Hamas to raze 180 Gaza houses to erect Islamic religious center

[oberliner]

The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip plans to raze another 180 Palestinian houses, on top of the 20 it recently demolished in the southern town of Rafah, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights charged on Thursday.

The 20 houses already destroyed were home to some 150 people, who are now homeless and living in tents, the organization said.

The government said it razed the houses because they were built illegally on government land. The organization said that Hamas plans to use the same pretext to demolish houses in Khan Yunis and other towns.

Most of these houses' inhabitants are poor, the organization said, and several saw their previous houses demolished during the years of fighting with Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hamas-to-raze-180-gaza-houses-to-erect-islamic-religious-center-1.291347

[aquart]

1. And they didn't even bomb anything!

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Here in the U.S. they call that Eminent domain...n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Incorrect

The land belongs to a private religious organization who has asked the government to clear the land of what amounts to refugees.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. So, it is OK for a private religous organization to kick women and children...

into the street to starve in nature. How humane of Hamas.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I was pointing out it was not Eminent Domain...

[aranthus]

9. That doesn't mean that the residents weren't entitled to due process.

It wouldn't have been eminent domain either way because they are alleged to be squatters. But who says that they are? Was there a court proceeding? Or did the government just summarily give the land to the organization and evict the residents?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Those are important points in western law...this is Hamas we are talking about

[aranthus]

20. True, but that's the difference between this and the Jerusalem issue.

Israel didn't give the land to the private owner; it was already theirs and the Israelis simply reversed the wrongful taking by the Jordanians. Then the private owners went to court and enforced their legal rights. Hamas may have given itself the right to take whatever it wants and give it to whomever, but that doesn't' make it right. There are two steps involved: Hamas giving the land to the private charity, and the charity evicting the supposed squatters. Even if the charity went to court to obtain the eviction, it wouldn't be right if the gift of the land was improper.

[shira]

14. No due process, it's Hamas. If Hamas says they're squatters or collaborators then they must be.

Palestinians only have rights to the pro-Palestinian contingent when Israel is allegedly violating them.

[Dick Dastardly]

15. Thats not exactly true, Hamas did go to court and the court ruled in the favor of the property owner

As far as rights go, what about the rights of the property owner.

This issue is more properly viewed through the lens of property rights and the rule of law rather than the IP conflict.

[shira]

16. I forgot about the rights of the property owner - the government of Hamas. They have rights too.

[Dick Dastardly]

17. A charitable religous organization called Fadila owned the property,

should not they or anybody else be able to rely on the rule of law to protect their rights

[shira]

18. Oops, Hamas gave the land to a religious organization - missed that.

As to your question, I don't know.....

One standard for both Israeli and Gazan owners of private property, or a double-standard?

...gotta think on that one.

;)

Waiting for the UN and the usual Palestinian advocates around the world to condemn this just as vociferously as they did Sheik Jarrah.

Anytime now....

[Dick Dastardly]

19. As I said this issue is more properly viewed

through the lens of property rights and the rule of law rather than the IP conflict. So I was not even really talking about Israel and Gaza but was talking specifically about property rights and the rule of law in Gazan society by Gazas government institutions as well as more generally about the property rights and rule of law in countries around the world by their own government institutions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. This is nearly identical to some of the clearing in J'lem

The land belongs to a private party. The owner is clearing the land of squatters to build. Where are the howls of protest?

[Chulanowa]

11. Consider me howling

It's disgusting, no matter who's doing it.

[Dick Dastardly]

13. What about the rights of the property owner. Should they lose their property and rights

just because someone illegally built on their land. Would you be ok with you owning a piece of land and when you go to build on it you discover someone built on your land and they say its theirs now because they built first?
So despite you owning the land the fact they built before you could gives them ownership and or greater property rights than you the owner. Its basically the snooze you lose system of private property ownership. Does that seem fair to you? Does that seem like a good way for a government to base its system of property ownership on or is it a prescription for chaos? It would not fly in the US, Europe or most anywhere in the world so why should it fly there?

