US embassy cable - 05TELAVIV652

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 000652 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL, KWBG, IS, JE, GOI INTERNAL, ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS 
SUBJECT: MAZUZ ABSENTEE PROPERTY LAW DECISION RILES 
SHARANSKY AND NETANYAHU 
 
 
1.  (SBU)  The Absentee Property Law controversy continued to 
receive press play February 3, although at a less intense 
level than previously.  AG Mazuz's January 31 decision to 
overturn application the Absentee Property Law (APL) to East 
Jerusalem led to a predictable outcry by Ministers Sharansky 
and Netanyahu.  Sharansky panned the AG and his staff for 
sloppy work, noting "Your objections (to the law) ought to 
have been made in real time, not several months later, after 
the matter was publicized in the media."  According to a 
February 3 Ha'aretz article, Netanyahu argued that "The 
decision... merely sought 'to restore the status quo ante' 
after the Barak government scrapped Israel's long-standing 
position that East Jerusalem is part of its capital. 
'Jerusalem is united,' he said. 'That is how it should be. 
That's what sovereignty means.  Just as Arab West Bank 
residents have no real foothold in sovereign (Israeli) 
territory, they have no real foothold in sovereign Jerusalem 
territory.'" 
 
2.  (SBU) Editorials in a range of Israeli newspapers, 
including Yediot Achronot, Maariv, and Globes, all criticized 
the 2004 government decision to apply actively the APL in 
East Jerusalem.  They highlighted the fact that two ministers 
could take such a momentous decision with virtually no 
oversight, and with no public announcement of their decision, 
as well as what Yedioth refers to as its real effect of 
"robbing" land from Palestinian owners. 
 
3.  (SBU) A number of sources have implied that Mazuz may not 
have the last word.  A February 2 Ha'aretz editorial 
supporting the Mazuz decision says "Hopefully, the government 
will respect the attorney general's decision and not try to 
change it with legislation."  Netanyahu is quoted in the 
February 3 article mentioned above as saying that he will 
"clarify the matter with the AG; I hope he will accept my 
position."  Lastly, a February 3 press release by the Israeli 
NGO B'Tselem notes that, although Mazuz did reverse the 2004 
government decision, "in individual cases the threat of 
confiscation (of absentee land) remains." 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
4.  (SBU) Netanyahu's comments about the purported status of 
Jerusalem and the actions of the Barak government miss the 
point (either through lack or knowledge or in spite of it) of 
Mazuz's decision, which is that the original 1950 law was not 
designed to be applied to areas claimed by Israel after the 
law was first enacted. 
 
5.  (SBU) B'Tselem is correct that, even according to the 
Mazuz decision, East Jerusalem land can be seized under the 
APL.  As a result of the application of all GOI law to East 
Jerusalem after the Six Day war, the APL by default applies 
there as well.  The key fact of the decision, however, is 
that it clearly takes decision-making power on seizures away 
from the fairly obscure Custodian of Absentee Property in the 
Finance Ministry and puts it squarely in the hands of the AG. 
 
6.  (SBU) Mission is working to obtain further information 
from the GOI about whether, and how, Mazuz's January 31 
decision could be changed, either through legislation or 
through other means. 
 
********************************************* ******************** 
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