Supreme Court Petitions: Cultural, Social and Economic Rights

Language Rights

The Use of Arabic on National Road Signs Petition filed against the Transportation Ministry and the Public Works Department to use the Arabic language on all national road signs. Adalah argued that given the official status of Arabic, its absence from national road signs constituted discrimination against the Arab minority, and a traffic hazard. At the time of filing, over 80% of the road signs were posted solely in Hebrew and English; Arabic appeared, if at all, only on signs posted near Arab localities. In 02/99, the Court ordered the respondents to post town names and directions in Arabic on all national road signs within five years, and to pay NIS 7,500 to Adalah for legal expenses. As a result of the Court's decision, thousands of signs have been posted in Arabic along Israel's four major highways. Adalah continues to seek corrections to Arabic language inaccuracies in the newly posted signs; full implementation of the decision; and the hiring of more Arab employees by the Public Works Department.

(H.C. 4438/97, Adalah, et. al. v. The Ministry of Transportation, et. al., Takdim Elyon, 1998 (1) 11)

Use of Arabic on Signs in Mixed Cities. A joint petition with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) was filed in 6/99 against the mixed Arab-Jewish cities of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Ramle, Lod, Akka (Acre), and Natseret Illit, demanding that these municipalities add Arabic to all traffic, warning and other informational signs in their jurisdiction. At the time of the petition’s filing, the signs appeared only in Hebrew and/or in English. The petitioners’ argued that since Arabic is an official language in Israel together with the Hebrew, according to Article 82 of the Palestine Order-in-Council (1922) the municipalities must post signs in at least both languages. This law, which was originally codified under the British Mandate, was later adopted by the Knesset and became part of Israeli law. By request of the Court, the AG joined the case as a respondent, and submitted a legal opinion in which he defended the partial and discretionary use of Arabic by the municipalities, and emphasized the superior status of Hebrew, despite the identical official status of both languages.

Result # 1: In 7/02, the Supreme Court ruled, 2-1, in favor of the petitioners’ request. Chief Justice Aharon Barak and Justice Dalia Dorner delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice Barak reasoned that the right to equality, the freedom to use one’s own language, and the special status of the Arabic language as opposed to other minority languages in Israel, mandated that the mixed-city municipalities use Arabic on their informational signs. Justice Dorner, in reaching the same result, relied on Article 82 of the Palestine Order-in-Council (1922), namely, the official status of the Arabic language in Israel. Justice Mishael Heshin, who wrote a minority opinion, argued that the majority decision constitutes the recognition of collective rights for the Arab minority that finds no basis in Israeli law. In his opinion, this politically sensitive issue is non-justiciable, and the appropriate forum to deal with the matter is the Knesset. Despite this favorable ruling, the Court did not decide that the Arabic language is equal in status to the Hebrew language; in fact, all three justices stressed the superiority and dominance of the Hebrew language in Israel.

Result # 2: Following the Court’s decision, in 8/02 and 9/02, the municipalities and the AG requested a second hearing. They claimed that an additional hearing on the case should be held as the Court’s judgment sets forth a precedent as to the official status of the Arabic language and recognizes collective rights for the Arab minority in Israel. In 8/03, the Supreme Court delivered its decision on the request for a second hearing. In the four-page judgment, Justice Matza ruled that the Court’s 2002 decision did not constitute a broad precedent regarding the status of the Arabic language in Israel. He explained that the decision applies only to the mixed-city municipalities, especially since the judgment of the majority - Justices Barak and Dorner - relied on different arguments and legal bases, although they arrived at the same outcome regarding the case. Further, Justice Matza stated that the denial of the request for a second hearing relates directly to the socio-political character of the issue, namely, that the requesters have “other venues,” more suitable than the Supreme Court, to contend with this issue.

(H.C. 4112/99, Adalah, et. al. v. The Municipalities of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, et. al., decision delivered 25 July 2002; request for a second hearing denied on 14 August 2003).

  Supreme Court Decision of 25 July 2002 in English

Announcements in the Arabic Press Regarding Political Parties and Platforms. Adalah successfully petitioned the Court in 02/99, in advance of the national elections, to compel the Registrar of Political Parties to publish future announcements regarding political parties and their platforms in Arabic. Since the enactment of the Law of Political Parties (1992), the Registrar had published these announcements only in the Hebrew press. The Court refused to compel the Registrar, however, to republish announcements related to the 1999 national elections that were originally published in Hebrew only.

(H.C. 989/99, Adalah, et. al. v. Registrar of Political Parties, et. al.)

