US embassy cable - 05TELAVIV648

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEL AVIV 000648 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NSC FOR ABRAMS/DANIN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2015 
TAGS: PREL, PHUM, KWBG, IS, JE, GOI INTERNAL, ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS 
SUBJECT: ATTORNEY GENERAL MAZUZ CANCELS CHANGES IN 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ABSENTEE PROPERTY LAW IN JERUSALEM 
 
REF: TEL AVIV 594 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer for Reasons 1.4 (b,d) 
 
1.  (C) Summary.  Deputy Prime Minister and MOIT Minister 
Olmert confirmed to the Ambassador February 1 that AG Mazuz 
has reversed the GOI decision of July 2004 concerning 
application of the Absentee Property Law to East Jerusalem. 
He also passed us a copy of Mazuz's decision.  Separately, 
Deputy Attorney General Mike Glass informed Deputy Economic 
Counselor that Mazuz's decision was the result of intense 
international pressure.  Mazuz's decision was conveyed in a 
January 31 letter to members of the Cabinet; it raises 
fundamental questions about the legal basis for applying the 
APL to East Jerusalem properties.  End Summary. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
Olmert Confirms Mazuz Reversal to Ambassador 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
2. (C) Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert informed the 
Ambassador that Mazuz had acted decisively to reverse the 
Cabinet's decision of last summer that would permit changes 
in the implementation of the Absentee Property Law (APL) in 
Jerusalem.  Olmert said the issue was quite complicated, a 
point underscored in the written opinion of Mazuz that Olmert 
shared with the Ambassador.  Olmert said the issue came down 
to whether a special Ministerial committee on Jerusalem had 
the authority to change a ruling of the Attorney General in 
1968 that prevented the custodian of absentee property from 
disposing of property in Jerusalem.  In 1968, the Attorney 
General had ruled that, since Palestinians had not of their 
own accord made themselves absent from property in Jerusalem 
-- in fact, it was Israel's occupation of Jerusalem and its 
decision to change Jerusalem's status that created the change 
-- the custodian could not dispose of such property.  Over 
the years this decision was reaffirmed from time to time and 
was challenged only last summer, when two members of a 
Ministerial advisory committee on Jerusalem -- Natan 
Sharansky and Zvulun Orlev, voted to give the custodian 
authority to dispose of absentee property in Jerusalem.  Part 
of their reason for making this change was to facilitate the 
state's ability to seize property for the construction of the 
security barrier in Jerusalem.  In July, the Cabinet approved 
this measure, but Olmert said the issue passed through the 
Cabinet with no one paying any attention to it or its 
ramifications. 
 
3. (C) In a conversation with Deputy Economic Counselor, 
Deputy AG Glass, who called the issue "a tempest in a 
teapot," noted that intense pressure from the U.S. and other 
parties had led to Mazuz's decision.  Glass noted the 
decision requires the AG's personal approval of any GOI 
attempt to apply the APL to East Jerusalem properties. 
According to Glass, this was the procedure used by the GOI 
prior to last July's government decision. Glass also noted 
that the Ministry of Justice is continuing to work on 
procedures that would allow West Bank Palestinians to access 
their property on the other side of the security barrier in 
East Jerusalem.  He would not speculate when these procedures 
would be finalized, however. 
 
------------------ 
The Mazuz Decision 
------------------ 
 
4.  (C) While mainly concerned with enumerating the detailed 
history of the APL and its application, the letter also notes 
that: 
 
-- The Israeli Supreme Court had ruled in the past that the 
APL's definition of "absentee" was unusually broad; 
 
-- Although the GOI's decision to apply all GOI laws to East 
Jerusalem following the Six Day war included the APL, "the 
absenteeism of property belonging to West Bank residents is 
technical in nature, as they were turned into absentee 
landholders as a result of a unilateral operation by the 
State of Israel."  This application is thus not in accordance 
with the original purpose of the law; 
 
-- The APL does not provide for compensation; 
 
-- The state has an "obligation to honor the property rights 
of residents in areas which are being held as a result of a 
military seizure;" 
 
-- The Ministry of Justice opposed the change in application 
of the APL last summer; 
 
-- International concern over the separation barrier makes it 
inopportune to "open new fronts in the international arena" 
at this time; all of which leads to Mazuz's bottom line 
decision that 
-- "This (July 2004) decision can not stand." 
 
 
********************************************* ******************** 
Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website: 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv 
 
You can also access this site through the State Department's 
Classified SIPRNET website. 
********************************************* ******************** 
KURTZER