As I understand it, the law provides an absentee is anyone who, at any time between the Nov 1947 and the end of the state of emergency (which is to say now as the state of emergency is still in force) owned property in Israel and who at any time during the said period was either a) a citizen of one of the enemy countries, or b) who left Israel for one of the enemy countries or c) who was a Palestinian citizen according to the provisions of the Palestinian Citizenship Orders, 1925-1941 and left his usual place of residence in Israel for areas controlled by the armies trying to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel. 1) Technically this would make most the Mizrachi Jews who immigrated from Egypt, Iraq etc and who owned property in Israel fall into category a) because they were citizens of enemy states during said period. However since the law was never applied to them, I would think that the challengers should win, as law can't be applied in a discriminatory manner. 2) In East Jerusalem in particular, the land in question was not 'in Israel' when this law was passed. A general principle of law is that it can't be applied retroactively which this would be doing. The best solution would be for the court to declare to order the government to end the state of emergency.
Key U.S. House Democrat cites troublesome issues in Iran nuclear deal (Reuters)