Latest Developments

 

13/06/2013 Back To List
Everything You Need to Know About Jerusalem & the Absentee Property Law

On May 21, 2013, a panel of seven justices of the Israeli High Court of Justice held deliberations on a number of appeals concerning the applicability of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem. During those deliberations, Israel’s Attorney General (by means of the State Attorney) argued that the Absentee Property law indeed applies in East Jerusalem. He noted, however, that it should be used with caution. Subsequently, on June 6, 2013, under instructions from the Court, the Attorney General filed a written summary of his position regarding the applicability of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem. This position sparked widespread coverage in both the Israeli and international press. Unfortunately, media reports have failed to adequately address the complexities of the issue in terms of the position articulated by the Attorney General, its historical and political context, and its likely impacts. The following report is an effort to remedy this failure.
 
What is the Absentee Property Law?
 
The Absentee Property Law (Absentee Property Law)was enacted by the Knesset in 1950. The provisions of the Law were made effective retroactively, applying from November 30, 1947 (the day after the UN vote establishing the State of Israel) and remaining in effect until the state of emergency in Israel expires (that state of emergency remains in effect until the present day). Under the Absentee Property Law, any individual owning property in Israel who has been present in “enemy territory”, or is a citizen of an enemy state, is deemed an “absentee.” Properties whose owners are deemed “absentees” automatically become “absentee properties.” Title of those properties is granted to the Custodian of Absentee Property who, under law, has the authority to transfer said titles to these lands to Israel’s Development Authority – a body that is part of the Israel Land Authority.
 
The Absentee Property Law was the major vehicle through which Israel took control of property owned by Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel in the war in 1948. Between 1948 and 1967, the Absentee Property Law enabled the newly-born state of Israel to legally place such property at the disposal of the Israeli public and, in this manner, millions of dunams of privately-owned Palestinian lands were effectively “nationalized” and re-purposed for the construction of development towns, kibbutzim and moshavim inside the Green Line.
 
Under the Absentee Property Law, “enemy territory” includes not only Arab states that took part in the 1948 war against Israel, but also the West Bank. This includes East Jerusalem, which between 1949 and 1967 was an integral part of the West Bank, all of which were under the control of Jordan (an “enemy state”). When Israel annexed Jordanian East Jerusalem and 27 surrounding villages (around 6.5 sq. kms.) in July 1967, shortly after the Six-Day War, the Absentee Property Law automatically became applicable vis-à-vis Palestinian-owned properties in East Jerusalem. Virtually all of the residents of East Jerusalem at the time were Jordanian citizens. Moreover, much of the land in East Jerusalem was owned, in whole or in part, by the residents of Ramallah, Bethlehem, and other places in the West Bank. Consequently, rigorous application of the Absentee Property Law would have undermined the validity of much of the property rights in the Palestinian sector of East Jerusalem.
 
In 1968, Israel began an effort to enforce the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem. At that time, a major international controversy ensued. As a result, then-Attorney General Meir Shamgar (later the Chief Justice of the Israeli High Court of Justice), issued a binding legal opinion whereby properties in East Jerusalem belonging West Bank residents would not be declared an absentee property, provided he or she had an agent or relation within the city who managed the property on his or her behalf. In effect Shamgar ruled that the Absentee Property Law would not be applied systematically to properties in East Jerusalem that were owned by residents of the West Bank. Shamgar’s guidelines remained secret, becoming public knowledge only decades later, when they were no longer in effect.
 
In 1977, Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister of Israel. In December of that same year, the Shamgar ruling was overturned by Begin’s government and replaced by another secret governmental decision – this time to stipulating that there was no restriction on the applicability of the Absentee Property Law with respect to East Jerusalem. Since that time, the use of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem has almost invariably been cloaked in secrecy. Nonetheless, based on empirical data it appears that from 1977 through the present day, the law has never been systematically enforced in East Jerusalem and, with only one exception, has not been exploited as a major tool of Israeli policy in East Jerusalem. That exception, however, is a serious and illuminating one, involving the extremely sensitive neighborhoods of the Old City’s Muslim Quarter and Silwan. 
 
The Battle for the Muslim Quarter and Silwan
 
Beginning in the mid-1980s the Absentee Property Law was at the heart of a covert and concerted government campaign to take over targeted Palestinian properties in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City and in Silwan.
 
The “system” worked as follows: the settler organizations would submit an affidavit to the Absentee Property Custodian, stating that the targeted property was owned by an absentee. Based solely on this affidavit (which was a times false testimony) the Custodian would declare the property “absentee property” and immediately hand it over to the ILA, which would immediately hand it over to the settler organizations that had initiated the process. To this day, control over many of the properties inhabited by the settlers in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City derives from this covert and systematic abuse of the Absentee Property Law.
 
This strategy came to a head in October 1991 when, late at night and in a semi-military fashion, settlers entered 11 dwellings in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan. In the wake of these takeovers, an Israeli Member of Knesset (Haim Oron) led an investigation (with his attorney, Daniel Seidemann) which ultimately “cracked the code” and publicly disclosed how the Absentee Property Law was being abused by the settlers and their allies in the Israeli government in order to displace Palestinian families and establish settler enclaves inside Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. 
 
Oron and Seidemann challenged the legality of this tactic in a suit before the Israeli Supreme. Apparently deeming the case too politically radioactive to handle, the Court elected not to intervene. However, in July 1992 Yitzhak Rabin was elected Prime Minister of Israel. Shortly after taking office, he established a an interdepartmental commission to examine the governmental policies geared to take over Palestinian properties in East Jerusalem, led by the Ministry of Justice’s Director General, Haim Klugman. In September 1992, the Klugman Commission submitted its findings to the Israeli government – a chronicle of the systematic illegalities, irregularities and abuse of power that entailed, among other things and primarily, the use of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem. That same month, the Israeli Cabinet adopted a series of resolutions due to prevent a recurrence of the abuses detailed in the report, and most prominently the abuse of the Absentee Property Law.
 
Regrettably, those cabinet resolutions were never fully implemented. Once again, the Absentee Property Law was found to be too politically “hot” to handle. While the application of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem was unofficially/informally suspended at that time, the law remained technically in effect, unchanged, and technically applicable to East Jerusalem. 
 
It must be noted that even in the absence of the its systematic application in East Jerusalem, that Absentee Property Law has had a devastating effect on the urban development of the Palestinian sector of the city. Any Palestinian who would seek to carry out a real estate transaction would generally be required to secure the approval of the Absentee Property Custodian. Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have long quite understandably feared that doing so would place their properties in the crosshairs of the Custodian, jeopardizing their title claims. Consequently, Palestinians property owners in East Jerusalem have for the most part refrained from carrying out real estate transactions, or have refrained from reporting such transactions to Israeli authorities. As a result, the Absentee Property Law has had a passive but quietly devastating impact, preventing the emergence of a rational real estate market in East Jerusalem and stunting urban development of the Palestinian sector.
 
The High Court & the Absentee Property Law
 
The 1990s saw a number of appeals to Israel’s High Court of Justice, seeking to compel the government to implement the findings of the Klugman committee and the government resolutions of September 1992, but to no avail. Through the present day, the Israeli Courts, including the High Court of Justice, have systematically avoided addressing the question of the applicability of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem.
 
One of the appeals brought before the Supreme Court is particularly illuminating. In the cabinet resolutions of September 1992, the government instructed the State Comptroller to investigate, among other things, the use and abuse of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem. In 1997, the State Comptroller approached Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that the findings of this investigation were so damaging that they would cause grave harm to Israel's international standing. In response, Netanyahu instructed that the investigation be called off – not due to a lack of findings, but, rather, owing to the seriousness of those findings. MK Oron and Seidemann appealed to the Supreme Court, and, in response, Netanyahu’s government to the extraordinary step of repealing the September 1992 resolutions. Once again the Court elected not to intervene. As a result, the State Comptroller’s investigation, mandated by the 1992 Cabinet resolution, was never completed, and none of the findings that do exist – which presumably remain in the State Comptroller’s safe – were ever published.
 
The Barrier & the Re-Emergence of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem
 
In 2004, there was a major change in Israel’s policy regarding the use of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem. During this period, Israel was constructing the separation barrier/wall in and around East Jerusalem. Due to Israeli decisions related to the routing of the barrier, some problematic and anomalous land issues emerged – for example, some Palestinian landowners residing in Bethlehem found their olive groves cut off from the, left on the Jerusalem side of the barrier. At the time, the Israeli Defense Ministry promised that special arrangements would be put into place to permit them access to their land across the barrier.
 
However, in November 2004, when the Palestinian landowners requested the promised permits to access their land, they were told by Israeli authorities that the land had been declared “absentee property” and taken over by Israel. When the matter was investigated by their attorney (Daniel Seidemann) it was discovered that some months prior, the Israeli government had secretly adopted a resolution whereby the Absentee Property Law was to be systematically applied throughout East Jerusalem, including in the Bethlehem case and contrary to promises made to landowners by the Defense Ministry.
 
An initial challenge – questioning the legality of the decision – received no response from the Attorney General.   When the story was subsequently broken in the Israeli and international media, a major international uproar ensued. In January 2005, under growing international pressure, the Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz handed down what seemed to be a revolutionary and categorical ruling. Under the binding opinion he issued, West Bank residents who owned property in East Jerusalem were determined to be only “technical absentees”, and consequently the Absentee Property Law was not to be applied to them, except under extraordinary circumstances and on the basis of specific criteria to be subsequently lay down by the Attorney General. In the rare circumstances where the Absentee Property Law was applied in East Jerusalem, affected Palestinians have the right under that same law to appeal to an Israeli tribunal empowered to deal with the release of absentee property.
 
