Discrimination in Sheikh Jarrah?

"If Jews can reclaim property which was occupied by Arabs following the war in 1948," argue left-wing activists, "why can't Arabs reclaim property that was occupied by Jews?"

On the surface, the argument seems to make sense. "Arabs and Jews don't have equal rights," Dan Izenberg charges (Jerusalem Post, January 20, 2010). While "Jewish landowners could recover their land … Palestinian landowners could not." The argument is powerful. Such laws seem to contradict democratic principles and equality before the law.

The reason, however, that "Arabs and Jews don't have equal rights to recover pre-1948 properties," as Izenberg charges, is not because the law is unfair, but because the basis for their claims is different. Jews have legal title, backed by courts; most Arabs don't.

Where Arabs can prove ownership, these claims should be resolved as part of an adjudication of all claims by those who lost property, not just Arabs.

Although admitting that properties like those in Sheikh Jarrah legally belong to Jews, not the Arabs who claim them, Izenberg suggests that the law itself is unjust. Such accusations ignore the basis for the law and its historical context.

(1) In 1948, the State of Israel was attacked by five Arab armies, which declared a genocidal war against the Jewish state. Many local Arabs participated in this war; others left on the advice of Arab leaders, hoping that the Jews would be wiped out. In several instances, Arab communities were relocated for security reasons. In some cases, Arabs were forced out when they fought against Jews; those who remained are Israeli citizens in flourishing communities.

(2) During and after the war, about 800,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries, far more than the 600,000 Arab refugees (who claimed to reside in Palestine since 1947) according to UNRWA statistics. Although Jews who were expelled from Arab countries can document their losses, Arab countries have refused to recognize their legitimate property claims.

(3) Jews who have returned to property lost in 1948, and in earlier pogroms, have valid legal claims, unlike Arab squatters, like those in Sheikh Jarrah, who present no proof of ownership and whose right of tenancy is questionable.

(4) Every country defends its national priorities, including its rights to enemy property and excludes those it deems unqualified, or security threats. Moreover, Israel's definition as the homeland of the Jewish People is grounded in history and international law.

Israeli law is intended to insure the nation's Jewish and democratic character; that is our raison d'etre.

This explains why Israel's "Law of Return" does not apply equally. The Arab "Palestinian Right of Return" is intended to destroy the State of Israel, not to advance the cause of peace. Israel, therefore, has every right and duty to protect itself from this threat. Arab Palestinians" who wish to express their “national” aspirations can do so in many other countries. Israel is not one of them.

Had Israel lost in 1948, 1967, or 1973, there would be no Jews left to claim anything. That Arabs today can apply to Israeli courts for redress, supported by myriad NGOs and anti-Israel "activists," is a testament to Israeli democracy and its institutions.

Having lost wars which they started, that Arabs demand civil rights, compassion and understanding from their intended victims - and receive it - is a tribute to Jewish values and our Jewish state.

Arabs who took over property which did not belong to them in Jerusalem, Hebron and many other places, are obviously not in the same position as Jews who lost property and reclaim it, or those who acquired property as a result of wars waged in self-defense. Failure to understand this fundamental difference mocks the distinction between aggressors and victims.

Denying Jews the right to live anywhere in the Land of Israel, simply because they are Jews, is as intolerable as denying non-Jews that right. Those who support such Arab claims attack not only Israeli law, but the rule of law in all other democratic countries. Perhaps that's why they call themselves "anarchists."

The author is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem