Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05TELAVIV652, MAZUZ ABSENTEE PROPERTY LAW DECISION RILES

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05TELAVIV652.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05TELAVIV652 2005-02-03 14:21 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Tel Aviv
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
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