There is something missing in this op-ed, namely the full and exact details that led to the court’s verdict. The author writes: ‘Even if there is substance to the State's claims that the village's lands belong to the State and not to the inhabitants, it should have offered other solutions…’ Well, is there substance in the State’s claims? That point is not clear. The author then adds ‘After a protracted legal battle, the State destroyed the village’. So, this did not happen from one day to the other. There was a long legal battle -how many years? I would have liked to know if the State offered alternatives which were rejected by the villagers. I doubt the court would have offered other solutions, that is not their job; their duty is to rule on legal matters according to the law of the country. Haaretz once again, is focusing on the (sad) result of a legal decision but not on the complex problem – land ownership versus squatting.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Kerry: If Assad does not adhere to ceasefire plan there 'will clearly be repercussions' (Reuters)
from the article: Displacing the Bedouin