web analytics
August 1, 2015 / 16 Av, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

Thoughts On Sheikh Jarrah, Gilad Shalit


It’s not easy to counter images of Arab families purportedly being evicted from their homes – such as the pictures of residents of the northern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah that were published last week in The New York Times and elsewhere. But Israel must at least try.

In last week’s Times article, the only articulation of the Israeli position was by Jerusalem’s police spokesman, who said that a court found the “property is owned by Jews.”

Perhaps the Times omitted other Israeli statements; regardless, the Israeli government needs to do much better in explaining its position. It is hardly enough to state Israel’s right to sovereignty over Jerusalem and the right of Jerusalem residents to live anywhere in the city.

Following are some basic facts about Sheikh Jarrah that Israel should emphasize:

● Sheikh Jarrah is adjacent to the Jewish neighborhoods of Shimon HaTzadik, founded in 1876, and Nahalat Shimon, founded in 1891. The majority of residents of this area were Jewish. Some Jewish residents were forced to leave following Arab riots, but Jews remained in the area until 1948.

● The road to Mount Scopus – where Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital are located – passes through Sheikh Jarrah. In 1948, a convoy headed for Mount Scopus was attacked in Sheikh Jarrah, and 78 Jews were murdered.

● The Sheikh Jarrah area was controlled by Jordan between 1948 and 1967. In the 1950s, Jordan – in a joint project with the United Nations – settled 28 Arab families there. It is the residences of these families that are under contention. The agreement between Jordan and the UN stipulated that the houses would be built on “formerly Jewish property leased by the Custodian of Enemy Property to the [Jordanian] Ministry of Development.” The Jordanian government never transferred ownership to the residents whom it settled in these homes.

● The UN’s agreement with Jordan to build houses on “formerly Jewish property” despite Jordan’s acquisition of this property during the 1948-49 war is obviously inconsistent with the UN’s position on Israeli construction on barren state land acquired during the 1967 war.

● After the Six-Day War, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that ownership of the premises on which the 28 Arab families lived belonged to two Jewish organizations that had acquired the land in the late 1800s. However, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the Supreme Court directed that the Arab families be given the status of protected tenants.

● Several of the Arab families left Sheikh Jarrah, while others refused to pay rent. As a result of their refusal to pay rent, following further litigation, eviction was authorized.

● In the case reported by the Times last week, the “eviction” was from an unoccupied extension to the property, which was previously deemed illegal by the Supreme Court since the resident family is not the owner of the property. As noted in the Times article, the Arab family remains in the main building. Some argue that the status quo following the 1948 War of Independence must be preserved, and that Israelis therefore should not present legal claims based upon pre-1948 ownership. While I disagree on several grounds, that is a matter of policy and strategy that can reasonably be debated (but is beyond the scope of this article).

What is clear is that the reality of Sheikh Jarrah is far different than has been portrayed throughout the world. Again, the Israeli government must do a lot better at presenting the facts.

* * *

We all want Gilad Shalit to return home. But the release of nearly 1,000 terrorists – including many mass murderers – in exchange for Shalit would make a mockery of Israel’s legal system, callously disregard those murdered by the terrorists, boost the morale of all terrorists, and call into question the purpose of the IDF operations to capture the very terrorists who are now being released.

Most ominously, the release of so many terrorists could result in yet another round of mass killings of Jews.

Can anybody imagine India releasing terrorists associated with the Mumbai massacres, or the United States releasing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Richard Reid or Zacarias Moussaoui?

If Entebbe symbolized Israel’s fight against terror, the impending deal appears to symbolize Israel’s surrender to terror.

This shift has occurred over several decades. But one wonders why Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to be willing to release terrorists the Olmert government would not free.

In the foreword to the book comprising the letters of Yoni Netanyahu – his older brother who was killed leading the Entebbe raid – Prime Minister Netanyahu wrote the following:

The death of a brother cut down in his prime is traumatic in every way; it changed my life and directed it to its present course. But the impact of a loss of a brother is a distant second to the greatest agony of all, the death of a son. Over the years, as I have visited agonizing parents who have lost their children in battle or to bouts of savage terrorism, I have grieved for them as I grieved for my parents.

