Israeli conflict were not such an emotional one, it might be considered prudent advice for the Arab nations to be calmly proactive in resolving it as Israel seems bent on self-destruction, anyway. Continuing settlement activity on the West Bank well outside of Jerusalem raises the hackles of Palestinians and the international community, but it is the gradual colonization of East Jerusalem that puts these urban settlements in the media spotlight. The case of a family evicted from a house in which it had lived for more than five generations in favor of letting extremist Jews live there may well have repercussions far beyond an argument over real estate. It also has become a media flashpoint. First of all, the East Jerusalem neighborhoods into which Jews are taking up residence came under Israeli occupation post-1967 war. The annexation and population by Jews of the area is in direct conflict to the Geneva Accords that were meant to place some kind of regulations on modern warfare and its consequences. Even more eye-opening, however, is the rationale behind the decision to evict the Palestinian family. Courts upheld a baseless decision that the house was once upon a time owned by Jews. The issue of reclaiming properties can be justified only for the Palestinian refugees whose homes were evicted and occupied to form what is now Israel. Israel rejects their demand for a right of return. The right of return is one of the most contentious issues that the two peoples will face should so-called peace talks ever be seriously undertaken. Of course, Israel is adamantly opposed while the Palestinian side is just as adamantly in favor. Though baseless, if Israeli courts are determining a “right to return” for Jews, they will have a difficult time preventing Palestinians from returning to property that was occupied to establish Israel. Which brings us back to the question: Just how legitimate is Israel? __
