{"id":42788,"date":"2025-01-14T10:09:22","date_gmt":"2025-01-14T07:09:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peacenow.org.il\/?p=42788"},"modified":"2025-01-19T15:42:37","modified_gmt":"2025-01-19T12:42:37","slug":"5-eviction-rulings-batan-alhawa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peacenow.org.il\/en\/5-eviction-rulings-batan-alhawa","title":{"rendered":"Magistrate\u2019s Court Orders Evacuation of 5 Houses in Batan Al-Hawa, 131 Palestinians to Lose Their Homes to Settlers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court Judge Miriam Kassalsi issued rulings this week in four eviction lawsuits filed by settlers against Palestinians in Baten Al-Hawa in Silwan. The ruling in the fifth case was issued on 15\/1\/25. The five houses are home to 27 families with 131 residents, most of them children. In all cases, the court accepted the families’ claim that they had legally purchased the house in the 1960s (under Jordanian rule). Still, it ruled that because the land belonged to a Jewish endowment before 1948, the Palestinian families must vacate their homes within 6 months.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The eviction lawsuit is part of a larger effort to forcibly displace an entire community of approximately 700 Palestinian residents from this East Jerusalem neighborhood and to establish a settlement. The legal basis for these eviction claims is\u00a0a discriminatory law<\/a>\u00a0that allows Jews to reclaim properties lost in the 1948 war, while another law prevents Palestinians from exercising the same right.<\/p>\n

Peace Now: “This is an injustice and a crime against a vulnerable population living under occupation in East Jerusalem. The dispossession of Palestinians from their homes in Silwan, enabled by the application of the Jewish ‘right of return,’ represents an indelible stain on the State of Israel. The Israeli judicial system has failed to protect the fundamental rights of Palestinians to their homes, effectively endorsing the racist and messianic policies of the current Israeli government. A responsible government would halt the forced expulsions of this community. Tragically, our government demonstrates anything but responsibility in any regard.<\/p>\n

The International Court of Justice has explicitly addressed the discriminatory legal framework and Israel’s settlement policy in East Jerusalem in its advisory opinion, declaring these practices a violation of international law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\"\"

Palestinian residents of Batan Al-Hawa, Silwan, 2018. All of them are under threat of eviction. Photo: Emil Salman, Haaretz.<\/p><\/div>\n

Current Situation (January 2025): Approximately 80 Families Facing Eviction<\/u><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Already Evicted:<\/strong><\/p>\n

16 families have already been evicted from their homes<\/a>, with settlers moving in their place<\/a>. Including two houses that the settler took in August (the Shhadeh house<\/a>, the Jawad Abu Nab’s house<\/a>, and the Gheith family<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Appeal Pending in the Supreme Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Families Abd Al-Fatah Rajabi<\/a> (26 people), Um Nasser Rajabi<\/a> (18 people), Jawad Abu Nab (7 people already evicted<\/a>) and the families of Odeh and Shweiki<\/a> have appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in the District Court. The appeals are still pending. In the case of Odeh and Shweiki the Supreme Court has requested<\/a> the Attorney General to provide the state’s position on the legal issues raised in the case. The state’s position was supposed to be filed on 12\/1\/25, but we don’t know yet if the state requested another extension.<\/p>\n

Received an Eviction Verdict from the Magistrate Court (ahead of an appeal to the District Court):<\/strong><\/p>\n

Four lawsuits received a verdict for eviction from the Magistrate’s Court this week, and a fifth verdict is expected in the coming days:<\/p>\n

Zouheir Rajabi House (File No. 37827-05-15) \u2013 7 families and 39 people;
\nAbd Al-Fatah Rajabi House (File No. 11330-12-15) \u2013 2 families with 18 people;
\nYa’akub Talal Rajabi House (File No. 44060-02-16) \u2013 11 families with 44 people;
\nYosef Basbus House (File No. 40939-06-15) \u2013 4 families with 21 people;
\nKhalil Basbus House (File No. 60182-10-13) – 3 families with 9 people.<\/p>\n

Ongoing Lawsuits in the Magistrate’s Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are 5 additional eviction lawsuits that we know of, involving dozens of families and hundreds of residents. These cases are at various stages in the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court before different judges (families including Rajabi, Odeh, Abu Ramouz, Duweik<\/a>, and Sarhan).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/h3>\n

One Law for Israelis; Another one for Palestinians<\/span><\/h3>\n

The basis for all the lawsuits\u00a0is the same<\/a>: the\u00a0Legal and Administrative Matters Law<\/a>\u00a0enacted 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

For more information on the\u00a0Legal and Administrative Matters Law\u00a0\u2013\u00a0see here.<\/a>
\nFor more on the eviction procedures \u2013\u00a0see here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

International law prohibits the evacuation<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

In the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)<\/a> 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<\/a> of the opinion).<\/p>\n

In one of the Batan al-Hawa lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court, a group of leading Israeli experts from the field of international law filed to the court<\/a> an application to submit an amicus curiae brief. According to the brief, the Palestinian residents\u2019 human right to housing, includes a right to continue living in properties that have served as their homes for decades, and that they have developed certain property rights to these homes. The brief addresses an approach that has emerged in international jurisprudence on human rights law which puts an emphasis on<\/strong>\u00a0group vulnerability\u00a0<\/strong>of occupants facing eviction and\u00a0institutional, systemic discrimination<\/strong>\u00a0against them. Where these are present, in certain circumstances, the occupants\u2019 rights, stemming from the\u00a0human right to housing<\/strong>\u00a0and specifically,\u00a0to live in their home and their family\u2019s home<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 trump the right of the original owner or their substitute to regain possession of the property.<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 to the extent possible \u2013 in a manner congruent with the provisions of 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 (matters of property, charitable endowments, limitations, protected tenancy, etc.), as if the parties were equal sides in a real estate dispute.<\/p>\n

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 homes for generations \u2013 in some cases for more than 60 years. In such circumstances, according to international human rights law, the families have rights to the properties in which they live, and, if certain conditions are satisfied, such rights trump the rights of the original owners to regain possession of the property. Many examples of such cases from around the world are available.<\/p>\n

The court read the brief but did not refer to it in its decision. The court returned the discussion<\/a> of the question of ownership for another discussion at the Magistrate’s Court.<\/p>\n

For more on the opinion from international law, see here.<\/a><\/p>\n

The matter is not legal but political; the government can stop the eviction<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0To express a legal position in the Batan Alhawa cases<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 the court asked the state to submit its position on several occasions in the Batan Al-Hawa cases. The government could express a legal position 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 \u2013\u00a0see the legal opinion submitted on the matter<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2. The government can expropriate the land<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Change in legislation and policy<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 the Knesset can correct the injustice caused as a result of the discriminatory law by amending or repealing the relevant sections of the\u00a0Legal and Administrative Matters Law (1970)<\/a>\u00a0on the basis of which all these eviction claims were filed.<\/p>\n

4. The immediate way to prevent eviction is to avoid sending the police to assist in evacuation.<\/strong>\u00a0Without 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).\u00a0see more here<\/a>.<\/p>\n