Israel and it's Absentee Property Laws

[gtopa1]

This has long been a sore point for Palestinians and Israeli's.

The original law was an emergency measure, that was subsequently replaced by more sophisticated laws. A brief history of those laws, from Wikipedia: Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia

‘Absentees’ property’ laws were several laws which were first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel. As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[25] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[26]

According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), unlike other laws that were designed to establish Israel’s legal control over lands, this body of law focused on formulating a legal definition for the people (mostly Arabs) who had left or been forced to flee from these lands.​

....As a result, two million dunams were confiscated and given to the custodian, who later transferred the land to the development authority. This law created the novel citizenship category of "present absentees" (nifkadim nohahim), persons present at the time but considered absent for the purpose of the law. These Israeli Arabs enjoyed all civil rights-including the right to vote in the Knesset elections-except one: the right to use and dispose of their property. About 30,000-35,000 Palestinians became "present absentees".[27]​

Wikipedia also notes:

The absentee property played an enormous role in making Israel a viable state. In 1954, more than one third of Israel's Jewish population lived on absentee property and nearly a third of the new immigrants (250,000 people) settled in urban areas abandoned by Arabs. Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property (Peretz, Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, 1958).​

And it notes this about the one of the laws that replaced the emergency law:

The Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950
This law replaced the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948. According to Sabri Jiryis (p. 84),[32] the definition of "absentee" in the law was framed in such a way as to ensure that it applied to every Palestinian or resident in Palestine who had left his usual place of residence in Palestine for any place inside or outside the country after the adoption of the partition of Palestine resolution by the UN. Article 1(b) states that "absentee" means...

...According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews. The law also applied to Arabs who had become citizens of the State of Israel but were not in their usual place of residence as defined by the law. In this case, they were referred to as 'present absentees' and many lost their lands.​

It is very hard to make a claim that these laws were not for the purpose of trying to confiscate land from Palestinians, and give that land to Jewish residents, and to prevent them from being able to reclaim them, and that they were applied differently to Jews and to Arabs, that Jews could more easily reclaim their properties then Arabs.

Lest you think this is just old history, these laws are still in effect, and still in contention in the courts, this is from 2013.

Israel's Absentee Property Law exposes an absence of morality in Jerusalem

Few but the most liberal of Israelis take note of this irony – Arab house equals charm and character – and are willing to acknowledge the fuzzy moral territory of the Jerusalem we now find ourselves in today.


But 1948 is so long ago and peace so far away, and so we don’t like to think too hard about how these lovely “vintage” homes got here. Tuesday, on the other hand, that’s not so long ago at all. On Tuesday, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein said in a legal opinion that a 63-year-old law allowing Israel to confiscate "absentee" properties may continue to be applied to Palestinian-owned homes in Jerusalem.

....“If the Israeli high court, which is hearing a case involving the issue, will rule in favor of recognizing the absentee law, the consequences to Palestinians and their East Jerusalem properties will be enormous. The Israeli custodian of absentee properties has routinely turned over properties under its control to settler and settler-related projects,” Kuttab writes. He also crystallizes why the law is so morally flawed. An Israeli who moves to a West Bank settlement will never be told that he has forfeited the apartment he owns in Jerusalem.


“The irony of the Israeli discussion about absentee properties in Jerusalem is [that it is] applicable only to Palestinian Arabs,” he adds. “There is no similar application of this law to Israeli settlers living in the West Bank and owning properties in Jerusalem or Israel.”


As Haaretz reported, this isn’t simply about leaving on the books a law that passed in 1950, when the Jewish state’ survival seemed less secure and Israelis feared droves of Palestinian refugees returning to claim the homes they left behind. Today, this is about Palestinians who live in the West Bank – and sometimes, meters from their property in Jerusalem – and had their homes confiscated because they’re now “absentees,” ie. no longer Jerusalem residents. In other words, we’re not talking about the homes of Palestinians who are already spending a second or even third generation in Jordan or Lebanon or somewhere much further afield – we’re talking about people who still live in the vicinity, under Israeli rule, but now find themselves on the wrong side of the line for maintaining their property.

“If the Israeli high court, which is hearing a case involving the issue, will rule in favor of recognizing the absentee law, the consequences to Palestinians and their East Jerusalem properties will be enormous. The Israeli custodian of absentee properties has routinely turned over properties under its control to settler and settler-related projects,” Kuttab writes. He also crystallizes why the law is so morally flawed. An Israeli who moves to a West Bank settlement will never be told that he has forfeited the apartment he owns in Jerusalem.


