The practical consequences of situations of de jure confiscation are similar to those of de facto confiscation for affected Palestinians. Regardless of whether or not a change of ownership does occur, the consequences in both instances are equivalent to a denial of proprietary rights that normally accompany ownership. The Israeli policies of de jure and de facto confiscation consequently breach the rights of both Palestinians inside Israel and the protected inhabitants of the oPt to enjoy the effective ownership of their land and property, which may ultimately result in their forcible displacement or transfer. The illustrated cases and legal analyses highlight the clear incompatibility of Israeli laws and practices with international law and Israel’s obligations as the occupying power. Israel has implemented the land confiscation and denial of use policy through multiple layers and phases: law, force, and the legalization of acts perpetrated by non-state actors (colonizers and colonizer organizations). These three steps show that Israel’s policy is systematic and ongoing, and that Israel responds to its desire to control the maximum amount of land with minimum Palestinians by adjusting legislation and practices where and when it sees fit. Israel has often manipulated legal precedents and laws in order to legitimize its land grab. Israel’s disregard for both IHL and IHRL is demonstrated clearly in the documented cases in Jaffa, al-Araqib, Deir Istiya, and Silwan presented in this paper. The consequences are not only violations of human rights but also the commission of war crimes, and potentially crimes against humanity. In serious violation of IHRL, Israel uses discriminatory declarations of land for public purposes. Israel collaborates and supports the JNF, a non-state actor, in order to confiscate land belonging to the Bedouin village of alAraqib in the Naqab and forcibly displace its inhabitants. Similarly, it violates international human rights law in Jaffa, where a land privatization scheme and absentee property laws have been used in order to forcibly displace Palestinians and confiscate their land. The construction of colonies and their associated infrastructures in Deir Istiya in the occupied West Bank result in the forcible transfer of Palestinians in violation of both IHL and IHRL. Finally, the overlapping mechanisms of the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, declarations of national parks on occupied land, fraudulent purchases of land by non-state actors, and absentee property laws create a coercive environment against Palestinians in Silwan and confiscate their lands in violation of both IHL and IHRL. These cases show how land confiscation and 74