“Octomom” and the Palestinian Right of Return

A guest post by AKUS

On Dec. 26, the Washington Post reported: ‘Octomom’ faces eviction from Southern Calif. home.

For those not familiar with the “Octomom”, the reference is to Nadya Denise Doud-Suleman, a woman who already had six children when, unmarried, she underwent artificial insemination and eventually gave birth to eight new children. She has faded off the celebrity circuit of late, but the thought of a woman with fourteen children losing her home, apparently in the US housing melt-down, piqued my interest.

Briefly, the story is a little different than one might initially imagine. It turns out that, according to the WP article, “Her father [Ed Doud] purchased the home for $565,000, including a $130,000 down payment.” However, according to the WP, the man who sold her father the house, Amer Haddadin, “said he’ll evict Suleman if she and her lawyer Jeff Czech don’t pay the balance on the house by Friday. A balloon payment was due Oct. 9”.

Here is a picture of the house:

At that point, since it would seem that Haddadin has a reasonable case, except for wondering what one does with 14 children and no house, I almost lost interest till I noticed the following (my emphasis):

In April, Haddadin granted a 6-month extension on the remaining balance, and says that as a Jordanian, he took pity on a fellow Arab in a tough spot, and pledged to help [Ed] Doud, who is Palestinian.

Haddadin said Czech and Suleman became joint owners of the house in August, after her father transferred the deed from his name.

Cut to the December 10th Guardian article by Saeb Erekat, Arafat’s mini-me, The returning issue of Palestine’s refugees :

Today, Palestinian refugees constitute more than 7 million people worldwide – 70% of the entire Palestinian population. Disregarding their legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law, their understandable grievances accrued over prolonged displacement, and their aspirations to return to their homeland, would certainly make any peace deal signed with Israel completely untenable.

I invite readers to respond to the following questions regarding the various parties “legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law”:

1.       Are Ed Doud and Nadya Suleiman Palestinian refugees, as Erekat claims?

2.       Should Israel offer Ed Doud and Nadya Suleman the “right of return” as Erekat insists?

3.       If they accept the offer, is Israel obligated, under international law, to compensate Amer Haddadin for the loss he will suffer when they leave without paying him what they owe?

4.       Should Israel compensate Ed Doud and Nadya for the loss of property their family may have suffered in 1948 (“restitution”)?

5.       If Israel does compensate them for this loss, “under international law” can Amer Haddadin garnish the proceeds to make good his loss?

6.       If Israel will not pay restitution, “under international law” can Amer Haddadin sue UNRWA as the organization responsible for housing Palestinian refugees to recompense him for his loss?

7.       Should Ed Doud and Nadya Suleiman be receiving aid from UNRWA, which also claims that millions of descendents of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 have refugee status to this day?

8.       Is Nadya Suleman’s house properly referred to as a “refugee camp” which should be maintained by UNRWA?

9.       Can Nadya Suleman request that UNRWA pay her mortgage of $4,000/month since its mandate is to provide adequate housing for Palestinian refugees?

10.   If Nadya needs another room on the house as the children grow older, is UNRWA obligated to build it for her?

11.   Who should compensate Amer Haddadin, who is a Jordanian, for the loss of interest on the loan he provided that he has suffered as a result of Palestinians squatting in his house?

12.   If Nadya is evicted for not paying what is owed on the house, and a Jewish couple moves in, should they be considered illegal settlers?

3 replies »

  1. Wow, AKUS, this is quite a magum opus.

    In the UK, these people believe that any state benefit the fools in government give them are by right as jeziya tax, and that’s probably the case for the US too.

    For my part, she and all her brood, being refugees and descendants of a Palestinian should be deported to Gaza and throw themselves on the overflowing coffers of UNRWA who are mandated to help them.

  2. I only wish UNRWA would pay for her and her fatherless brood. She has and is costing the state of California a fortune. Before these 8 were born, several of her first 6 had severe enough disabilities that she was receiving additional state aid for them… she herself personally was on disability….she is sucking the system dry….I thought her plan was to do the TV circuit, what happened?

  3. Here is some crazy follow-up to this already crazy story:


    X-rated mogul offers to make octuplets mom’s payment
    2010-12-29 17:01:06

    An X-rated entertainment mogul wants to save octuplets mom Nadya Suleman from possible eviction by purchasing the past-due balloon payment on her La Habra home.

    Steven Hirsch, founder of Vivid Entertainment, is considering paying the $450,000 that has been due since October, said Amer Haddadin, who holds the note on the home. Haddadin said he spoke with Hirsch on Wednesday.

    “These guys … they have a lot of money,” said Haddadin, who several weeks ago demanded that Suleman come up with the money to pay off the balloon payment by New Year’s Eve. “It would solve my problem.”

    Vivid spokeswoman Jacki Martin confirmed Vivid is making inquiries. “We don’t know if he is going to be successful or not,” she said.

    Suleman’s attorney Jeff Czech said he has not heard anything from either Haddadin or Vivid, but they would not have to consult with him. “Probably just a publicity stunt,” he said.

    Over the past two years, Hirsch has made several offers to Suleman, for as much as $1 million, to perform in an adult video. Recently he offered to pay the mother of 14 to host parties at the Adult Video News awards show Jan. 8 in Las Vegas, but she has turned him down.

    “(Hirsch) thinks people are fascinated by her,” said Martin. By paying off her balloon payment, he has no intention of “bullying her or using it as leverage,” Martin added.

    “He simply wants to talk to her,” she said. “He said one of the things it would accomplish would be a face-to-face meeting with Nadya.”

    Martin also said Hirsch has no intention of using the La Habra home as a filming location.

    “They have all the locations they need,” she said.

    If Vivid (or someone) does not pay the balloon payment by Jan. 1, Haddadin vows to begin eviction proceedings.

    Czech said he understands Haddadin’s frustrations, “but you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip, I’ve heard.”

    He said that his client is current on her monthly house payments but does not have $450,000, and if Haddadin wants to force the balloon payment, there’s nothing he could do.

    If that happens, Suleman has no Plan B, Czech says.