“The irony of the Israeli discussion about absentee properties in Jerusalem is [that it is] applicable only to Palestinian Arabs,” he adds. “There is no similar application of this law to Israeli settlers living in the West Bank and owning properties in Jerusalem or Israel.” ​

I think it's important to note for the purpose of this article - that Israel has been busy moving and adjusting the "boundaries" of Jerusalem in order to optimize Jewish demographics, which means if a Palestinian landowner is on the wrong side of the line suddenly, he loses whatever property he had on the other side.

And the High Court's Ruling? Supreme Court rules: Israel can confiscate Palestinian property in Jerusalem

hi Coyote; you might want to read this.

https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

Greg

Indeed, the Ottoman Empire had its own version land theft. Using taxation and debt, the land just "happens" to fall into the hands of the state or the state's rich friends. There is nothing new here.

Just gives the lie to the idea that local ownership of land was widespread. lol

Greg

 

[rylah]

The next time an Israeli solder gets sent to another country, by their own arbitrary law, said soldier could technically be considered an absentee and his home occupied by someone else when he gets back. lol.

You'd be surprised how many IDF soldiers are absentee landowners in all those neighboring countries.

I dunno. I don't usually like to wander into these particular discussions. The manufactured and guided propaganda is just so blatantly transparent that it's laughable.

Anyone with even a minimal understanding of geo-political history knows that almost every problem in the area is a consequence of the British double dealings after the first world war.

Anyway. The violence, destruction, death, bombs blowing all over the place, and poor human conditions that is so constant over there is a travesty. And a burden to the Earth itself.

It wouldn't be such a burden if Arabs would free the refugees from the comps they live in and give at least 1/10 of the property they've appropriated from expelling Jews, and they'd be millionaires with luxury vials in countries where there's much more land, and which are ruled by Arab Muslim governments, a wide variety of countries in the neighborhood.
However I don't see Israeli Arabs running for an opportunity to move to Jordan or Syria, they want to live under Israeli govt.

 

[Shusha]

Please let's keep this discussion on Absentee Property Laws.

The law seems arbitrary. And racist.

What about the people who never moved, but since boundaries were changed decades ago are still considered absentee?

The law is neither arbitrary nor racist. It serves a very specific purpose. That purpose still exists, and thus the law still exists.

 

[USAF 2023]

It's a jewish country ran by jews for jews and to hell with everyone else. The international community allows it. It didn't allow Hitler to run a country for ethnic Germans.

Too bad you don’t feel that way about the Muslim/Arab Countries who have a NJA Policy!! Did you know that during the Gulf Wsr our Military for forbidden to have any access to their Bibles? Of course not! Because you are too stupid, ignorant, any have your own agenda .

 

[Shusha]

Present absentees? Only in Israel, folks. You can't make this stuff up. These are Israeli citizens. Why can't they go back home?

They do live very nearby and they are permitted access to the village for a wide variety of reasons, including learning opportunities, burials, and use of the church for holidays and private ceremonies. They are not permitted to squat, nor are they permitted to rebuild permanent homes in the village.

I'll point to the elephant in the room. They are not permitted formal recognition to "return" because it sets a dangerous precedent. In particular, it sets a dangerous legal precedent without the protection of a peace treaty or agreement. And they readily admit they are attempting to set this precedent -- that is one of their goals.

It is an important distinction because they are not just trying to return home themselves, but set up the legal conditions to have, what is it? seven million Arabs flood Israel. And Israel is just not going to let that happen.

Now, personally, I think it is foolish in the extreme for Israeli citizens living ten minutes away to be prevented from quietly re-establishing their village, as long as actual practical concerns (such as modern infrastructure) could be worked out. Its just silly.

But the larger problem remains. Israel is still, effectively if not formally, at war with the Arab Palestinians. A large number of Arabs are living in Israel and separating those still at war and those happily integrated with Israel is a bitch. And there is no good, moral way of doing it.

And Israel very much fears this particular slippery slope.

 

[USAF 2023]

Present absentees? Only in Israel, folks. You can't make this stuff up. These are Israeli citizens. Why can't they go back home?

They do live very nearby and they are permitted access to the village for a wide variety of reasons, including learning opportunities, burials, and use of the church for holidays and private ceremonies. They are not permitted to squat, nor are they permitted to rebuild permanent homes in the village.

I'll point to the elephant in the room. They are not permitted formal recognition to "return" because it sets a dangerous precedent. In particular, it sets a dangerous legal precedent without the protection of a peace treaty or agreement. And they readily admit they are attempting to set this precedent -- that is one of their goals.

It is an important distinction because they are not just trying to return home themselves, but set up the legal conditions to have, what is it? seven million Arabs flood Israel. And Israel is just not going to let that happen.

Now, personally, I think it is foolish in the extreme for Israeli citizens living ten minutes away to be prevented from quietly re-establishing their village, as long as actual practical concerns (such as modern infrastructure) could be worked out. Its just silly.

But the larger problem remains. Israel is still, effectively if not formally, at war with the Arab Palestinians. A large number of Arabs are living in Israel and separating those still at war and those happily integrated with Israel is a bitch. And there is no good, moral way of doing it.

And Israel very much fears this particular slippery slope.

Why can’t they “ go back home’” He doesn’t feel that why about the Israelis who were forced out of Arab Countries they lived in

 

[USAF 2023]

Copied from the other thread (my comments):

Have you ever heard the expression, "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." (Margaret Atwood)? I think it is relevant.

Arabs also created a number of laws which were unacceptable, actually much more so -- such as laws removing nationality from Jews, and laws stripping Jews of all their property and rights to own it. Some Arab countries still have different laws for Jews than for everyone else. (You know what that is, yes?) But more than that, the Arab nations created a culture of hatred and oppression and savagery that was so toxic and so dangerous that nearly all the Jews in those nations just chose to leave. There is no question of Jews returning to those lands. None. Its an issue of survival. Jews do not believe it would be safe for them to live in those lands. (Hard enough these days in Europe).

Contrast that to the situation in Israel/Palestine. While there are absentee property laws in Israel, there is no culture of hatred and oppression in Israel against the Arabs. Which is not to say there is not some level of discrimination. But there is no danger for Arabs in Israel. The survival of Arabs in Israel is not in question. They feel safe in returning.

Looking at it another way... Stealing a loaf of bread isn't "right". But if a person is starving, they might do it anyway. And, as an onlooker, you would have compassion for that starving person who performs what is normally considered an immoral act in order to survive. And you would have some level of discomfort asking that starving person to return the bread and starve to death. The immoral act thus becomes the moral one.

So are absentee property laws immoral? Sure. By today's standards, absolutely. (The standards have changed drastically in the past 100 years.) But it was and STILL IS a matter of Jewish survival. Not just the survival of Israel -- but the survival of Jews. It still is. The only way for the Jewish people to protect the Jewish people is to hold a sovereign nation.

What happened, as was normal in cases of civil war in those times and even later, was an exchange of population between the Arabs and the Jews. The exchange happened in the context of the conflict and it was mutual and should be seen that way.



It is. Just like stealing a loaf of bread is a horrible thing. But if it is necessary for survival the morality becomes a lot more complex.

Remember the purpose of the separation is not to punish a people either individually or collectively -- but to prevent a hostile group from having access to the Jewish people in order to ensure the Jewish people's literal physical survival, as well as the survival of her identity, traditions, culture and religion. The morality becomes a whole lot more complex.

Ok, that was 1948 - not that I agreed with it then either. How about now?

It still exists as far as the Arab World is concerned. One Small example: declaring that the Israelis have no control or even the ability to go to their religious sites

 

[Shusha]

Present absentees? Only in Israel, folks. You can't make this stuff up. These are Israeli citizens. Why can't they go back home?

They do live very nearby and they are permitted access to the village for a wide variety of reasons, including learning opportunities, burials, and use of the church for holidays and private ceremonies. They are not permitted to squat, nor are they permitted to rebuild permanent homes in the village.

I'll point to the elephant in the room. They are not permitted formal recognition to "return" because it sets a dangerous precedent. In particular, it sets a dangerous legal precedent without the protection of a peace treaty or agreement. And they readily admit they are attempting to set this precedent -- that is one of their goals.

It is an important distinction because they are not just trying to return home themselves, but set up the legal conditions to have, what is it? seven million Arabs flood Israel. And Israel is just not going to let that happen.

Now, personally, I think it is foolish in the extreme for Israeli citizens living ten minutes away to be prevented from quietly re-establishing their village, as long as actual practical concerns (such as modern infrastructure) could be worked out. Its just silly.

But the larger problem remains. Israel is still, effectively if not formally, at war with the Arab Palestinians. A large number of Arabs are living in Israel and separating those still at war and those happily integrated with Israel is a bitch. And there is no good, moral way of doing it.

And Israel very much fears this particular slippery slope.

Why can’t they “ go back home’” He doesn’t feel that why about the Israelis who were forced out of Arab Countries they lived in

Well, he does actually pay lip service to that. He thinks the Jewish people, and all their descendants SHOULD be able to go back to the Arab countries they were expelled from.

This is where his vision is limited to individual rights and fails to see the collective.

 

[USAF 2023]

Present absentees? Only in Israel, folks. You can't make this stuff up. These are Israeli citizens. Why can't they go back home?

They do live very nearby and they are permitted access to the village for a wide variety of reasons, including learning opportunities, burials, and use of the church for holidays and private ceremonies. They are not permitted to squat, nor are they permitted to rebuild permanent homes in the village.

I'll point to the elephant in the room. They are not permitted formal recognition to "return" because it sets a dangerous precedent. In particular, it sets a dangerous legal precedent without the protection of a peace treaty or agreement. And they readily admit they are attempting to set this precedent -- that is one of their goals.

It is an important distinction because they are not just trying to return home themselves, but set up the legal conditions to have, what is it? seven million Arabs flood Israel. And Israel is just not going to let that happen.

Now, personally, I think it is foolish in the extreme for Israeli citizens living ten minutes away to be prevented from quietly re-establishing their village, as long as actual practical concerns (such as modern infrastructure) could be worked out. Its just silly.

But the larger problem remains. Israel is still, effectively if not formally, at war with the Arab Palestinians. A large number of Arabs are living in Israel and separating those still at war and those happily integrated with Israel is a bitch. And there is no good, moral way of doing it.

And Israel very much fears this particular slippery slope.

Why can’t they “ go back home’” He doesn’t feel that why about the Israelis who were forced out of Arab Countries they lived in

Well, he does actually pay lip service to that. He thinks the Jewish people, and all their descendants SHOULD be able to go back to the Arab countries they were expelled from.

This is where his vision is limited to individual rights and fails to see the collective.

Even if they wanted to, does anybody in their right mind believe the Israelis would be welcome?

 

[Coyote]

Ok, that was 1948 - not that I agreed with it then either. How about now?

Israel is still fighting for her survival, literally and also the survival of her heritage, tradition, culture and religion. So, yeah, still now.

I totally disagree. You pointed out the ethics of today are different then they were then. Are they?

The use of those laws is today is nothing less than theft. And theft of the worst kind because it is legalized theft against those who cannot fight it.

I can not believe you would support it in this day and age.

 

[Coyote]

And the High Court's Ruling? Supreme Court rules: Israel can confiscate Palestinian property in Jerusalem

'it should be used only rarely, and with explicit approval of the attorney general'
'However, the expanded seven-justice panel, headed by former Supreme Court president Asher Grunis and present President Miriam Naor, did warn that the application of the law to East Jerusalem presents many problems and it must be used in only the “rarest of rare cases.”'

From your link.

And IS IT being used in the rarest of rare cases?

 

[Coyote]

,,,,,

The next time an Israeli solder gets sent to another country, by their own arbitrary law, said soldier could technically be considered an absentee and his home occupied by someone else when he gets back. lol.

One of the laws is written in such a way it excludes Jews. I think it almost always applies to Arabs.

 

[Shusha]

,,,,,

The next time an Israeli solder gets sent to another country, by their own arbitrary law, said soldier could technically be considered an absentee and his home occupied by someone else when he gets back. lol.

One of the laws is written in such a way it excludes Jews. I think it almost always applies to Arabs.

Which law is written in such a way to exclude Jews? Text?

 

[Shusha]

Ok, that was 1948 - not that I agreed with it then either. How about now?

Israel is still fighting for her survival, literally and also the survival of her heritage, tradition, culture and religion. So, yeah, still now.

I totally disagree. You pointed out the ethics of today are different then they were then. Are they?

The use of those laws is today is nothing less than theft. And theft of the worst kind because it is legalized theft against those who cannot fight it.

I can not believe you would support it in this day and age.

The conflict is still on-going. Thus the protections put in place because of the conflict continue to be necessary. When they are no longer necessary, they will be removed.

People should be compensated for any loss of property. Then or now. But the starving people are not going to give back the bread that they need to survive. There is a larger morality at play here.