Journal of Israeli History Politics, Society, Culture ISSN: 1353-1042 (Print) 1744-0548 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjih20 Just ring twice: Law and society under the rent control regime in Israel, 1948–1954 Maya Mark To cite this article: Maya Mark (2013) Just ring twice: Law and society under the rent control regime in Israel, 1948–1954, Journal of Israeli History, 32:1, 29-50, DOI: 10.1080/13531042.2013.768029 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13531042.2013.768029 Published online: 09 Apr 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 63 View related articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fjih20 Download by: [Tel Aviv University] Date: 08 August 2016, At: 07:20 The Journal of Israeli History,2013 Vol. 32, No. 1, 29–50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13531042.2013.768029 Just ring twice: Law and society under the rent control regime in Israel, 1948–1954 Maya Mark* During the early 1930s a regulatory regime on the rent market was enacted in Mandatory Palestine. Although it was promulgated under specific circumstances and wastoremainineffectforalimitedperiod,itremainedinforceuntil1954,duetoa variety of economic, political and social factors. The unique circumstances of Israel’s formative years intensified the far-reaching social and economic effects of the regulation. At the same time, the judicial system that oversaw the regulation duringthisperiodwasbesetbyavarietyof administrative and organizational problems. Although the authorities realized that there was an urgent need to replace the Mandatory arrangements, it was only in 1954 that new legislation was enacted, when a number of developments such as the rise of the General Zionists Party, the new economic policy, and deep changes in public opinion led to the annulment of the Mandatory laws. Keywords: regulation; housing; administrative tribunals; Tenant Protection Law; rent control; private property; redistribution of property; austerity Introduction During the early 1930s in Mandatory Palestine, laws were enacted instructing a nominal rental freeze and prohibiting the evacuation of tenants from the apartment in which they resided. These laws were intended to stabilize the housing market, halt the steep rise in rents, and prevent the mass evacuation of tenants. Although these laws were promulgated under specific circumstances and were to remain in effect for a limited period, they remained in force for many years. The housing shortage was exacerbated by World War II, which led to the institutionalization and expansion of control of the rental market in 1940. With the founding of the state and the adoption of Mandatory law in its entirety by means of the Government and Law Ordinance of 1948, the Mandatory legislation in the sphere of housing was likewise incorporated into Israel’s code of laws, and the regulation remained in force. Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 07:20 08 August 2016 The effect of regulation on the sphere of housing was already evident prior to the establishment of Israel. Yet the massive waves of immigration that inundated the state upon its founding, the rampant inflation, introduction of regulation in the spheres of food and basic commodities, and the economic hardship during those years, intensified the repercussions and effect of regulation. These consequences were far reaching: the regulatory regime not only affected the housing market, but as time passed it shaped the overall social and economic relations among broad sections of the public and stood at the heart of an intense political, ideological, and social debate. The judicial system that oversaw matters relating to regulation added a further dimension of complexity to this area. This was a unique system of courts established during the Mandate period known *Email: [email protected] q 2013 Taylor & Francis 30 M. Mark as rental tribunals. It was beset by a variety of administrative and organizational defects and was the butt of considerable criticism over the years. In light of all these circumstances, upon the establishment of the state the authorities realized that there was a genuine and urgent need to replace the Mandatory arrangements with new legislation. Yet between 1948 and 1954 it remained unclear whether a law that regulated the rental market would indeed be passed by the Knesset; and if it were to be passed, when this would occur and what kind of law this would be. The decision was repeatedly postponed. Emissaries dispatched to government officials came and went, conflicting claims were presented, but the anticipated arrangement failed to materialize. Despite the complex social reality and the problematic status of the system of rental tribunals, it was only in 1954 that legislation was enacted in Israel that replaced the Mandatory laws, updated rents for the first time since 1940, and reformed the legal system. In this article I shall examine the social, political, and juridical reality within which the rental market operated from the foundingoftheStateofIsraeltothepassingofthe Tenant Protection Law in 1954. Discussion will focus on the social implications of this extended regulatory regime and the dynamics that it generated in various spheres. Furthermore, I shall attempt to address the question of why the regulation of the rental market was delayed for so long in view of the problematic social and economic reality that the regulatory regime generated and the contentious deportment of the judicial system in this sphere. The article begins with a brief survey of the legal situation prior to the founding of the state. In the second section, I consider the repercussions of the regulation and the various ways in which it shaped the social and economic relations among different sections of the population. The third section discusses the singular judicial system that was established through the regulatory legislation, including its characteristics, operation, and the criticism that it drew. In thefourthsectionIseektodeterminewhy it took six long years before the introduction of a reform that transformed the judicial situation in this sphere, as I address the gamut of economic, political, and social causes and circumstances that facilitated the continuation of the regulation for all those years. In the fifth section I discuss the reasons for the change in policy that eventually brought about the replacement of the old regulatory regime by a new arrangement in 1954. Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 07:20 08 August 2016 Tenant protection laws in Mandatory Palestine Most urban development in Israel prior to the 1930s was financed by private capital. The European immigrants brought with them a tradition of renting apartments, and the rent was determined by the free market.1 In early 1934, due to complaints of the population, the High Commissioner to Palestine appointed a committee to investigate the continuing steep rise in rents in various cities. The committee’s recommendations laid down two principles that were to affect the protected rental market in Israel for years to come, namely rent control and restrictions on landlords’ ability to evict tenants from their apartments.2 It appears that the committee was aware of the problems inherent in setting general restrictions on rental and found it necessary to note in the report’s summary that “it would be folly to suppose that control of rents prevents acts of social injustice: It may prevent some while causing others.”3 This statement proved to The Journal of Israeli History 31 be extraordinarily prescient. The Mandate government adopted the committee’s main recommendations, and in April 1934 rent restrictions were imposedoncertainurban areas and were extended each year where necessary.4 World War II naturally affected the housing market. Throughout Europe as well as in Palestine, the shortage of raw materials, the slowdown in construction, and the desire to prevent widespread eviction of tenants from their homes led to the adoption of various mechanisms of rent regulation.5 Thus it was that in 1940 the Rent Restriction Ordinance came into effect, placing the entire country under a regulatory regime that froze rents and significantly restricted the freedom of landlords to evict tenants from their apartments.6 The idea of a regulated economy was not confined to the Mandate authorities. At that time the industrialized nations were still suffering the consequences of the major crisis that had hit the world economy in 1929 and which was in part perceived as the painful failure of the free market. Regulation was introduced to various spheres throughout the world, and not only in Mandatory Palestine.7 This intellectual heritage perfectly fitted the political and ideological climate of the young Israeli state. In fact, one of the initial steps taken by Israel’s first government was to declare a regime of regulation and control over the food and basic commodities market. As for the sphere of housing, with the establishment of the state in May 1948, the government adopted the Rent Restriction Ordinance to the letter within the framework of the Law and Administration Ordinance.8 The effects of regulation When the state came into being, rent control had been in force for eight years, and a further six years would pass before the judicial situation was altered. This extended period of regulation had notable social, economic, and political repercussions. The law shaped relations between landlords, tenants,