With the Mazuz ruling, some might have concluded, understandably, that the issue of the applicability of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem had at long last been laid to rest. That conclusion, regrettably, would have soon been proven wrong.  
 
Post-Mazuz, Back to the High Court
 
In the years following the Mazuz ruling the Absentee Property Law has, periodically, continued to be applied by Israel in East Jerusalem to take over additional Palestinian properties. In a number of cases the issue has been brought before the courts, and contradictory judgments regarding the application of the law have resulted. In some cases, the courts ruled in accordance with the Mazuz opinion, to the effect the law could not be applied. In other cases, verdicts allowed the actions of the Absentee Property Custodian to stand.
 
In 2009, appeals regarding the conflicting judgments in lower courts regarding the applicability of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem came before the Israeli Supreme Court. In recognition of the importance (and radioactivity) of the issue the Court has, over the four years since then, conducted deliberations on the appeals with an expanded panel of seven justices.
 
The current “news” about the Absentee Property Law – in the form of the newly articulated position of the Attorney General – came in the context of a hearing that was part of this deliberation process. Today, following that hearing, the questions pending before the Court is as follows: is the Absentee Property Law inapplicable to “technical absentees” from East Jerusalem (i.e. West Bank residents), as ruled by past Attorney General Mazuz? Or is it in effect in Jerusalem, to be applied with restraint, as asserted by current Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein?
 
The Weinstein Opinion
 
In arguments before the Court, Israel’s current Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, argued (by means of the State Attorney) that he was merely interpreting the Mazuz position. In truth, there is a world of difference between the positions of Weinstein and Mazuz.   Mazuz’s arguments were grounded in the conviction that Palestinians have legitimate, inalienable property rights in East Jerusalem and that the Absentee Property Law does not apply to them, except under extreme (and undetermined) circumstances. In contrast, Weinstein’s position is fundamentally different. Key elements of his view, as articulated before the court and in his written opinion, are as follows:
 
·        The Absentee Property Law applies in East Jerusalem. Palestinian residents of the West Bank who own property in East Jerusalem are absentees, no different from other absentees. Any properties they own in East Jerusalem are legally defied as absentee property and automatically forfeit. As such, ownership of these properties is legally vested in the Custodian of Absentee Property who may transfer title to the Israel Lands Authority. 
 
·        There is an Israeli tribunal, established under the Absentee Property Law, which is empowered to deal with the release of absentee property. Palestinians whose East Jerusalem properties have been declared absentee may appeal to it. In such an appeal, the burden of establishing claim to property ownership is imposed on the Palestinian individual, who in effect enters the process presumed guilty of being an absentee and thus having no legal grounds on which to claim property rights in Jerusalem. The tribunal may elect – for unspecified reasons based on criteria that appear to be informal and not public – to restore the property to its (former) Palestinian owner. Any such decision to release properties back to their absentee owners derives exclusively from the tribunal’s discretionary powers and magnanimity, rather than from any inalienable property rights. Thus, the validity of Palestinian property claims in East Jerusalem is a function of the judgment of an Israeli body whose members do not share a community or interests with those who come before it. It is worth noting that the current head of the tribunal in question is a senior official from the Prime Minister’s Office, Ehud Prawer, who has become infamous for authoring the notorious Prawer Plan which would forcibly uproot and “resettle” Bedouin in the Negev, in order to clear the way for the construction of new Israeli towns. 
 
·        The Absentee Property Law is and should be applied with self-restraint in East Jerusalem – not in terms of refraining from declaring properties absentee, but rather in terms of the tribunal maintaining a “liberal policy” in releasing properties after they have been already declared “absentee.” Should the tribunal decide to rule in favor of Palestinians in those cases where the property in question is located within an area populated by Palestinians, title and possession generally reverts to the Palestinian owners. When the property in question is located in an Israeli area (for example, a building in or adjacent to the East Jerusalem settlement neighborhood of Gilo whose Palestinian owner has challenged its designation as “absentee property’), the Palestinian owners receive monetary compensation in lieu of the property, “in order to maintain public order.” And while according to the letter of the Absentee Property Law, Israeli settlers living in the West Bank are legally “absentees” whose properties inside Israel should legally become absentee property, Weinstein ruled that the law does not apply in these cases.
 
The foregoing raises profound questions of equity and the rule of law. In the case of the Israeli settler in the West Bank, the law is interpreted with great flexibility, while in the case of the Palestinian with a home in a village down the road, the law is interpreted literally. Likewise, for decades successive governments of Israel have permitted the Absentee Property Law to be exploited to implant extremist Jewish settlers in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. At the same time, it has long been the policy of Israel to interpret the same law in manner that prevents Palestinians from owning property or living in Israeli areas. This discriminatory implementation – which upholds the principle that “Jews should be able to live anywhere” but Palestinians should be restricted to only certain neighborhoods – underscores a clear national-ethnic bias in the interpretation and execution of this law, to the detriment of Palestinian property owners. 
 
