Israeli occupation forced ten members of the Abu Assab family to leave their home in the Old City of occupied East Jerusalem on Saturday February 17th and helped illegal Israeli settlers to take it over. Under international law intentional demographic change by an occupier is a war crime.
The family, which includes three children, had been able to get a court order to post-pone this until February 28th, but Israeli occupation ignored it. Israeli occupation troops used force against several members of the family, including a minor.
An illegal Israeli settler organization claims the land on which the house was built would have belonged to Jews before 1948 and appealed to Israeli occupation court based on 1970 law, which allows only Jews to claim for return of property lost in the Nakba. The Abu Assab family had been paying rent to Israeli ‘property guard’ based on this Israeli law for years.
All property of ethnically cleansed Palestinians according to Israeli law became the property of the state of Israel after five years under the ‘absentee owner’ law; this means that by 1953 Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948 had lost all their property taken from them according to Israel, while Jews can claim back their property – or transfer rights to their lost property to others, in basically all cases so far to illegal Israeli settler organizations and their cover companies.
Israeli occupation courts make no difference between land and buildings built later on it; in this case the Abu Assab family had lived in the stone-build house since 1952. The Abu Assab family was ethnically cleansed from Baqaa in Western Jerusalem by Israel in 1948, but according to Israel, they don’t have a right of return to West Jerusalem nor right of having their property taken in 1948 to be returned to them. Instead they have now been ethnically cleansed for a second time.
According to some reports, the land on which the house stands was not owned by Jews prior to the Nakba, but leased from a Palestinian Nuseibeh family for 99 years and that the lease period would have since expired.
(Source / 19.02.2019)