Yes its terrible that people will lose their homes but from a legal standpoint they were knowingly built illegally on land they didn't own and in doing so they were stepping on the property rights of others. Any hardship they would suffer is a least partially self inflicted due to their knowingly illegally building on property they didn't own. Even when a hardship would not be self inflicted at all, the law needs to protect everyones rights consistently and equally otherwise you open the door to favoritism, corruption and other abuses of power.

In cases like this where I assume despite knowingly illegally building on land that was not theirs, there was no malicious intent or greed by those who built homes. The government should step in to mitigate their hardship by working out some deal or help with new housing.




btw there is also such a thing in many countries where title to a property can be obtained without compensation by the concept of Adverse Possession. Its different for each country and can take more than 50 or 60 years in some countries. I wont get into it except to post some info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

[LeftishBrit]

5. This is disgusting

[azurnoir]

7. From the article

Palestinians sources told Haaretz that the area in question, comprising around 200 dunams (some 50 acres ), had been given by the Hamas government to a charitable organization called Fadila so that it could build a religious study center there comprising a school, a college and a mosque. But when Fadila sought to begin construction, it discovered that dozens of houses had been built on the site. In most cases, these houses were built by owners whose original homes had been destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces.

Fadila applied to the Hamas government, which asked the residents to leave. When they refused, saying they had nowhere to go, the government went to court, and the court ordered them to leave. The government then began razing the houses.

Hamas halted the demolitions after they sparked outrage among ordinary Gazans and the Palestinian media. But the Palestinian Center for Human Rights fears they are slated to resume soon.

so apparently Hamas has stopped for now still and none the less it is wrong to have demolished any houses and it also leads to another question considering that there is an "embargo" on construction materials just how is this university going to be built?

ETA statement from PCHR

PCHR stresses its continued support for the principle of the rule of law, including all legal measures and actions. However, PCHR expresses its grave concern regarding the impact of the eviction of civilians from their homes with the justification that their houses are built on public land. This holds true especially in view of the serious crisis affecting the residents of the Gaza Strip, resulting from the extensive demolitions implemented by IOF since the beginning of the Intifada in 2000, and the ban imposed on the importat of construction materials, urgently needed to reconstruct thousands of buildings across the Gaza Strip. PCHR notes that all legal measures and actions taken must take into consideration the need to enforce the rule of law on one hand and the respect for human rights and basic freedoms on the other. This requires examining the status and circumstances of each of the affected houses separately. PCHR calls upon the government in Gaza to:



1. Temporarily freeze all decisions to demolish houses built on public land and protect the affected civilians from displacement caused by demolitions implemented by the Land Authority.



2. Reach an adequate agreement with the residents of houses built on public land. This may include signing contracts with the residents to establish that the government owns these lands.

3. Associate the implementation of any plans to remove building infringements with finding a viable solution for the serious crisis affecting the residents of the Gaza Strip in general.

4. Implement the decisions of the government as announced by the Secretary General of the Council of Ministers with regard to the adoption of policies that encourage individuals and institutions to legally expand construction on public land. These policies can be developed in a way that protects the legal ownership of these lands and that protects civilians against forcible eviction and displacement.

5. Protect civilians against any attacks on their property and safety of person.

The provision of houses to civilians whose homes were demolished by IOF during the past ten years must be a priority. An end must be put to the continued eviction of civilians from their homes without the provision of practical alternative solutions that ensure their right to adequate housing in accordance with the Palestinian Basic Law and international human rights standards.

http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6679:20-families-displaced-as-palestinian-land-authority-demolishes-homes-in-rafah-&catid=36:pchrpressreleases&Itemid=194

[Jefferson23]

10. Thanks for posting. n/t

[Ken Burch]

21. Hamas is wrong to do this. Unconditionally. Full Stop.

n/t.