At its heart, the Absentee Property Law basically determines that, for Palestinians, land abandoned in the heat of battle in 1948 is lost to them except by means of the tribunal’s discretion, while the property rights of Israelis who lost properties in East Jerusalem in the same war are virtually unassailable. Indeed, on May 20th, one day before the High Court hearing on the absentee property cases, the High Court heard an eerily similar case: the case of the Shamasneh family, which was ordered by the lower courts to vacate their home in Sheikh Jarrah, based on a 1970 Israeli law permitting Israelis to recover property in East Jerusalem that they owned prior to 1948.   While initially the legal case against the Shamasneh family was filed by the Israeli Custodian General, it became apparent during the proceedings that this government official was acting in collusion with the settler organizations – a tactic familiar from the 1980s.
 
What next in the High Court?
 
It is not clear where things go from here. While far from providing a conclusive indication as to a final ruling, statements made by members of the High Court panel during the May 21st hearing are revealing. There were clear expressions of discomfort with the injustice entailed in the application of the law and its impact on the Palestinian landowners. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that no criteria have been approved for the release of properties to Palestinian residents, and that no data was available as to the numbers of properties declared absentee, or the numbers of those released to the original owners. The Court was very blunt in stating that the existing arrangements are unsustainable.
 
At the same time, it was apparent that the Court is treating this case as “radioactive.” One Justice commented that issues surrounding the Absentee Property Law are “a Pandora’s box.” Indeed, the Court hinted, and not too gently, that the entire matter must ultimately be brought before the Prime Minister and the political echelons of the Israeli Government – in this decades-long saga, the latest indication of the Court’s desire to not be compelled to hand down a substantive judgment.
 
If accepted, the position submitted to the court by Israel's attorney general will have both practical and symbolic ramifications. Even if the absentee property law is not systematically implemented, it will continue to be a serious impediment to the urban development of East Jerusalem. Even if it is applied out sporadically the law has a devastating effect on those effective. As in the past, it can be applied in cases where the authorities “really want” a given property (which appears to be the case with the confiscation of the Cliff Hotel on the border with Abu Dis). Or the law can be invoked when the authorities have a score to settle with the claimant, which appears to be the case with Husseini family, which has lost numerous properties under the law (for example Shepherds Hotel, Mufti’s Grove and the Bet Daoud Community Center). The Absentee Property Law is by its very nature so draconian that its abuse is almost inevitable.
 
The symbolic implications of applying this interpretation of the law are equally problematic. It would signals to Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem (and its environs) that, in the eyes of Israel, they are not an indigenous, empowered collective with inalienable rights, but rather they are viewed as a foreign minority with limited rights that derive exclusively from Israeli sufferance. 
 
What Next for the Absentee Property Law in Jerusalem?
 
The next Court hearing has been scheduled for September 16, 2013. Prior to that hearing the Attorney General will likely submit additional clarifications regarding his position. Any attempts to predict the outcome of the Court’s deliberations on this case are highly risky and should be treated with utmost caution. 
 
The Court has, as noted above, expressed dissatisfaction with the existing legal arrangements, (including those proposed by the current Attorney General). It is not inconceivable that the Court will rule in favor of the Palestinian appellants and uphold the Mazuz opinion, while rejecting the position held by their current Attorney General. However, such an outcome is unlikely. Past experience and the subtext of comments already made by the Court clearly indicate a desire to avoid handing down any judgment that would invalidate major portions of the law. This will most likely result in the Court using its powers of persuasion to compel the government to make certain amendments in the way the law is applied – the minimum necessary to address the issues raised by the case, while allowing the Court to reject the appeals filed by the Palestinian residents and permit it to avoid becoming embroiled in a major domestic controversy.
 
Practically speaking, it is reasonable to expect the status quo in Jerusalem to continue. On the one hand, there are no indications (as yet) of plans to use the Absentee Property Law to begin systematically seizing property across East Jerusalem or to once again harness it for the benefit of the settlers. On the other, there are no indications that use of the law in East Jerusalem will be entirely abandoned. There is every reason to expect it to continue to be exploited sporadically in specific cases, as discussed above. 
 
Finally, the following must be emphasized: the Absentee Property Law is not merely an isolated, bad law that has been implanted in a reasonable, just, functional legal system governing affairs in East Jerusalem. The Absentee Property Law and the way it is being applied is emblematic of the very nature of the foundations of Israeli rule over the Palestinian sector in East Jerusalem. The policies described by the current Attorney General, and the assumptions inherent in them, are not merely the reflection of bad legislation. Rather, they are the concrete manifestations of Israeli occupation.   Bad laws that perpetuate and support the occupation, whether in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, cannot be “fixed” by tweaking their text or adding qualifications to make their implementation more “liberal.” 
 