Seeking Publication of Public Announcements in the Arabic Language Press. After the Haifa District Court refused to accept jurisdiction regarding this matter, a petition was filed in 3/01 against the Haifa Municipality demanding that it publish its public announcements in the Arabic language press. The petition argued that the municipality’s practice of only publishing informational and services advertisements in the Hebrew press discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel living in Haifa (about 14% of the city’s population) concerning the receipt of vital information about the municipality’s services, disregards the safety of residents, and violates the Palestine Order-in-Council - 1922, which requires that all authorities in the country respect the status of Arabic as an official language of the state, together with Hebrew. This law was originally codified under the British Mandate and later adopted by the Knesset, thereby becoming part of Israeli law. In 2/02, the Supreme Court asked the Attorney General to join the case as a respondent and to submit his opinion on the matter. In 6/02, after receiving the Attorney General’s opinion, the Court decided to postpone hearings on the case until after it issued a ruling on another petition submitted by Adalah regarding the use of Arabic on signs in mixed cities. In 12/03, the Court issued an order nisi, giving the municipality 90 days to defend its position. The municipality subsequently requested an extension, which was granted by the Court and subsequently extended.

In 12/04, the Supreme Court issued its final decision on the petition, in which it approved an agreement reached between Adalah and Haifa Municipality, under which the municipality will publish all its informational and service advertisements, advertisements regarding cultural and social events open to and relevant for the general public, and its official announcements in Arabic in Arabic language newspapers, as well as any other announcements which it is required by law to publish. The agreement incorporates the majority of the demands made in the petition, and was reached after four years of litigation and a protracted process of negotiations between Adalah and the municipality. It represents a significant shift in Haifa Municipality's original position, as stated in its initial response to the petition. The municipality initially denied any legal duty on its part to publish in Arabic the advertisements which it publishes in Hebrew, and any need to do so. The municipality also claimed to have full discretion on the matter.

H.C. 1114/01, Adalah, et. al. v. Haifa Municipality (decision delivered 22/11/04).

Use of Arabic in Israeli Courts. A petition was filed in 1/02 against the Director of the Courts, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. The petition asked the Supreme Court to nullify instructions given by the Director of the Courts to the District, Magistrate and Labor Courts that they could no longer charge the state for translation expenses of proceedings and documents in civil cases. Adalah argued that this instruction is illegal, as Arabic is an official language of the state. The petition also demanded: (i) that the state provide a professional translation system, which will ensure prompt and accessible translation services for Arabic speakers during civil court proceedings; (ii) the establishment of a new court rule by which litigants may submit supporting documents to the court in Arabic; and (iii) that judges be required to inform litigants of their right to use Arabic during proceedings.

Result: As a result of the filing of the petition, in 2/02, the Director of the Courts rescinded the instruction, and issued a new one that provided that only in cases of clear need and when there was no other way of managing the hearings, courts could charge the state for translation expenses. At a hearing in 6/03, Adalah argued that the new instruction does not answer the petitioner’s demands, as it treats Arabic as a foreign language and not as an official language of the state. Adalah submitted affidavits from lawyers as well as court decisions proving that judges refuse to appoint translators and to charge these expenses to the state, but require the litigants in civil cases to pay for these services. The Supreme Court emphasized that in response to the petition, the Director of Courts had changed the original instruction, and that if Adalah wishes to challenge the new instruction it must first address the respondent with its arguments. Based on this, Adalah withdrew the petition. In 7/03, Adalah sent a letter to the Director of Courts requesting that the new instruction be rescinded.

(H.C. 792/02, Adalah v. The Director of the Courts, et. al., petition withdrawn).

Education Rights

Equal Access for Arab Students to Academic Enrichment (Shahar) Programs. Petition filed in 5/97 on behalf of the Follow-up Committee for Arab Education to compel the Ministry of Education (MOE) to provide academic enrichment programs equally to Arab and Jewish students. Since the 1970s, only Jewish students have benefited from this flagship program. Adalah argued that the MOE intentionally discriminated against Arab students by writing and implementing program guidelines purposely designed to exclude them, and demanded that objective criteria, based on low socio-economic status, be used to decide upon program beneficiaries. One month after the petition was filed, the MOE admitted to historical, intentional discrimination, and declared that equality between Jewish and Arab students would be reached within five years. Adalah rejected the MOE's proposal on the grounds that any delay would effectively sanction the discrimination, and asked for an immediate remedy including the establishment and implementation of affirmative action programs.

Result: Case dismissed in 7/00 after pending for three years. According to the Court, the MOE's declaration that equality between Arab and Jewish students would be reached within five years was a sufficient remedy, and effectively mooted the case. However, the Court awarded legal fees of NIS 20,000 to Adalah.

