords but they refused on principle.


Added from the same article, a few sentences down: In 2001, several settlers began to occupy an outer part of the house and remain in place today – despite court orders to evict them.

It says that this family has never paid rent to these people on principle. You said that they were doing so from 1989-2008, when in fact the same article states that in 2001 these settlers started occupying the house and that Israeli courts evicted them from the al-Kurd family home in 2001.

So definitive non-sense once again. How do you explain that?

Again, they didn't act in bad faith here, and cannot blame them for complaining about having to pay after 1989, which they still seem to have done until 2008.

I'm really interested to see where you saw that.

You made a specific claim here so you'll have to defend it.

I asked you to clarify your position numerous times but you refused to structure an argument.

[wat0n]

It proves that Israeli law operates according to racial standards and that the only thing the courts did was to advise the state, not to to enforce it to apply what everywhere else is just granted. The Court itself recognized the racial discrimination of the Jewish state, it did not supersede it.

Of course it did. It explicitly banned the state from discriminating when deciding on awarding tenders and, in that case, instructed it to carry out the whole process again as it should have been done: Without taking ethnorreligious identity as the sole criterion to consider.

Look for the bolded text in the quote you just provided because in the next post you will be talking about 'quoting'.

It does it says that this family has never paid rent to these people. You said that they were doing so from 1989-2008.

Why did you omit this paragraph which was between the ones you quoted and which, again, completely negates your claims?

Two Jewish groups began a legal process to reclaim ownership of the property and in 1972 the court gave control of the land to the heirs of two rabbis who appeared to be the 19th century owners.

I'm really interested to see where you saw that.

I already explained why it seems they paid rent until 2008 looking exclusively at the information provided by The Guardian.

It does not make any sense because it is already stated that the Al-Kurd family has never paid rent to these people on principle.

Where? The Guardian states that the family refused to pay, at some point in time, in principle. It does not state that they never paid and it's hard to infer so.

Indeed, the article also states that the property deed was ruled to belong to the descendants of the two Rabbis back in 1972, and that the al-Kurd family signed a deal with them afterwards to pay rent to them and remain as protected tenants, and that sometime later they said their lawyer didn't know relevant facts on the matter before agreeing to the deal.

The Guardian's article does not state when was this deal signed and then repudiated, but there is no reason to assume the parts waited for several decades before reaching an agreement, and there is little basis to believe that the non-payment took place long before 2008. Had this been the case, in any event, it would mean that the Israeli courts were very reluctant to evict the al-Kurd family.

I asked you to clarify your position numerous times but you refused to structure an argument.

I did so many times, and now too as well.

Now it's your turn: Quote me saying that the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA and not to the Israeli owners of the land as stated by The Guardian.

What I can tell, however, is that you need to omit information that doesn't suit your claims to be able to defend them: You omitted subparagraph A of paragraph 40 of the Israeli Supreme Court ruling in the Katzir case, and now you omitted a relevant paragraph from The Guardian's article that was between the ones you quoted and which completely negates your claim that the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA. Of course, you will never admit that you refuse to consider facts you dont like, but that doesn't suddenly change the fact that you do.

As such, I will just wait until you can show, in verbatim, that I explicitly said that the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA.

[noemon]

What I can tell, however, is that you need to omit information that doesn't suit your claims to be able to defend them: You omitted subparagraph A of paragraph 40 of the Israeli Supreme Court ruling in the Katzir case, and now you omitted a relevant paragraph from The Guardian's article that was between the ones you quoted and which completely negates your claim that the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA.

Confused wat0n, in both instances I added the text which Pisa omitted in the first instance and in the second instance the many bits that you omitted. I did not re-post your bits because you were the ones omitting them and second the bits added made them irrelevant.

The Al-Kurd family has said that they have never paid rent to the settlers on principle, in 2001 the occupying settlers were evicted from the al-Kurd family house, in 2009 they evicted the Al-Kurd family. Can you explain this to me? Can you explain where did you see your 1989-2008 timeline, because the guardian article is quite clear on the matter, unless you do not understand the year 2001.

