Jaffa. Elements of coercion can be found in the legal, financial and psychological pressure faced by the family. For example, the fines and taxes demanded from the family for ‘renting’ three shares of their home and the associated fees of almost 30 years create a significant financial burden. The constant delivery of notices, the harassment and visits by Amidar representatives and the 10year court case all create pressure on the family to the point that the victim’s children actually encourage their mother to give up the home. While the victims of the above cases have not yet been displaced, if displacement does occur under these circumstances, it would be unlawful. Direct displacement as a result of the state-perpetrated violations of the laws and principles of IHRL regarding fundamental rights associated with the right to own property and the protection of property constitutes unlawful displacement. As such, evictions arising from this situation would be considered arbitrary. Indirect forced displacement arising from human rights violations leading to the loss of livelihood, and resulting in displacement (without an official eviction) would also be considered unlawful. Despite the fact that the family has been continuously residing in the home even prior to 1948, a portion of the home remains classified as absentee property due to the illegal manipulative application of the Absentee Property Law. The stated objective of the Absentee Property Law is to safeguard absentee property until the status of Palestinian refugees is resolved. Since three shares of the home have been deceptively classified as absentee property, selling or privatizing these shares violates refugee law, which prohibits state ownership or privatization of refugee and IDP property.95 It can only be concluded that the Absentee Property Law, in combination with other land-related laws, confers legitimacy to illegal Israeli actions, actions that detrimentally impact the right to property restitution of Palestinian refugees and IDPs.96 This case exemplifies how Israel has confiscated refugee and IDP properties through the absentee property regulations and has sold, and continues to sell, those properties. The privatization of these properties is not only prohibited, but it thwarts the right of Palestinian refugees to restitution of their lands and properties, thereby complicating their return. This reality makes the displacement process in Jaffa one of ethnically-based gentrification aimed at emptying the historic old city of Palestinians and replacing them with Jewish-Israelis. 95 “Adalah to Attorney General and Custodian of Absentee Property: Israel’s Sale of Palestinian Refugee Property Violates Israeli and International Law,” Adalah, 2009, available at: https://www.adalah.org/ en/content/view/7003 [accessed 21 September 2017]. 96 See section above on International Refugee Law. Additionally see UNHCR, Housing, Land and Property Rights in Post-Conflict Societies: Proposals for a New United Nations Institutional and Policy Framework, March 2005, PPLA/2005/01, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/425689fa4. html [accessed 21 September 2017]. 39