The only antidote to the bad laws that undergird the occupation is an end to the occupation. This is precisely why in all likelihood the status quo in East Jerusalem – the continued arbitrary application of a law that may have been a necessary evil to consolidate the fledgling state of Israel in the 1950’s but that since that time has morphed into an unmitigated evil – will be unchanged until there is a political solution that ends the an unjust and unsustainable rule over the Palestinians of East Jerusalem.
 

30/10/2017 Bibi Blinks on Greater Jerusalem Bill; July 1 - Oct 30 EJ Settlements Chronology

 


3/10/2017 Imminent Threat: Green Light for Givat Hamatos

 


3/10/2017 Imminent Threat: Potential War Crime; de facto Annexation and New Settlement Construction (Ma’ale Adumim/E-1)

 


3/10/2017 Uptick is Settlement Displacements: Shamasneh Family Evicted

 


3/10/2017 Expansion of Nof Zion on the Agenda

 


10/8/2017 Netanyahu Unshackled: New and dangerous terms of engagement in Jerusalem

 


10/8/2017 The Latest Temple Mt/Haram al-Sharif Crisis: A Provisional Post-Mortem

 


10/8/2017 Pending Jerusalem Legislative Initiatives: Strategic Shifts in Current Status & Potential Political Future of Jerusalem

 


10/8/2017 East Jerusalem Settlements -- APPROVED

 


21/7/2017 Major New Crisis on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif

 


21/7/2017 New Life for Major Settlement Plan to Connect Adam (West Bank) to EJ's Neve Yaacov

 


21/7/2017 Proposed Amendment of Jerusalem Basic Law

 


21/7/2017 UNESCO’s Resolution on Hebron

 


5/7/2017 The Settlement Floodgates Have Been Opened

 


5/6/2017 Trump Signs Waiver, Postponing Embassy Move

 


5/6/2017 Trump Visit & Jerusalem Day: Before, During, & After

 


5/6/2017 Cabinet Approves Projects for Old City, Historic Basin, & East Jerusalem (Inside the Barrier)

 


5/6/2017 Jordan's Growing Discontent with Israeli Provocations Over the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif

 


5/6/2017 Danny Seidemann in Haaretz: Trump Exposed the Fantasy of Netanyahu's 'Undivided Jerusalem'

 


5/5/2017 URGENT/BREAKING NEWS: Imminent Tenders for Givat Hamatos

 


5/5/2017 Imminent Announcements: Atarot & Ramat Shlomo

 


5/5/2017 New Settler “Visitors’ Center” in Ras El Amud

 


5/5/2017 The New UNESCO Resolution & Jerusalem

 


28/3/2017 Working Toward a New US-Israel Understanding on Settlements

 


28/3/2017 Tensions Growing [again] Focused on Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif

 


28/3/2017 Palestinian Residency Rights: Important Court Ruling

 


24/2/2017 Limiting Settlement Construction to the "Blocs" - Implications for Jerusalem

 


24/2/2017 To Move, or Not to Move (the Embassy), That is the Question

 


24/2/2017 Paving the way for annexation?

 


24/2/2017 Work Starting on Eastern Ring Road?

 


24/1/2017 East Jerusalem Settlement Activity & the Onset of the Trump Era: What to Watch

 


5/1/2017 Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: A Hard Look at the Arguments & Implications

 


14/12/2016 Update on Israeli Govt-Proposed Law to Muzzle Muslim Call to Prayer

 


14/12/2016 Rumors & Lobbying Around Possible US Embassy Relocation to Jerusalem

 


14/12/2016 Netanyahu Rejects Police Recommendations to Tweak Temple Mt Status Quo

 


14/12/2016 Batan al-Hawa - New B'tselem Report on Settler Activities

 


14/12/2016 Final Approval of Gilo Expansion - 770 New Units (Mordot Gilo South)

 


30/11/2016 Insights/analysis on UNESCO resolutions on the Old City & its Walls

 


30/11/2016 Re: Reported Demolitions at Jerusalem's Bab Al-Rahma Cemetery

 


30/11/2016 Plan to Connect Tel Aviv to the Western Wall

 


30/11/2016 2016 Jewish High Holidays: Record number of Jewish visitors on Temple Mount/Haram El Sharif

 


28/11/2016 The American Role: Interregnum & Post-January 20, 2016

 


28/11/2016 Ban on Mosque Morning Call to Prayer

 


28/11/2016 Turning Jeruasalem Palestinians into “Human Shields” Against Outpost Evacuations

 


28/11/2016 Announcement of Construction Plan in Mordot Gilo

 


28/11/2016 OCHA report: 180 Palestinian households at risks of eviction in East Jerusalem

 


28/11/2016 Approval of 500 units in Ramat Shlomo

 


28/11/2016 State Comptroller’s Report on Elad

 


30/9/2016 On the Eve of the New Year – A Different & Dangerous Jerusalem

 


15/8/2016 Government Actively Advancing E-2

 


15/8/2016 Back in the Headlines: Plans for 2500 Units South of Gilo

 


