Global Divergence Absentee Law Argument

Introduction

The Absentee Property Law (1950) represents a systematic strategy to dispossess Palestinian landowners. It defines an "absentee" as any person who was in an enemy state or outside Israeli-controlled territory during 29 November 1947 to 1 September 1948, permanently transferring their property to a state-appointed custodian.

Violations of Property Rights

Under international law, private property must be respected and cannot be confiscated, as emphasized by:

  • Hague Regulations (1907), Article 46: Private property must be respected and may not be confiscated.
  • Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), Article 53: Occupying powers are prohibited from destroying or seizing property except where absolutely necessary.
  • Article 147: Extensive appropriation of property not justified by military necessity constitutes a grave breach.

Misuse of the Custodian Concept

A custodian is meant to safeguard property temporarily. The Absentee Property Law transforms the custodian into an effective owner, enabling permanent expropriation, sale, or demolition.

Failure of Proportionality

International humanitarian law permits temporary requisitioning of property only when necessary and proportionate. The permanent confiscation of entire villages and establishment of settlements exceeds all legal thresholds of necessity and proportionality.

Discriminatory Application

The law overwhelmingly targets Palestinian landowners, while protecting other groups. This violates principles of non-discrimination under:

  • Article 26 of the ICCPR
  • Article 17 of the UDHR

Permanent Legal Erasure

The Absentee Property Law permanently strips individuals and their descendants of any legal rights to return or reclaim property, a direct violation of international principles affirming that occupation does not confer sovereignty.

International Law Support

  • Hague Regulations (1907): Articles 23, 46
  • Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Articles 47, 49, 53, 147
  • UDHR, Article 17; ICCPR, Articles 17, 26

Conclusion

The law is incompatible with international law, violates property rights, and imposes discriminatory and permanent dispossession. It should be invalidated, and property restored to rightful owners, with reparations pursued for affected families.

🟥 Key flaw in the "annexation" justification

Annexation is explicitly prohibited by international law. Even if an occupying power administers land, it cannot legally convert it into its own territory or give it to civilians from its own population.

⭐ Extra support: UN Resolutions

  • UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967): Emphasizes "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
  • UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948): Affirms right of refugees to return to their homes.

Prepared by Global Divergence