(H.C. 2814/97, Follow-Up Committee on Arab Education, et. al. v. Minister of Education, et. al., P.D. 54 (3) 233)

  Supreme Court Decision delivered 20 July 2000 in English

Transportation to School for Arab Students. Arab children who live in Dahi, an Arab village of 700 people under the jurisdiction of the Afula Municipality (a Jewish city), attend elementary and secondary schools located 7 and 15 km, respectively, away from their village. There are no schools in Dahi. Representing 90 Arab students from Dahi, Adalah petitioned the Court in 09/97 to compel the Afula Municipality and the Ministry of Education to renew obligatory bus services to school for the students, stopped for reasons of tax disputes. The Court immediately issued an order nisi, and within one week, the respondents renewed the required bus services. Judgment 09/97 and Adalah awarded NIS 5,000 in legal expenses.

(H.C. 5562/97, Maisa Zoabi, et. al. v. Municipality of Afula, et. al.)

The Right to Kindergarten Education for Arab Children in Segev Shalom. Petitioned the Court in 12/99 to compel the government-appointed local council in Segev Shalom (one of seven government-planned towns established to relocate more than 120,000 Arab Bedouin living in the Naqab) and the Minister of Education to establish kindergartens for 400 Arab Bedouin children, in accordance with previously issued government decisions. The local council had previously opened preschools for 200 children, but overcrowded and lacking in play space, they fell below the Ministry of Education's standards and the head of the council closed them for safety reasons. Parents protested, and the appointed local council head promised to improve the conditions and reopen the classes but did not do so. Following the issuance of an order nisi by the Court, the respondents re-opened the pre-schools for 200 children. Judgment in 01/00 and Adalah awarded legal fees of NIS 5,000.

(H.C. 8534/99, The Parents Committee in Segev Shalom, et. al. v. The Government-Appointed Council in Segev Shalom, et. al.)

The Establishment of Arab Schools in Beer Hadaj. A petition was filed in 7/00 with ACRI on behalf of the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages (RCUV), parents’ committees, and residents of the unrecognized villages against the Minister of Education (MOE) and the Ramat HaNegev Regional Council demanding that schools be built for Arab Bedouin children, citizens of Israel. At the time of the filing of the petition, there were no Arab schools in the area and children living in the unrecognized villages had to travel for long distances (32-40 km) to reach their schools, resulting in low registration and attendance rates (e.g., 34% of children between the ages of 3-18 in Beer Hadaj did not attend school). As a result of the filing of the petition, the respondents’ agreed to open an elementary school in Beer Hadaj and a kindergarten and first grade school in the Har HaNegev area. After numerous delays, MOE completed the schools in 2/02. In 9/02, in response to motions filed by the petitioners, respondents informed the Court that outstanding water supply and permit issues had been resolved to the satisfaction of the community. Petitioners agreed and withdrew the petition. About 600 Arab Bedouin children living in the unrecognized villages have begun to benefit from these new schools.

(H.C. 5221/00, Dahlala Abu Ghardud, et. al. v. Ramat HaNegev Regional Council, et. al., petition withdrawn)

Right for Representation/Dismissal of the Head of Bedouin Education Authority (BEA). Petition filed in 9/01 on behalf of 49 petitioners including parents’ committees, pupils and NGOs against the Minister of Education (MOE) and the Head of the BEA, Mr. Moshe Shohat. The petition asked the Court to order the MOE to launch an investigation to comprehensively examine Mr. Shohat’s management practices, to dismiss him in light of racist statements that he made, and to publicly advertise for his replacement among the Arab community in the Naqab. In an interview with the Jewish Week, Mr. Shohat spoke of “bloodthirsty Bedouins who commit polygamy, have thirty children, and continue to expand their illegal settlements, taking over state land” and that, “[i]n their culture, they take care of their needs outdoors. They don’t even know how to flush a toilet.” Mr. Shohat has served as the Head of the BEA for 16 years. The BEA is the agency appointed by the MOE to manage the education system in the unrecognized villages in the Naqab. After numerous hearings at which the MOE denied having the power to dismiss Mr. Shohat, and in 7/02, subsequent to arguments filed by Adalah, the MOE stated that it intended to recommend the BEA head’s dismissal on the basis of mismanagement, misconduct and financial irregularities uncovered as a result of the investigation it launched after the filing of the petition.

In 3/03, the MOE Director General sent a letter ordering the dismissal of Mr. Shohat. By mid-2003 he was finally compelled to leave his position. Regarding the issue of Mr. Shohat’s replacement, the press reported in 9/03 that an individual had been appointed by the MOE, without a bid and without notification to the petitioners or the Court. After requesting information from the Attorney General’s Office regarding the state’s position on the matter, Adalah filed a motion in 11/03 for an injunction against the appointment. In the motion, Adalah demanded that a bid be published and that a qualified Arab candidate be appointed to the position. The state claimed that the new appointment was temporary, and made in the usual course of filling vacant positions. At a hearing in 5/04, the AG's Office notified the Supreme Court that the state intends to dismantle the BEA by 1/05, on the grounds of mismanagement. The state also informed the Court that in place of the BEA, the newly planned Abu-Basma Regional Council would provide all educational services to children living in the seven newly-planned Palestinian Bedouin towns in the Naqab in addition to the unrecognized villages in the Naqab. Adalah countered that the state’s position was unreasonable, since the individual currently filling the post was appointed outside of any legal process, and that the Abu-Basma Regional Council was merely in the planning stages, and not in existence in order to shoulder the enormous responsibility of not only providing educational services to the newly-planned towns to fall within its jurisdiction, but also to the thousands of children from the unrecognized villages.