15/8/2016 Tisha B'Av Incitement Re: The Temple Mount

 


15/8/2016 Deepening the Occupation in East Jerusalem

 


5/8/2016 Settlement Announcements - July 2016

 


5/8/2016 The Uptick in East Jerusalem Demolitions

 


5/8/2016 Israeli Govt: "The Mt of Olives will be Reinforced as a Visitors' Site"

 


5/8/2016 Ma'ale Adumim Annexation bill

 


8/7/2016 Full Analysis of the Latest East Jerusalem Announcements/Approvals

 


28/6/2016 A new settlement enclave in Silwan – Batan al Hawa

 


28/6/2016 ?The end of quiet on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif

 


28/6/2016 The Wrong Way to Divide Jerusalem

 


3/6/2016 Proposed Annexation of Maale Adumim

 


3/6/2016 East Jerusalem: Emerging Patterns

 


2/6/2016 Keeping a Close Eye on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif

 


22/1/2016 Church Attacked (Again) in Jerusalem

 


22/1/2016 Herzog proposes De-Annexing Some Parts of East Jerusalem

 


30/12/2015 Revealed in Newly-Released Documents: Massive Planning Advancing for Settlements

 


29/12/2015 Understanding "Status Quo" on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif

 


9/11/2015 What's Been Going On in Jerusalem? Danny Seidemann Analysis

 


9/11/2015 What's Going On? Senior IDF Officials Weigh In.

 


9/11/2015 Recent East Jerusalem Settlement Developments

 


9/11/2015 East Jerusalem Security Situation - by the numbers

 


9/11/2015 EJ Security Situation - Plans to Revoke Palestinians' Residency?

 


9/11/2015 EJ Security Situation - Security Measures on the Ground

 


9/11/2015 EJ Security Situation - Home Demolitions

 


22/9/2015 Jerusalem & the Temple Mount: A New Dangerous Escalation

 


13/8/2015 Imminent New Settlement Enclave in Silwan

 


13/8/2015 E. Jerusalem (partial) Settlement Freeze May Soon Defrost

 


13/8/2015 Troubling Developments on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif

 


22/5/2015 What We Can Learn from Jerusalem Day 2015

 


22/5/2015 Latest Settlement Tenders in East Jerusalem - Ramat Shlomo & Givat Zeev

 


22/5/2015 ?E-1 Looming

 


22/5/2015 East Jerusalem Simmers

 


29/4/2015 New & Recycled East Jerusalem Settlement Tenders

 


29/4/2015 High Court Rules on Absentee Property Law in Jerusalem

 


29/4/2015 Good News: IDF Colleges NOT Moving to Mount of Olives; Holy Basin Cable Car Plan Stalled

 


29/4/2015 Approval (but only sort of) of New Palestinian Construction in East Jerusalem

 


29/4/2015 Some Palestinian Cars Allowed in East Jerusalem

 


29/4/2015 Palestinian Security Forces (not really) allowed in East Jerusalem

 


14/1/2015 East Jerusalem at the Beginning of 2015: Things to Watch

 


3/11/2014 Attempted Assassination Raises the Stakes at the Temple Mount

 


3/11/2014 Reasons Behind Escalating Temple Mount Crisis

 


3/11/2014 Bibi's New Settlement Initiative - Ramat Shlomo & Har Homa

 


3/11/2014 More Settler Takeovers in Another Part of Silwan

 


2/10/2014 Netanyahu Cannot Evade Responsibility for Givat Hamatos Approval & Silwan Takeovers

 


1/10/2014 Breaking & Urgent News: Givat Hamatos Approved

 


30/9/2014 Major Development: In Overnight Operation, Settlers Take Over Multiple Buildings in Silwan

 


18/9/2014 Specter of E-1 Raised by Plan to Relocate Bedouin

 


18/9/2014 Looming Crisis in East Jerusalem - Givat Hamatos

 


17/9/2014 East Jerusalem Clashes Continue

 


9/9/2014 East Jerusalem Aflame

 


4/9/2014 The Real Story about those new units "approved" for Palestinians in East Jerusalem

 


26/8/2014 Gilo Tenders Awarded, but (for now) EJ Settlement Freeze Continues

 


19/5/2014 Jerusalem Settlements - The (Proximate, Contributing) Cause of the Collapse

 


19/5/2014 Post-Collapse - De Facto Freeze in East Jerusalem, But the Lull Won’t Last

 


19/5/2014 Are We Sliding Toward Religious War? A Brief Survey of Key Jerusalem Developments/Trends

 


5/3/2014 Framework Language and Jerusalem: Gimmicks Are NOT the Answer

 


5/3/2014 New Israeli Yeshiva Approved...in Downtown Sheikh Jarrah

 


5/3/2014 Playing with Fire, Part 2: Elad Set to Gain Control of Area Adjacent to the Temple Mt/Haram al Sharif

 


