Privatization, Segregation, Discrimination: The Cessation of Land Settlement in East Jerusalem

Abstract

In Israel, the settlement of title is the central method for land registration, having been used to register over 96 percent of the land. The settlement of title to land is a public procedure which results in a valid registration in the state's books. The registration process is considered a means for the recognition of land rights and, by extension, the future enforcement of these rights. As such, land registration is considered the privatization of rights.

The land not yet registered is located in the southern part of Israel and several city centers, primarily in East Jerusalem. The state of affairs in East Jerusalem is the result of a policy directive issued by the Israeli government after the 1967 Six Day War and the occupation of East Jerusalem. Representatives of the government justify their policy by citing "practical and political obstacles." No further explanation has been offered.

The aims of this paper are to evaluate the reasons for this policy, discuss its implications, and present avenues to minimize its negative effects. Particular attention is devoted to the unique status and political complexity of East Jerusalem, especially with regard to land issues.

The paper deals with the policy decision to treat East Jerusalem as a special case, which involves taking land policy out of the political sphere and moving it into the private sphere. Under an alternative notion of privatization put forth here, de facto the state has allowed individual holders of property claims to bring about the registration of their rights. When the decision is viewed through this lens, it can be appreciated that the government did not want to see another conflict in this area, and hence adopted a cessation policy. At the same time, the assumption on the part of the state that it was unlikely that a large portion of the land would be declared "state land" if the settlement of title were to proceed casts doubt on its incentives for implementing the process. This has given rise to the claim that although settlement of title was no doubt conceived as a powerful symbol for sovereignty, Israel is nonetheless willing to follow a strategy of avoidance.

Understanding the justifications of the policy provides us with guidelines for limiting it. I argue that the objective of privatization cannot justify a result that is discriminatory. The paper concludes with a number of policy recommendations in this regard.

Note: Downloadable document is in Hebrew.

Keywords: Land Settlement, East Jerusalem, Land Reform, Political Segregation