Land Confiscation Introduction 53 Absentee Law in East Jerusalem Jordan controlled East Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967. Residents of East Jerusalem hold Jordanian Identity Papers and are, therefore, considered to have resided in an ‘enemy territory’ for the purposes of the Absentee Law, notwithstanding that Israel has treated East Jerusalem as Israeli territory following 1967 in all practical and legal matters. Therefore, Israel considers Palestinians residing in East Jerusalem absentees while claiming that their properties are in Israeli territory. To counter this paradox the Knesset passed the Law and Administration Procedures Law, 1970, stipulating that East Jerusalem residents were not to be considered ‘absentees’ with respect to properties they owned within East Jerusalem. However, Palestinians residing outside the newly established municipal boundaries, while owning property within the city limits, were still subject to the Absentee Law as were East Jerusalem residents who owned properties within the Green Line.198 Much of the case law concerning the application of Absentee Law to East Jerusalem pertains to properties owned by individuals residing in the West Bank. The Israeli Supreme Court held that their properties are subject to the Absentee Law regardless of their owners’ ‘technical’ residency.199 In two cases, the District Court has followed recommendations of the Israeli Attorney General to cease designating absentee properties in East Jerusalem whose owners resided in the West Bank.200 However, the District Court has also issued two contradictory verdicts – the Civil Complaint (Jerusalem) 6044/04 Hussein v. Cohen, May 9th 2006; Civil Complaint (Jerusalem) 6161/04 Ayad v. The Custodian of Absentee Properties, 2 October 2008. Both these cases are currently pending adjudication before the Supreme Court201 and could have huge implications on the applicability of the Absentee Law in East Jerusalem. 198 See: Adalah, ‘Applying the Absentee Property Law on Land in East Jerusalem’, January 10, 2008; available from http://apjp.org/absentee-property-law-cannot-b/2011/11/25/applying-the-absenteeproperty-law-on-land-in-east-jerusalem.html; accessed 29 April 2013. 199 See: Edmond Levy Et Al V. Legacy of the Late Afanah Mahmoud Mahmoud (Abu Sharif) Et Al, 40(1) 374 Peski Din (1986); 4713/93 Ze’ev Golan Et Al. V. The Special Committee According to Article 29 of the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law Et Al. (HCJ 1994). 200 Daqaq Nuha V. The Heirs of the Late Naame Atiya Adwi Najar Psak Din (Jerusalem District Court 2006); The Estate of the Late Taleb Ali Abdulla Abu Zahariya V. Berta Hamdan (Jerusalem District Court 2007). 201 Daqaq Nuha V. The Heirs of the Late Naame Atiya Adwi Najar.