5/3/2014 Playing with Fire, Part 1: Debating the Status Quo on the Temple Mount

 


3/3/2014 Demolition orders in E-1

 


9/1/2014 New Seidemann Op-Ed in the Guardian: The myth of an undivided Jerusalem is collapsing under its own weight

 


12/12/2013 Danny Seidemann Injured by Stone-Thrower - Condition Update & Comment

 


12/12/2013 East Jerusalem Settlements since the Resumption of Talks: the Facts & their Implications

 


12/12/2013 The [Apparent] Re-Emergence of the “Greater Jerusalem” Gimmick

 


12/12/2013 Post-Script: Those Planning Tenders for 24,000 New Settlement Units

 


27/8/2013 Ramat Shlomo Back in the Headlines

 


27/8/2013 Funding Approved for Settler-Run Projects in Silwan and Jebel Mukabber

 


27/8/2013 Three Palestinians Killed by Israeli Forces in Qalandia RC

 


27/8/2013 ?Uptick in East Jerusalem Home Demolitions

 


19/8/2013 Pyromaniacs Target the Temple Mount

 


19/8/2013 Jerusalem Residency Concerns Resurface

 


19/8/2013 New Pro-Settlement Guidelines on Absentee Property Law

 


19/8/2013 A U.S. Court Rules on Jerusalem

 


16/8/2013 Timeline/details of Recent Jerusalem-Related Settlement Developments

 


16/8/2013 Bibi, Settlements & Peace Talks -- Analysis

 


13/6/2013 The A-Zayyem/Mount of Olives Interchange, Plan 14049

 


13/6/2013 Tenders Awarded for Ramot Expansion, Additional Tenders for Mordot Gilo

 


13/6/2013 Everything You Need to Know About Jerusalem & the Absentee Property Law

 


7/5/2013 The IDF Colleges on the Mt. of Olives Off the Agenda, Again

 


7/5/2013 Plans Published for Old City Cable Car

 


7/5/2013 Sharansky Plan Hits a Wall, no pun intended

 


7/5/2013 The Wall/Barrier vs. Cremisan & Beit Jala

 


5/5/2013 Spatial Shaping in J'lem Continues with Opening of Route 20

 


24/4/2013 Concerns about Proposed “Solution” to Women’s Prayer Issue at the Western Wall

 


22/4/2013 The Politics of Waste Treatment in East Jerusalem

 


15/4/2013 Fifty New Units in East Talpiot

 


14/1/2013 E-1/Bab ash-Shams: What Happened, What it Means, What Next

 


28/12/2012 Mordot Gilo South - APPROVED

 


19/12/2012 Givat Hamatos APPROVED - What it Means

 


17/12/2012 Breaking News - Approvals this week - Ramat Shlomo & Givat Hamatos

 


5/12/2012 The E-1 Crisis...This Is Not a Drill

 


6/11/2012 More than 1200 New Tenders Issued for Pisgat Ze'ev and Ramot

 


31/10/2012 New Construction Approved in Har Homa

 


30/10/2012 New East Jerusalem Settlement Construction Approved - East Talpiot units for Israeli Security Personnel

 


24/10/2012 Mordot Gilo Construction Approved

 


24/10/2012 Plans for IDF Colleges on Mt. of Olives Deposited for Public Review & Explanation of Location

 


24/10/2012 Taking the Garbage to East Jerusalem

 


24/10/2012 Is the Palestinian Population of East Jerusalem Becoming More Israeli -- No

 


24/10/2012 Pisgat Zeev in the News

 


18/10/2012 Crisis Brewing on the Temple Mount

 


17/9/2012 Jerusalem, Netanyahu and the two-state solution

 


16/9/2012 Issue to watch: East Jerusalem Home Demolitions

 


16/9/2012 Attacks on Palestinians in Jerusalem – Sign of the “Hebronization” of the City

 


16/9/2012 Jerusalem in the Headlines: Ras al-Amud, Temple Mount, the Barrier, Elad, & Har Homa

 


15/9/2012 Jerusalem: Political Football in U.S. Presidential Race

 


14/9/2012 In Memorium: Our Friend, Chris Stevens

 


2/7/2012 New Tenders Published for East Jerusalem Settlement Construction

 


2/7/2012 Plans for New IDF War College on the Mt. of Olives Approved for Public Review

 


11/6/2012 Settlement Surge Continues on Jerusalem's Southern Flank

 


8/5/2012 Arab VIPs Start Coming to Jerusalem

 


7/5/2012 Givat Hamatos – Nearing the Point-of-No-Return

 


7/5/2012 IDF College on the Mt. of Olives – Moving Forward

 


7/5/2012 Kidmat Tzion – Municipal Approval Anticipated Soon

 


7/5/2012 Mughrabi Ramp – Some Good News

 


6/5/2012 Beit Hanina Settlement Effort Continues

 


10/4/2012 Late Winter Freeze in East Jerusalem turns to Spring Thaw

 


8/4/2012 Kidmat Tziyon Settlement Scheme to be Expedited

 


8/4/2012 New East Jerusalem “Park” Soon to get Final Approval

 


8/4/2012 New Settlement in Beit Hanina?

