Israel Supreme Court rules in favor of Jew; Palestinian advocates at Reuters hysterical

Following years of appeals and legal delays, the Israel Supreme Court finally awarded Yehya Gureish (a Yemen-born Jew) possession of his home in Jerusalem. There's only one problem: an Arab family had been squatting there and pursuant to a court order, has now been evicted. And you know what that means: shrieks of "ethnic cleansing!" from the Palestinian advocates at Reuters. Parroting Palestinian claims, Reuters' Douglas Hamilton writes the eviction is part of:

... a systematic campaign to drive them [Arabs] out and strengthen Israel's hold on all of Jerusalem.

And of course, to buttress Reuters' self-appointed legal authority to decide who has sovereignty over the eastern portion of the city, Hamilton employs the racist characterization, "Arab East Jerusalem".

As for the Jews who live in eastern Jerusalem or whose families have roots there from over a century ago -- before being subjected to genuine ethnic cleansing by the Arab Legion in 1948 (see photos) -- well, for Reuters they are clearly interlopers "settlers" who have no rights.

Hamilton then goes on to parrot another canard, that "Palestinians have little chance of winning property cases in Israeli courts", and "a fair hearing is impossible to obtain". Hamilton should read the news more often.

So we wonder, does a Mizrahi (Semitic) Jew who holds legitimate title to property located in eastern Jerusalem which has been in his family for generations have the right to possession of his home? If not, why not? Because he is Israeli? Because he is Jewish? If the former, would he be entitled to his property if he renounced his Israeli citizenship? If the latter, would he be entitled to his property if he converted to Islam?

We're sure Douglas Hamilton and the legal scholars at Reuters have the answers.