noemon wrote: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.
noemon wrote: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.
noemon wrote: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.
noemon wrote: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.
noemon wrote: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.