 


8/4/2012 Israeli High Court Rejects Shepherd’s Hotel Appeal

 


14/3/2012 Will Arab & Muslim Leaders Start Coming to Jerusalem?


 


14/3/2012 A Major East Jerusalem Settlement Plan Comes Back to Life

 


14/3/2012 Spotlight on Jewish Access to the Temple Mount

 


14/3/2012 Volatility in Silwan: Mini-Intifada Continues, Cave-Ins, and New Settler Plans

 


9/1/2012 The Ongoing Settlement Surge in East Jerusalem

 


9/1/2012 The Mughrabi Gate Saga - Update

 


10/12/2011 Barkat Tries to Force Mughrabi Ramp Demolition

 


9/12/2011 Approval of Mount Scopus "Park" Proceeds

 


13/10/2011 Approval for New Israeli Settlement at Givat Hamatos Proceeds

 


12/10/2011 New Pisgat Ze'ev Building Permits

 


28/9/2011 New Settlement Approval issued for Gilo - Plan 13261

 


11/8/2011 More Jerusalem Settlement Approvals: Ramat Shlomo, Pisgat Zeev, Givat Hamatos

 


10/8/2011 Yet Another Har Homa Plan Approved (No. 12825) - Public Buildings, 50 Units

 


5/8/2011 Har Homa C Plan 10310 (app. 983 units) Approved

 


9/7/2011 Jerusalem Municipal "Approval" of Mordot Gilo Plan

 


9/7/2011 Meretz Rejoins Municipal Coalition - Separate Portfolios for EJ Settlers and Palestinians

 


20/6/2011 The Ramat Shlomo House Extension Plans

 


10/6/2011 Committee for Acceleration of (EJ) Construction to Convene on June 14

 


24/5/2011 Netanyahu Approves East Jerusalem Construction Hours Before Obama Address

 


24/5/2011 Barkat Trying to Force Netanyahu's Hand on Mughrabi Ramp

 


12/5/2011 The Non-Existent Court Decision on Bustan Demolitions

 


10/5/2011 New East Jerusalem Settlements Update

 


9/5/2011 US Supreme Court to Hear Jerusalem Status Case

 


21/4/2011 Is There a De Facto Settlement Freeze in East Jerusalem? The Facts

 


18/4/2011 April Surge in East Jerusalem Construction Plans

 


18/4/2011 Mount Scopus Slopes Park Approved for Public Review

 


16/3/2011 Permit Issued for 14 Units at Ras el Amud Police Station

 


16/3/2011 Permit Issued for Mughrabi Ramp

 

29/7/2013 A Layman's Guide to Jerusalem House Demolitions
Daniel Seidemann

 


29/7/2013 A Laymen's Guide to the Planning Process in Jerusalem.pdf
Daniel Seidmann

 


20/3/2013 "Spatial Shaping", the Ross Agenda and a Partial Settlement Freeze
Daniel Seidmann

 


10/3/2013 Spatial Shaping - Unilaterally Determining Israel’s Base-Line Border
Daniel Seidmann

 


10/9/2012 NOREF Policy Brief August 2012 | By Daniel Seidemann
Daniel Seidemann

 


30/1/2012 East Jerusalem and the Imminent Demise of the Two-State Solution
Daniel Seidemann

 


7/11/2011 East Jerusalem Developments and Trends: 2006-2011
Daniel Seidemann

 


31/10/2011 The TJ Guide to the Planning and Construction Process in East Jerusalem - Oct. 2011
Daniel Seidemann

 


15/10/2011 Givat Hamatos/Mordot Gilo: New Settlement Schemes on Jerusalem's Southern Flank
Daniel Seidemann

 


12/8/2011 U.S. (non)-Recognition of Sovereignty in Jerusalem: A Consistent Policy, 1948 - 2011
Lara Friedman

 


1/8/2011 Hanging On By Our Fingernails
Daniel Seidemann

 


22/2/2011 Jerusalem Challenges the API
Daniel Seidemann

 


21/2/2011 East Jerusalem settlers and Israel's never-ending War of Independence
Daniel Seidemann

 


20/2/2011 The Two Jerusalems
D. Seidemann D.Rothem

 


19/2/2011 Jerusalem on the Brink
Daniel Seidemann

 


19/2/2011 A barely tolerated minority
Daniel Seidemann

 


17/2/2011 Redeeming Jerusalem by truth, not hollow slogans
Daniel Seidemann

 


16/2/2011 Jerusalem, settlements, and the "everybody knows" fallacy
Lara Friedman - Daniel Seidemann

 


15/2/2011 Blogposts
Lara Friedman
 
 
http://www.sayarch.com/