[wat0n]

I have already explained you everything, including that putting all the bits of the Katzir case together you reach the conclusion that the Court ordered the State to reassess the petitioners' request to live in Katzir without taking their ethnorreligious origin into account. Can you quote me, in verbatim, staying explicitly that the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA?

[noemon]

Explain this:

The Al-Kurd family has said that they have never paid rent to the settlers on principle, in 2001 the occupying settlers were evicted from the al-Kurd family house, in 2009 they evicted the Al-Kurd family. Can you explain this to me? Can you explain where did you see your 1989-2008 timeline, because the guardian article is quite clear on the matter, unless you do not understand the year 2001.

[wat0n]

The only mention of 2001 in the article by The Guardian is that Israeli settlers forcibly occupied the outer part of the property, and that Israeli courts ordered their eviction. The article doesn't state that the al-Kurd family stopped paying rent on that year, and indeed nowhere it is stated that they never paid rent to the title deed owners either. As for why did I consider 1989 as a starting date? I did so because the UNRWA promised them, in 1956, that if they paid rent for 33 years the title would be transferred to them (something the UNRWA had no right to offer). As I assume you can see, 33 years after 1956 equals the year 1989, and so it'd have been understandable if the al-Kurd family stopped to pay rent, in principle, in 1989 as they had been promised that they would not have to do so anymore (but there is no evidence that they stopped paying rent in 1989 in the article by The Guardian on the matter). As I also said plenty of times, it is also hard to believe that Israeli courts would have taken such long time in evicting the al-Kurd family for being in breach of a contract, if the al-Kurd family halted rent payments long before 2008 - especially if the Israeli legal system is biased against the Arabs as you say. If the al-Kurd family did stop paying rent long before 2008, then Israeli Courts were clearly very reluctant to evict the al-Kurd family from the property, which heavily undermines your claim on the character of Israeli law.

I'm still waiting for you to quote me, in verbatim, stating explicitly that the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA all the relevant time period, and never paid it to the title deed owners.

[noemon]

The only mention of 2001 in the article by The Guardian is that Israeli settlers forcibly occupied the outer part of the property, and that Israeli courts ordered their eviction.

Yes it does which contradicts all your assumptions and requires you to discard statements like 2008 being due to the kindness of Israeli courts, especially when you are aware that this case is one of chipping away a house little by little with similar courts being held earlier, ie 2001.

which heavily undermines your claim on the character of Israeli law.

The character of Israeli law by the words of an Israeli professor who did a phd(Berkeley) on the subject-matter(Zionist Land Management) is that it is racially-biased and we can see the same thing from these legal cases where racial discrimination is stated explicitly.

And then there is also this other detail:

2.
Points out that these operations, which seriously affect the lives of the residents of these areas, contravene international law, and calls on the Israeli authorities to put an end to them as soon as possible;
3.
Points out, whilst acknowledging the independence of the Israeli judiciary within the internationally recognised borders of the State of Israel, that under international law East Jerusalem is not subject to the jurisdiction of Israeli courts;

[Zamuel]

All in all it is safe to assume - from that alone one can deduce

You're welcome to Assume, and deduce, whatever you like ... I think most of the rest of us will settle for the legitimate decision of the court of Jurisdiction ... Hmmm ... Imaginary Smoke & Mirrors / Published Court decision ... your pick folks ...

Zam

[wat0n]

Yes it does which contradicts all your assumptions and requires you to discard statements like 2008 being due to the kindness of Israeli courts, especially when you are aware that this case is one of chipping away a house little by little with similar courts being held earlier, ie 2001.

It's hard to claim so considering, as stated in the article by The Guardian, that the Court restituted the property to the descendants of the Rabbis in 1972. How could they be chipping away the property they already owned?

The character of Israeli law by the words of an Israeli professor who did a phd(Berkeley) on the subject-matter(Zionist Land Management) is that it is racially-biased and we can see the same thing from these legal cases where racial discrimination is stated explicitly.

Which is contradicted by both Israeli Supreme Court rulings and the opinion of the Israeli AG on the matter, who know more about Israeli law than a professor of sociology like Kimmerling ever did.

I also note you still cannot quote me, in verbatim, stating explicitly that the al-Kurd family paid rent to the ILA for the property. That is, your understanding is not reliable since you aren't paying attention to my posts.