Legal Analysis The elements of this case violate the principles of IHRL concerning the right to protection of property. The categorization of the property as absentee constitutes de jure confiscation of private property. While the stated aim of the declaration could be considered legitimate, its use and posterior Israeli actions vis-à-vis absentee property are not. The subsequent judicial process and fines associated with this categorization do not allow for sufficient judicial review, as the consequence of Israeli domestic law places the current Palestinian residents at a disadvantage. Such properties, moreover, have been progressively privatized, which also shows an eventual lack of public purpose. The proportionality is also absent, since there is no just balance between the protection of the right of property and the needs of general interest in this case. The right of the Jewish-Israeli buyer to buy the privatized property is prioritized over the right of the Palestinian family to owe the property, showing a clear imbalance. These three elements added to the lack of compensation paid to the owners of the property, means that the principles governing the deprivation of property are missing, rendering these cases of property deprivation unlawful. The vast number of similar cases in Jaffa, on the other hand, makes the case of the Afteem family one of many, shedding light onto a systematic policy rather than an exceptional act. Israeli laws aimed at seizing Palestinian land or property in favor of Jewish-Israelis also violate multiple IHRL prohibitions concerning non-discrimination, as they do not affect the Jewish-Israeli population.93 The facts of this case also violate Article 17 of the ICCPR, which prohibits arbitrary and unlawful interference in the family’s privacy and home. The denial of services and neglect of infrastructure in Palestinian areas are clear indications that Palestinians in Jaffa are not being provided with a minimum standard of living compared to Jewish-Israelis.94 Israel is thus not only violating the right to non-discrimination, but also the right to an adequate standard of living. The family continues to live with fear, uncertainty and instability emanating from the ongoing harassment and threats, and further legal proceedings and fines. Palestinian residents are at an economic disadvantage from being able to legally own such properties due to the institutionalized discrimination of Israeli domestic law, and the economic and social neglect of the Palestinian areas of 93 BADIL meeting with Adalah, February 2017. 94 Jo Roberts, Contested Land, Contested Memory: Israel’s Jews and Arabs and the Ghosts of Catastrophe, (Toronto: Dundurn, 2013). 38