Read on Twitter
I have a question about #Jerusalem and #SheikhJarrah:
As I understood it from this Israeli podcast https://www.mako.co.il/news-podcast_n12/one_a_day/Article-4395a122a025971026.htm, the Palestinian families in the "disputed" houses in Sheikh Jarrah came there as refugees when East Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule. (1/4)
As I understood it from this Israeli podcast https://www.mako.co.il/news-podcast_n12/one_a_day/Article-4395a122a025971026.htm, the Palestinian families in the "disputed" houses in Sheikh Jarrah came there as refugees when East Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule. (1/4)
Now Jewish settlers claim they have a right to "return" to these houses. That would mean, for me, that a "Right of Return" can work for Jews, but Israel does not recognise the Palestinian Right of Return. Isn't this clearly Apartheid? (2/4)
And if the Palestinian families came to be living in these "disputed" houses in Sheikh Jarrah as refugees, they must have been displaced from their original homes (in Jaffa or Haifa or other places from which Palestinians were expelled in the Nakba). (3/4)
So in order for this not to be Apartheid, the Palestinian families should be allowed to return to their homes from before the Nakba? (4/4)
Found this excellent thread explaining the historical context and making it much clearer for me, specifically the role of the "Absentee Property Law": https://twitter.com/Ilyas_Ibn_Karim/status/1391796760209727492 (see also for further sources) - thank you @Ilyas_Ibn_Karim
