Supreme Court Justice Alex Stein summarily rejected yesterday (June 22, 2025) the appeal of the Um Nasser Rajabi family (18 people) and ruled that they must [vacate] their home, where they have lived since the 1970s, in favor of settlers. The ruling followed Justice Solberg’s decision last week (16 June 2025), in which he rejected the appeal of the Shweiki and Odeh families (19 people) without waiting for the state’s position, even though the state had been asked to express its view in the case but refrained from doing so. The meaning of the two rulings is that some six families are about to lose their home in the coming weeks.
In another appeal, that of the Abd al-Fattah Rajabi family (26 people), which — like the Um Nasser appeal — was awaiting the state’s position in the Shweiki case, Justice Yechiel Kasher decided to allow the appellants to respond within two weeks before making a decision.
The eviction claims are part of a broader campaign aimed at forcibly transferring an entire community of around 700 residents from this East Jerusalem neighborhood and replacing them with a settlement. In the past year, settlers have taken over three homes in Batan al-Hawa after the Palestinian families living there were evicted. The legal basis for the eviction claims is a discriminatory law that allows Jews to reclaim property lost in the 1948 war, while another law denies Palestinians the same right.
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. 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.”
The Umm Nasser Rajabi Family
In 1975, the head of the family, Awad Rajabi, purchased the house from its previous Palestinian owner and lived there until his death, without anyone ever challenging the purchase. Today, the house is home to Um Nasser, her sons Nasser and Aied, their children, and grandchildren (a total of 18 people).
Nasser Rajabi: “My father bought this house, and I was born in this house. We didn’t take it from anyone. If this land is supposed to go back to Jews who owned it before 1948, then give us back all our land from before 1948 in Haifa, Ramla, and elsewhere. I’m not leaving this house—where am I supposed to go?”
Current Situation (June 2025): Approximately 80 Families Facing Eviction
Already Evicted:
16 families have already been evicted from their homes, with settlers moving in their place. Including two houses that the settler took last August (the Shhadeh house, the Jawad Abu Nab’s house, and the Gheith family).
Final Ruling for Eviction in the Supreme Court:
Shweiki and Odeh families (19 people), Um Nasser Rajabi family (18 people).
Appeal Pending in the Supreme Court:
Families Abd Al-Fatah Rajabi (26 people) have appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in the District Court. The appeals are still pending.
Appeal Pending in the District Court:
Five cases of appeals following an eviction verdict in the Magistrate’s Court from January 2025, are pending in Jerusalem’s District Court: Zouheir Rajabi House – 7 families and 39 people; Abd Al-Fatah Rajabi House – 2 families with 18 people; Ya’akub Talal Rajabi House – 11 families with 44 people; Yosef Basbus House – 4 families with 21 people; Khalil Basbus House – 3 families with 9 people.
Ongoing Lawsuits in the Magistrate’s Court:
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, and Sarhan).
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 from the field of international law filed to the court an application to submit an amicus curiae brief. According to the brief, the Palestinian residents’ 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 group vulnerability of occupants facing eviction and institutional, systemic discrimination against them. 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 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.
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 – 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.
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.
| ثيمات |
| • إقليمي • الإخلاء القسري • التشريد • الحقوق الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والثقافية • الحوادث • القواعد والمعايير • جبر الضرر/ استعادة الحقوق • حقوق الإنسان • حقوق السكن • حقوق الملكية • دولي • شعوب تحت الاحتلال |