Surely, Prime Minister Netanyahu nobly wants to save Noam and Aviva Shalit from the agony suffered by his own parents. Reasonable concessions to this end would be a necessary evil. But securing the release of Gilad Shalit at the reported price, may, God forbid, result in the greatest agony to many more parents in Israel.

About the Author: Joseph Schick is producer of “Jerusalem ’67” (www.jerusalem67.com), a narrative feature film currently in development. He can be reached at jschick@jerusalem67.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Thoughts On Sheikh Jarrah, Gilad Shalit”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Matt Lee of the Associated Press at the State Department press briefing.
ObameDeal Exposed: It’s not ‘Secret’ from Congress but not in Writing
Latest Indepth Stories
Silhouette of "hilltop settler."

“Yesha” and Binyamin Regional Council leaders said the attack “is not the path of Jews in Judea and Samaria.”

Schwartz-073115

The occasion? The rarely performed mitzvah of pidyon peter chamor: Redemption of a firstborn donkey.

Rabbi YY Rubinstein

American leftists have a pathological self-inflicted blindness to the dangers of political Islam

Tobin-073115

Hillary should THANK Trump; By dominating the news he’s overshadowed the implosion of her campaign

Hard to remember when Jewish youth were so hostile to their heritage as they are on campuses today.

Names of the enablers of Iran’s Nuclear weapons will be added next to Hitler’s on the list of infamy

By most accounts, the one person with the political muscle to swing enough Democratic votes to override a veto is Sen. Schumer.

The next day, in a speech in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry substantially upped the ante.

In Israel, the judiciary has established itself as superior to ALL other branches of the government.

The Fifteenth Day of the month of Av became a day of national rejoicing. The moment that had seemed hopeless became the moment of Redemption.

I think the melodies in our religious services have a haunting sound to them that just permeates your guts and gets into your soul. If you have any musical inclination, I think they inspire you to compose.

Cavalier analogies to the Holocaust are unacceptable, but Huckabee’s analogy was very appropriate.

Pollard was a Jewish-head-on-a-pike for all American Jews to see and to learn the explicit lesson.

If the Iran deal passes, Obama’s WH becomes world’s leading financier of terrorism against Americans

More Articles from Joseph Schick
Schick-091412

It’s election season, so Republicans can’t be blamed for expressing outrage when the political platform at last week’s Democratic National Convention removed support for Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.

Elie Wiesel and Ronald Lauder recently criticized the Obama administration in separately placed newspaper advertisements. Instead of listening to Wiesel and Lauder’s concerns, Haaretz reported, administration officials expressed “harsh criticism” over their ads.

President Obama’s nastiness toward Prime Minister Netanyahu would be alarming even it were merely a matter of style to impress the Muslim world. But Obama’s motivation is much more substantive. He seeks to impose a solution – whether it leads to peace or it doesn’t – that will return Israel essentially to the 1949-1967 armistice lines, including a loss of Jewish sovereignty in the Old City of Jerusalem.

It’s not easy to counter images of Arab families purportedly being evicted from their homes – such as the pictures of residents of the northern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah that were published last week in The New York Times and elsewhere. But Israel must at least try.

In January 2001, as President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak begged Yasir Arafat to take a break from killing Jews to accept the Old City of Jerusalem, hundreds of thousands of Israelis rallied in Jerusalem to oppose the city’s division. Simultaneously, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein’s Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun hosted an event in solidarity.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin, longtime spiritual leader of Chicago’s Modern Orthodox Anshe Sholom B’nai Israel Congregation, comments about his famous congregant, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel; Jewish rights to settle in Israel; plans to build in the Negev; Orthodoxy and pluralism; and political talk from the pulpit.

On Sunday night, many observant Jews will be among the hundreds of millions of people watching the Jets fan’s nightmare as the Giants play the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.

During a recent trip to Israel, I couldn’t help but notice the dearth of fellow visitors and think of the many religiously observant American Jews who stridently demand that Israel never cede any land.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/thoughts-on-sheikh-jarrah-gilad-shalit/2009/12/09/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: