Supreme Court ordered eviction of additional Palestinian families from Silwan.

It took Supreme Court Justice Alex Stein 238 words to issue a decision requiring 62 residents of Batan al-Hawa in Silwan to vacate their homes, where they have lived for decades, in favor of settlers.

The justice rejected two applications for leave to appeal by 13 Palestinian families from two buildings: the Qaid Rajabi family (2 families, 18 people) and the Ya’qub Rajabi family (11 families, 44 people).

Settlers affiliated with the organization Ateret Cohanim sued the families, claiming to represent a Jewish endowment that, over 100 years ago, owned the land. The organization seeks to have the families

vacate the homes.

In September 2025, the District Court rejected the families’ appeal, and the Supreme Court has now denied their request for leave to appeal.

With legal options exhausted, the families are expected to be evicted in the coming weeks or months unless the government intervenes.

These eviction lawsuits are part of a broader effort to remove approximately 700 residents from the East Jerusalem neighborhood and establish a settlement. In recent months, settlers have moved into two homes in Batan al-Hawa following the eviction of Palestinian families.

The legal basis for these lawsuits is a discriminatory law that allows Jews to reclaim properties lost in the 1948 war, while a separate law denies this right to Palestinians.

About one week ago, Khalil Basbos’s family received an eviction order from the Enforcement and Collection Authority, effective until 5 January 2025. On 15 December 2025, the family of Umm Nasser was evicted from its home.

Hundreds more residents are at immediate risk of eviction.

Already evicted from their homes:
22 families have already been evicted, and settlers have moved in in their place, including five homes that settlers entered in the past year and a half: the Shhadeh family home, the Abu Nab family home, the Jit’ family home, the Ouda and Shuweiki families’ home, and the Umm Nasser Rajabi family home.

Final eviction decision at the Supreme Court:
The application for leave to appeal by the Abd al-Fattah Rajabi families (26 people) and, now, by the Qaid Rajabi families (18 people) and the Ya’qub Rajabi families (44 people) was denied. The Abd al-Fattah family was given by the Supreme Court until early January 2026 to vacate the home; if they do not, the settlers are expected to initiate enforcement proceedings against them.

One Law for Israelis; Another one for Palestinians

The basis for all the lawsuits is the same: the Legal and Administrative Matters Law enacted in 1970 by the Knesset stated that Jews who owned property in East Jerusalem and lost it in 1948 can receive it back from the Israeli General Custodian, even though all those Jewish property owners received alternative homes from the state as early as 1948. This is in contrast to the Absentees’ Properties Law from 1950, which states that Palestinians who lost their property in Israel in 1948 and became refugees would not be entitled to receive it back. Since the Legal and Administrative Matters Law was applied only in East Jerusalem and not in West Jerusalem, it only applies to Jews and not to Palestinians who lost their property in the same war and under similar circumstances.

For more information on the Legal and Administrative Matters Law – see here.
For more on the eviction procedures – see here.

International law prohibits the evacuation

In the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) given last July, the court specifically referred to the Israeli settlement policy in East Jerusalem and the discriminatory system of laws, in particular the Absentees’ Properties Law, which results in the eviction of Palestinians from their homes in favor of settlers. The court ruled that this policy constitutes a violation of international law (see for example paragraphs 119, 122, 163, 196 of the opinion).

In one of the Batan al-Hawa lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court, a group of leading Israeli experts in international law filed an application with the court to submit an amicus curiae brief. According to the brief, Palestinian residents’ human right to housing includes the right to continue living in properties that have served as their homes for decades, and they have developed certain property rights in these homes. The brief addresses an approach that has emerged in international human rights jurisprudence, which emphasizes the group vulnerability of occupants facing eviction and institutional, systemic discrimination. Where these are present, in certain circumstances, the occupants’ rights, stemming from the human right to housing and specifically, to live in their home and their family’s home, trump the right of the original owner or their substitute to regain possession of the property.

Much of international law applies fully and directly in Israel and constitutes an integral part of the domestic local legal system. In addition, the courts must interpret Israeli law, to the extent possible, in a manner consistent with international law, even without direct application (we note that the brief does not address international criminal law or the laws of war). So far, all deliberations in cases concerning evictions in Sheikh Jarrah and Batan al-Hawa have focused on questions arising from private law (property, charitable endowments, limitations, protected tenancy, etc.), as if the parties were equal sides in a real estate dispute.

The brief provides a new perspective, uncovering the full picture and the context for the eviction applications: The Palestinian family in question belongs to a vulnerable, discriminated group, both in terms of legal rights and in terms of policy and resources. They are facing an orchestrated effort, with state backing, to dispossess them of their homes. The family entered the properties lawfully (they are not trespassers) and have lived in the houses for generations, in some cases for more than 60 years. In such circumstances, under international human rights law, families have a right to the property where they live, and, if certain conditions are met, that right overrides the original owners’ right to regain possession. Many examples of such cases from around the world are available.

The court read the brief but did not refer to it in its decision. The court returned the discussion of the question of ownership for another discussion at the Magistrate’s Court.

For more on the opinion from international law, see here.

The matter is not legal but political; the government can stop the eviction

The settlers have an interest in presenting the issue as a purely legal matter, of two parties arguing over ownership of the property and the court deciding. But denial and blindfolding are needed to ignore the context and mechanism established to exploit discriminatory laws for the purpose of realizing settlement political goals. This is a political issue with far-reaching implications for the entire State of Israel and the future of the conflict, and the court is only the tool to implement the move. Therefore, the Israeli government has a responsibility and an obligation to intervene.

1. To express a legal position in the Batan Alhawa cases – Although Justice Sohlberg decided not to wait any longer for the State’s position, the government can still express a legal position in the pending cases, according to which the residents of Batan Al-Hawa have rights to continue to live in their homes even though the official ownership belongs to settlers. This position can be based, for example, on international law, which is part of the system of legal considerations in Israel – see the legal opinion submitted on the matter.

2. The government can expropriate the land – the government can expropriate the land for public purposes (while compensating the settlers). Since 1967, the Israeli government has expropriated about a third of East Jerusalem lands to build 55,000 housing units for Israelis. What was done for the benefit of the Israeli public with the expropriation of more than 20,000 dunams from Palestinians, can be done for the benefit of the Palestinian residents of Batan Al-Hawa with the expropriation of 5 dunams from settlers.

3. Change in legislation and policy – the Knesset can correct the injustice caused as a result of the discriminatory law by amending or repealing the relevant sections of the Legal and Administrative Matters Law (1970) on the basis of which all these eviction claims were filed.

4. The immediate way to prevent eviction is to avoid sending the police to assist in evacuation. Without the police, people cannot be evicted from their homes. It is the police who determine the appropriate timing for carrying out various tasks in accordance with the security situation and considerations of public peace. The police can determine that for now, for reasons of security and public safety, the evacuation should be avoided. Such a position has been taken in the past and obtained the approval of the Attorney General (in 1991 when the police prevented the Elad settlers from entering houses in Silwan, and in 1999 in an Attorney General opinion on a property in Ras Al-Amoud). see more here.