[Dick Dastardly]

22. What about the rights of the property owner?

Are you saying they are SOL because someone illegally built on their land before they could so they lose their property and rights.

What about the rule of law?
Are you saying the rule of law does not matter?, that if people build on land that is not theirs it does not matter because it becomes theirs?, that it is wrong to go to court as Hamas did in this case to rule on a dispute and to protect your rights?, that court rulings are irrelevant?, that its ok to take things that don't belong to you.?


You also say unconditionally wrong?
So even if these homes were just built recently, the property owner is SOL?, So even if fraud was used to get the homes built, the property owner is SOL?, So even if violence was used to get the homes built then the property owner is SOL?, So since we don't know anything more of the circumstances other than these homes were built then even if these factors or any other wrongdoing on the part of the builders occurred it does not matter and the property owners are SOL unconditionally?.

[azurnoir]

23. well the homes were present on the property at the time

it was donated to a charitable organization by the name of Fadila, which took the people living there to court and a judgment in Fadila's favor was handed down in November of 2008 prior to OCL , so that these were "squatters" just suddenly appeared is a completely false premise and really has no application here in this case, there are some questions as to why Hamas would suddenly feel it necessary to evict these people especially when it is at the moment and for the foreseeable future impossible to undertake a major building project in Gaza due an "embargo" on building materials.

also seeing as the headline was somewhat sensationalized because according to PCHR the evictions have been halted to protests by the people of Gaza, I would say that there are some questions to be asked including why would Hamas give land to this organization when Hamas knew it was occupied
One should also note the name of the organization is Fadila which is the feminine of Fadil

but I am truly touched by your concern for the rights of Palestinian property owners

also see comment #7 for PCHR's official statement

[aranthus]

24. Sorry, but that isn't relevant.

Assuming that the land was legitimately government land, and the government legitimately gave the land to the private party, then the preexistence of the squatters doesn't help them. As others have already pointed out, the law of adverse possession is a complicated thing, but I don't know of a case where you can obtain adverse possession against a government. It may not have been politically smart for Hamas to have done this now, but it looks as if it was done legally.

[azurnoir]

25. as I told Dick

I am so touched by all of concern for a Palestinian Charities rights

but then again your are assuming quite a bit and by what set of laws are you making these assumptions

[aranthus]

26. You're right that I'm assuming some things.

As I said so right at the beginning of the post. First, I'm assuming that Hamas legitimately owned the property. Second, I'm assuming that it legitimately gave the property to the charity. Third, I'm assuming that the court action which was filed afforded the residents real due process. Fourth, I'm assuming that the law in Gaza favors the government, as it does everywhere else that I know of. I haven't researched the law, but I'm pretty sure that in California a squatter could not obtain adverse possession against the government. So if these people were living in Los Angeles, then the end result would have probably been the same.

Okay, I just did some quick research which confirmed my original supposition. In California you can not gain adverse possession of publicly owned land. I would be really surprised if the law was different anywhere else in the world. I understand that people feel badly for those who have lost their homes, but that's the chance they take squatting on government land. I can't fault Hamas for doing what every other government would do. Of course, if someone has information that would contradict my assumptions, then I'd change my mind.

[shira]

27. Terror Teddy Bear Teaches Martyrdom

Hamas continues to educate children to become “martyrs” who die while waging war on Israel. In one of the latest episodes of its children's television show, Pioneers of Tomorrow, the terrorism-loving teddy bear Nassur urges children to sacrifice themselves, and a caller assures them that if they become martyrs, they will go to Paradise.

"Dear children, when we grow up, we will become martyrs, God willing... the pioneers of tomorrow will liberate the Al-Aksa Mosque," Nassur declares.

more...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137624

[Arrowhead2k1]

28. Interesting how all these people suddenly care about Palestinians losing their homes. nt

[ConsAreLiars]

29. The 'Hamas does it too' defense is rather more damning than they seem to comprehend (nt)