Delegitmization

British MP’s query on Jerusalem prompting David Cameron’s ‘shock’ is based on lie


Widely reported comments last week highly critical of Israeli construction in east Jerusalem by David Cameron, during Parliament’s weekly question-answer session, set off an Israeli media firestorm and a diplomatic row between Israel and the UK. 

The British prime minister’s comments, which elicited a strong response from Jerusalem, came in response to a question by Bradford East Labour MP Imran Hussain.  Hussain said he had visited a Palestinian woman in east Jerusalem named Nura who had lived in her home for nearly 60 years, but was being forced out by settlers.

PM David Cameron replied thusly:

I am well-known for being a strong friend of Israel, but I have to say the first time I visited Jerusalem and had a proper tour around that wonderful city and saw what had happened with the effective encirclement of East Jerusalem, occupied East Jerusalem, it is genuinely shocking,”

However, reporters covering the row failed to pay sufficient attention to the exact accusation leveled by MP Hussain which elicited Cameron’s response.

Here’s the clip.

As you can see, Hussain refers to his Palestinian “friend” Nura, who he claims had been living in the same east Jerusalem home since 1953, and is allegedly being kicked out by Israeli settlers.

Hussein is almost certainly referring to Nura Sub Laban, a Palestinian featured by Associated Press (AP) and New York Times stories about the “evictions” of Palestinian families from east Jerusalem. However, as corrections prompted by CAMERA (based on a careful examination of relevant court documents) to both stories show, claims that the Sub Labans had lived in their home continuously since 1953 are simply not true.

CAMERA provides background on the building in dispute:

before the 1948 war, the building was “owned by a trust for Kollel Galicia, a group that collected funds in Eastern Europe for Jewish families in Jerusalem.” When Jordan occupied Jerusalem in 1948, the property fell under the control of the Jordanian administration and was rented to the Palestinian Sub-Laban family in 1953. Following the 1967 war, when Israel gained control of eastern Jerusalem, the property was, according to the AP, “handed to an Israeli government department, the General Custodian. Palestinian residents were recognized as “protected tenants,” provided they continued to live in the apartments and pay rent to the Custodian.”
….
the Sub-Labans were never the owners of the property, but rather enjoyed “protected tenant” status. That status can be lost if the tenant abandons the property without intention of returning – and it is irrelevant whether the tenant is Jewish or Palestinian

And, herein lies the crux of the legal case against the Sub-Labans.

The court concluded that, from 2001-2010, the family did not live in the apartment, thus losing their status as “protected tenants” – and from 2010 until 2014, they had only “pretended” to live in the apartment. The court further concluded that the Sub-Labans “had been living with their extended family” and paying rent at another apartment” during that time. 

CAMERA prompted a long New York Times editors note (at the end of their original story) stating that the papershould have noted that an Israeli court in 2014 upheld a lower-court finding that [Nora Sub-Laban] had not returned to live at the property after renovations were completed in 2000 or 2001.

The New York Times correction also noted that the original version of their story, by Dia Hadid, was based entirely on Palestinian claims, and did not take into account the landlord’s testimony or court records.

MP Hussain evidently did the same exact thing in British Parliament – relying merely on the false claims of his “friend” Nura Sub-Laban.

Hussein’s claim that the Sub-Labans are being driven out by “settlers” despite living in the same apartment “since 1953” is untrue.  In fact, the Palestinian tenants are being legally evicted by landords because they lost protected status after abandoning the property for many years.

Based on the evidence, it seems that the MP’s question – framing a normal legal dispute into a case of discrimination – which prompted David Cameron to express “shock” over Israeli actions in “occupied east Jerusalem” was based on a lie.

14 replies »

    • Just like all the rest of their claims. Their claim to land is based upon their demands, not any legal requirement, but they have repeated that lie so many times that it is now accepted as fact. Though it has no legal basis.

      Then there is their so-called ‘right of return’ – which again is does not exist as a right nor even a legal obligation, but a recommendation only. And it does not mention any of the millions that were never in the Mandate.

      Through sheer repetition of lies their claims are now accepted. They have no legal claims to anything whatsoever anywhere in the world

  1. The questions are whether Cameron will issue a correction having been misled by a parliamentarian … and whether anyone will tell the Speaker of the House of Commons that Imran Hussain lied (or at least mis-spoke) and demand that he come to the bar of the house to apologise and correct himself

  2. Adam, the 2 AP writers Karin Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh who wrote the lying article.
    Sub-Laban Eviction Story Spotlights Journalistic Failure. Camera totally showed what liars they are.

    Here’s another Pallywood article Karin Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh wrote about the Gaza war.
    The other AP reporter Fares Akram who joined Karin Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh in this article had a picture of Arafat on his Facebook page.

    Here’s a great article showing how Fares Akram, Karin Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh lie.

    http://honestreporting.com/forbes-journalists-devastating-critique-of-ap-report/
    Forbes Journalist’s Devastating Critique of AP Report
    By Richard Behar
    February 16, 2015

  3. After reading Imran Hussain MP’s remarks you might very well write the following;
    “..the language he uses is extremely divisive and will incite discrimination and hatred; further notes that such comments will be seized upon by radical elements of all faiths to justify discrimination and violence; notes that such comments will seriously hamper and damage efforts to promote inclusion, integration and cooperation..”

    That excerpt is from Early Day Motion (EDM) 837 of 8/12/15 a motion that proposed denying a visa to Donald Trump for his remarks ‘about denying entry to Muslims.’
    The proposer of the motion that wants to stop divisive language, to stop discrimination and hatred, and to stop using comments that will be seized upon by radical elements?
    Imran Hussain MP.

  4. No wonder they never get time to be shocked at the abuses of human rights, especially children’s and women’s, all over the Arab world or shocked that not one Arab country is reaching out to Syrian refugees, those that haven’t been murdered by their fellow Muslims (or any other Muslim refugees). Too busy over nonsense, storms in a teacup, in the only country in the Middle East where ordinary Muslims (who aren’t oil tycoons) have freedom, happiness and human and civil rights.

  5. All the hate toward Israel is based on LIES.
    Cuz Jews are just severing heads left and right…BWHAHA…welcome the Jihad and pay he price morons!!!!