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?