Federal and local law governs what you can or can't do with your property designated for rent, not you ,...

This bussiness worked well , paid the rent . It's religious coercision . Those b......s are imposing their rules on everyone , Hope this new governement , without the charidi blackmailers , will make a change in this country . Such things infuriate me . What if the landlord in our birth country had imposed me to go to the church ? to take the Mezouza away ? The same thing as this landlord did , kosher or leave . Scandalous . This is NOT in favor of a united people , the contrary . It makes me hate those people .

If the owner of a property wants the place to serve only kosher food then they are entitled to tell their tenant either you serve only kosher food or I will not rent my property to you. Those are the terms of the lease now you decide if you want to go kosher or relocate... its a contract.

Good that the property owner stands up for his beliefs and is not just lured by money. When you sign a lease or contract there are all sorts of conditions examples include specific type of business or no subleasing. The property owner felt that his profits are being derived from Sabbath desecration, the sale of non kosher food and sale of bread on Passover, all of which are against his beliefs he is right to refuse to renew the lease unless its on terms he feels comfortable being associated with.

They can do that in condominiums and co-ops but you're informed of those rules before you buy it ,...

Hey, split, guess what - the issue is in ISRAEL, and NOT the U.S. Your badgering is irrelevant here.

It not only says the seventh day is for the lord - it says six days you shall work and the seventh is for the lord - so presumably you are in favor of the praying classes working

Can you imagine the gevalts if someone refused to renew a rental contract if the restuarant insisted on keeping kosher!

The fact that the gov't institutes basic rules for what can be done with property does not mean it can take away all rights. And if you're taking the stance that it can, I'm assuming that you have no problem with the laws in Jerusalem prohibiting the opening of businesses on shabbat, the law which the secular hypocrites in this article rail against.

Good for the owner for standing up for his beliefs. This is eretz yisrael not eretz aravim. Let him sell treife in uganda... or tel aviv. #3 the intolerance of your heritage is enough to make me gag. Busha v'cherpa lecha

Remember when they opened the new terminal at the airport? They banned any shops which wouldn't open on shabbat.

'It makes me hate those people' . That's incorrect. You hated them when you were still living in Belgium. They remind you of what your grandparents would have wanted you to be and you take out your guilt feeling on them.

The same "freedom" which the secular Jews wish to excersize was used to refuse a renewal of the rental contract. That's called "capitalism" and a free-market system. Thankfully, there are property owners who not only recognize the importance of keeping Jerusalem Jewish, but who are able to make a courageous decision even though it will likely cause them some financial loss. Kol hakavod!

I personally do not mind if secular people in Jerusalem go out on Shabbos. It's not my business. I prefer if the place served kosher food, but again I think it's not my business to tell them what and when to eat out. Once the property was owned by a religious person, it could not continue to be breaking Sabbath. Perhaps they will relocate.

As I respect and observe the laws of Kashrut, and find it difficult in many Israeli towns to find Kosher food service (outside of shwarma stands), it concerns me not that this particular owner apparently prefers to shut down rather than move his business elsewhere. However, I do recognize that in Jerusalem secular Jews and the many, many tourists (many of whom are not even Jewish) should be able to find a restaurant whenever hunger calls. That need should offer business opportunities to restaurant owners, present and prospective. As for the property owner, he is well within his legal right, and apparently had to put up for several years with the continued operation of the non-K restaurant after he purchased the property

as the airport works seven days a week , shops had be open every day too . A religious person can have employees who can open the shop . Not 100 % correct for a religious person ? No , but there must be a way to "go round" this interdiction .

Don't be ignorant. Many Hareidi are superb businessmen. The successful ones are quite well off financially.

Can't the owner just "sell" the restaurant every Friday a couple of hours before sundown to Ahmad for a shekel and then buy it back from him on Saturday night? Problem solved....

No Moshe , as you don't know me , you don't know my feelings towards those people abroad . You don't know , nor knew , my grand parents either . So don't talk about people you don't know anything about .

as the airport works seven days a week , shops had be open every day too . A religious person can have employees who can open the shop . Not 100 % correct for a religious person ? No , but there must be a way to "go round" this interdiction .

What if a man's principles are against renting to charedim ? Will you also condone it ? Or , as it happened to us in 1978 , his principles were against renting to Jews .

Your comment about Charles is indicative of "cheap psychology" or what is referred to as "psychologism". You do not have the facts at your disposal (even if you really are a professional psychologist, which I doubt) to make such broad statements and conclusions about Charles. You might be a far more effective commentator by sticking to the few facts you already possess. In short, a little humility could help.

Aside from having zero logic in your rambling attempt at an argument, you ignore the basic point. You can't force people to do with their property what you want them to. Is there any law against closing down a private property on Ramadan? I think not. And I love it how you bring up the US as an example - yes, of course a property owner can require that his property be closed on ANY day that he likes. I happen to rent out a property of mine in the states and have exactly the same conditions. Please, kiddo, get a life. This isn't communist Russia, no matter how much you'd love it to be.

to opern aresto in Jer'lem and not to keep kosher and closed on Shabbat is an insult for all the jewish people who died to keep that town with jewish roots .From Hadrian , antoninus, Constantine,Theodosia, etc.. every generation had its martyrs.Nowadays it's softer but still exist.

to rent appartements to Haredim. So what?Is this a reason for me to hate secular Jews?.

after all we've all heard about RestoBar and so the name is portable...so he can move to the new Open On Shabbat Mall in the old Jerusalem Train station. End of story.

Why should the property owner care if the business was doing well or not? Time has come for the lease to be renewed and for some reason the property owner has now decided he will not allow anybody to operate a non kosher restaurant on the property he owns even though he didn't put those conditions in the original contract which has now come to an end. As owner of the property doesn't he have that right to set conditions like that same way as the restaurant owner is entitled to say I will relocate rather than accept the new rules? Its not coercion because nobody is telling the business owner to change their own lifestyle only how he operates his business if he wants to rent the property. There is also nothing here that says the owner of the property was a haredi so you can't pin the blame for this on them.

He's French (this Haredi we're talking about) and made his money elsewhere where he had to work and pay taxes instead off leech off the Government, like in Israel. Like all Haredim, he feels entitled to coerce people to live like him