Legal Memorandum

Executive Summary

This memorandum presents a detailed legal argument to challenge and declare void the Absentee Property Law (APL) of 1950 in Israel/Palestine. The APL has been used as a systematic tool of dispossession against Palestinians, leading to widespread human rights violations and breaches of international law. We demonstrate that the law is incompatible with international humanitarian law, international human rights law, customary international law, and foundational legal principles of justice and property rights. We request immediate cessation of all applications of this law, restitution of properties, and reparations for affected individuals and families.

Introduction

The Absentee Property Law (1950) was enacted following the 1947–48 conflict, defining "absentees" as individuals absent from their property during a specified period, effectively allowing the state to confiscate their property permanently. Approximately 750,000 Palestinians were displaced during this time. The law became the primary mechanism to legalize this dispossession and has been used to support settlement expansion and demographic engineering.

Legal Framework

Domestic Law Context

The APL defines an "absentee" broadly, including anyone absent between 29 November 1947 and 1 September 1948, regardless of reason. The Custodian of Absentee Property is given authority to sell, lease, or transfer these properties permanently, contradicting the concept of custodianship.

International Humanitarian Law

• Hague Regulations (1907): Articles 23(g) and 46 prohibit destruction and seizure of private property unless demanded by absolute military necessity.
• Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Articles 47, 49, 53, and 147 prohibit annexation of occupied territory, forcible transfer, destruction, and unlawful appropriation.
• ICJ Advisory Opinion (2004): Concluded that Israel’s practices in occupied territory, including property confiscations and settlements, violate international law.

International Human Rights Law

• ICCPR: Articles 17 (protection against arbitrary interference), 26 (equality before the law).
• UDHR: Articles 2 (non-discrimination), 17 (right to property).
• CESCR: Recognizes the right to adequate housing and protection from forced eviction.

Customary International Law

The right to property and prohibition of racial discrimination are entrenched in customary law. Forced displacement and expropriation without compensation are universally condemned.

Legal Arguments

I. Arbitrary and Disproportionate Confiscation

Evidence shows that most Palestinians left under duress due to direct hostilities and threats to life. The law does not allow for any proportionality assessment or hearing. UNCCP records, refugee testimonies, and Red Cross reports confirm forced displacement rather than voluntary absence.

Key Evidence:

• UNGA Resolution 194 (III) affirms right of return and property restitution.
• UNCCP (1949) reports show administrative confiscation without individual examination.
• Historical land records confirm original Palestinian ownership.

II. Misuse of Custodianship

Legal principles universally define a custodian as a temporary steward, not an owner. The APL contradicts this by granting permanent control and disposal rights.

Comparative Precedent:

• Loizidou v. Turkey (ECHR): Illegal appropriation of property in occupied territory condemned.
• UK and US trust law: Trustees cannot dispose of property against beneficiary rights.

III. Violation of Proportionality and Military Necessity

International humanitarian law permits temporary requisitioning under strict necessity and proportionality. Permanent confiscation and settlement construction far exceed these limits.

IV. Discriminatory Application

The law disproportionately affects Palestinians, denying similar treatment to other groups. Approximately 70% of confiscated properties were owned by Palestinians.

Supporting Evidence:

• Israeli land administration data.
• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports documenting ethnic discrimination in land allocation.

V. Violations of International Instruments

Detailed analysis of violations:

• Hague Regulations: Prohibit permanent seizure.
• Fourth Geneva Convention: Ban on forcible transfer and annexation.
• ICCPR & UDHR: Guarantee equality and property rights.

VI. Lack of Legal Remedy

The APL provides no mechanism for return, re-registration, or compensation, violating the right to remedy and restitution under UN Basic Principles and international norms.

Rebuttal to Common Defenses

Security Justification: Confiscations were not strictly necessary nor temporary; settlements and permanent transfers prove non-military motives.

Domestic Sovereignty Argument: International law obligations override domestic law where human rights and humanitarian law are violated.

Conclusion and Remedies Requested

The Absentee Property Law of 1950 is incompatible with international legal obligations and principles of justice. Its continued application facilitates ongoing violations and deepens injustices.

We demand:

• Immediate cessation of all APL applications.
• Legal repeal or nullification of the law.
• Restoration of property or full reparations to dispossessed owners and their heirs.
• Guarantees of non-repetition through legal and institutional safeguards.

Annexes (Selected Evidence)

• UNGA Resolution 194 (III)
• Hague Regulations and Geneva Convention excerpts
• UNCCP reports (1949–1952)
• Historical cadastral maps and land registry data
• Refugee testimonies and affidavits
• Human rights NGO reports

Prepared for submission and global advocacy. Lives and justice depend on immediate action.