Comments:Israel evicts two Palestinian families from their homes

Why do we (U.S.) continue providing billions in military aid to Israel?
Of all our allies, they surely treat us the most contemptuously, totally ignoring our reasonable requests for moderation and dialog even as they use our money and hardware to perpetrate these outrages. I'm sure when this elevates the level of overt hostility, they'll use that to seek even more matériel from us. We're behaving like a big fat lady with one of those horrible, ill-tempered little dogs. The more it snarls and bites &mdash; shows itself to be a perfect mongrel &mdash; the more we cuddle it, feed it choice meat picked off the bone and speak to it in soothing baby talk.

The influence exerted by the pro-Israel (partly but not entirely Jewish) faction in this country has us behaving in a disgustingly spineless and oblivious manner. All our admonitions are empty because devoid of any threat of sanction. Meanwhile, Israel's abuses invite scorn on us while we continue to countenance and even fund them. If we had principled leaders who uniformly resisted the policy of wholesale interventionism issues like this would not have the opportunity to arise. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Me personally don't care for a group of people that dance and enjoyed when 9/11 happen.--66.229.17.185 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And what does that have to do with anything here? You've got an axe to grind sure, but what does any of that (racist/trolling/psychotic, pick one) comment have to do with the illegal eviction of families from the apartment they owned and occupied longer than you've probably been alive? 65.1.135.252 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all it was condemned by most of the Muslim world, Osama was not really supported by anyone and probably would have lost all of his base of support after 9/11 which almost nobody supported. However maybe we should look at our own crimes before just simply claiming to be the victims of a random attack.  The U.S has supported murderous tyrants in the middle east and been the sponsor of major atrocities against the muslim people.  For instance it was the CIA who funded Saddam Hussein's extremist party in Iraq and who helped him destroy all political parties in Iraq and who kept him in power right up until 2003.  The U.S even helped him put down a rebellion in 1991 while they were still occupying the place.  After 1991 a sanctions regime championed by the U.S killed 500,000 children according to UNICEF.  2 UN Human rights coordinators for Iraq resigned from their posts after calling the sanctions tantamount to genocide.  Well that's just Iraq, and the list goes on in pretty much every country.  A terrible history in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan you name it we committed atrocities in it. Soapy (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer is actually largely known, Israel is the biggest offshore military base of the U.S and the strongest not-US NATO power. The US acts as a godfather, or second home to Israel. It was actually the reason the US supported the creation of such a state during the beginning of the cold war.--Z E U S (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, however the U.S really didn't care one way or another until 1967 when Israel defeated the U.S's archenemy, president of Egypt, Nasser in the 1967 war. Nasser was proposing the nationalization of Egypt's oil reserves, a very scary idea to U.S planners.  After 1967 the U.S quickly became close allies with Israel, using it as an offshore military base, and using it to funnel money to places like apartheid South Africa, and Chile and Argentina.  For all of Obama's rhetoric I seriously doubt his stance is any different than Bush's on this issue, bear in mind that even Bush said he supported the two-state settlement. Soapy (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

why is this news? there are far worse things going on. also i feel that wikipedia should not be quoting Al Jazeera as it is the most unreliable news source that consistently changes details to get its politically driven views across. i am not okay with israel's actions either, but i can tell that this is not news and is just slanderous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.57.114.74 (talk • contribs)

damn jews, think they dont have to abide by the rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.10.28.24 (talk • contribs)

Bigotry in action
This biased, untruthful story, is bigotry in action. No one has given the Court's reason for rejecting the Arab families' claims over the properties in question. To ascribe this to "settlerism" is bigotry and mala fide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 118.94.150.230 (talk • contribs)
 * Surely, then, you can offer proof that this isn't "settlerism"? A source, a link to documentation, pretty much anything that doesn't make this your word against theirs? Just one relevant fact will suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.3.35.37 (talk • contribs)

Here: "...things are not always what they seem and the eviction of the Hanoun and Ghawi families are an apt example of how an appetite for a certain type of story can create that story regardless of the facts. As an organisation that follows media coverage of the Middle East closely, we gathered from Sunday and Monday's reporting, such as on the BBC, in the Guardian and in the Times that the two Palestinian families were evicted because Israeli courts had found that the land belonged to Jews, not to the Palestinians living there. Cut to religiously clad Jews busting in to the newly vacated houses and the whole thing is just obvious: Israel mercilessly turfs Arabs on to the street to plant more settlers in east Jerusalem.

It turns out that this is simply not the case. In fact, there is nothing simple about this case at all. There is a long legal history pertaining to the dispute between 28 Arab families and Jewish organisations over the ownership of the land in question. However, one crucial point was omitted from all reporting from the British sources named above (bar a small amendment to the BBC article made yesterday following a communication from us): the two Arab families evicted on Sunday were evicted for failing to pay rent in violation of the terms of their tenancy agreements. The Arab families who have kept to the terms of their tenancy agreement have not been evicted.|

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/06/israel-eviction-palestinian-east-jerusalem

Kinetochore (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased
Citing Al Jazeera and Voice of America is quite unfair, both being often considered as propaganda tools. This is obviously an attempt to present the news biased and in an anti-Israel tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.85.132.240 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry, did you just attempt to lump the rightwing, pro-Israel VoA in with Al Jazeera as being too anti-Israel in tone? VoA is practically the "Fox News Foreign Service" ffs. Both Al Jazeera and VoA are biased as all hell, but they are biased in opposite directions. (Personally I don't like using either one as a source if I can help it.)


 * Frankly, if both the Right and the Left are saying the same thing, as well as both your enemies and your allies, it's probably true:P. Anyone who tries to claim that the entire universe is out to get them is nothing but a paranoid nutjob. Anyone who claims that their side never does anything wrong, while the other side is always evil, cannot be trusted.


 * You can claim that the article is biased (it is, a little bit), but please don't try and claim it is biased because "the whole world is out to get me". Gopher65talk 01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera is biased? Really...give me one example please.Soapy (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

lies
this is such a one sided view. refer to http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/03/israel.evictions/. the evictions had to do with ownership of property, nothing to do with politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellthetruth (talk • contribs)
 * This is a useful article, but not too useful - it appears neither side is denying that the Palestinian families have been living in that household for fifty years. How did the property come to change hands? If the newly evicted were renters, then certainly the law is on the side of the Israeli families and should therefore the decision should be accepted by the international community. That being said, the silence found around the issue suggests a more complex reality that needs to be illuminated by facts, rather than commentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.3.35.37 (talk • contribs)

Jerusalem has never been considered occupied territories, only East-Jerusalem has. --Patrick.N.L (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What the hell, this should stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.140.102 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)