Result: The Supreme Court decided that there was no further need to continue hearing the case on the grounds that the main purpose of the petition – the dismissal of Moshe Shohat – had been met, and that there was no need for a public bid given the state’s commitment before the Court to dismantle the BEA by 1/05.

H.C. 7383/01, Megel el-Hawashleh, et al. v. Minister of Education, et al. (petition dismissed).

Demanding Preschool Education for 300 Arab Bedouin Children in the Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab. Petition filed to Supreme Court in 4/03 on behalf of 43 children from two unrecognized Arab Bedouin villages in the Naqab, the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab, and several parents associations and educational organizations, against the Minister of Education and others. The petitioners demanded that the state provide free preschool education for 300 children in the two unrecognized villages, in accordance with Amendment 16 (1984) to the Compulsory Education Law – 1949 and the principle of equality. No preschool or any other educational framework exists in either village for the children of this age group. Adalah argued that by not providing preschools, the state is violating the children’s right to education, and that neither budget constraints nor the failure of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) to issue permits for the construction of schools can be used as justifications for the state’s failure to implement the law. At a hearing in 9/03, the state informed the Court that: (1) Amendment 16 to the Compulsory Education Law had once again been amended, extending the deadline for implementation from 2001 to 2008; and (2) that the law’s implementing regulations, which authorize the Minister of Education to designate the opening of new classrooms, were frozen under the new economic plan passed by the Knesset in 5/03. As for the equality argument, the Court emphasized that if the state implements the law in other towns or villages, despite the freeze and in a discriminatory manner, Adalah may re-submit the petition for consideration. The Court concurred with the petitioners that the two unrecognized villages should receive priority status when the law is re-implemented. Based on the Court’s recommendation, Adalah withdrew the petition, but continued to follow the matter, subsequently learning that the Ministry of Education (MOE) had built six preschools in towns other than the two villages.

In 6/04, Adalah submitted a second petition on the issue, demanding that preschools be established in the two villages, and arguing that the aforementioned law entitles the children of the villages to the right to the same educational opportunities and resources as other children in the country, a right which is being infringed by the situation in the villages. Adalah contended that the purpose of the Amendment 16 is to provide education for underprivileged groups, in order to narrow the gap between them and the rest of society. Adalah further argued that the MOE's claim of insufficient funding cannot supersede the children's right to education and equality with other children in the country. In reply, the MOE claimed that, since the law is applied partially throughout the country, it is not discriminating against Arab Bedouin children, adding that it has established 40 new preschools for Arab Bedouin children in the Naqab, who are exempt from paying tuition fees, unlike elsewhere in Israel. The MOE also stated that the existing preschools in neighboring villages are sufficient for the children’s needs. The MOE stressed that the two unrecognized villages are absent from the structural map, and therefore that preschools cannot be set up there. The MOE claimed that the children’s families broke the law by building houses in the villages, and cannot demand services from the state wherever they built their homes.

In 9/04, the Court rejected the petition, stating that it raised two main issues: (i) whether or not the Court needs to intervene in the MOE’s decision not to open preschools in the villages without outline plans enabling their construction; and (ii) whether or not the MOE is meeting, in practice, its obligation to care for the educational needs of the children in the two villages. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the petitioners did not meet the burden of proof necessary to warrant the Court’s intervention in the MOE’s decision, advising the petitioners to direct their arguments to the planning authorities. On the second matter, the Court decided that the MOE is not disregarding the children’s educational needs, finding the petitioners' charge of discrimination unfounded. However, the Court stressed the MOE's claim that the children have access to preschools in neighboring villages is insufficient, and that children's right to education can sometimes necessitate funding to access to schools located far from their homes. The Court added that the Arab Bedouin have special needs, as there are no educational services near their homes, and because the living conditions in these villages - including the lack of paved roads - can make traveling to schools outside the villages extremely difficult, rejecting the MOE’s position that it is fulfilling its duty to the children. Despite this finding, the Court also held that providing transportation for children from the unrecognized villages could thwart the state’s interest in increasing the number of unrecognized villages falling within the central government's planning laws.

H.C. 3757/03, Ismael Mohammad Abu Guda, et al. v. Minister of Education, et al. (petition withdrawn).

H.C. 5108/04, Ismael Mohammad Abu Guda, et al. v. Minister of Education, et al (petition pending).

For a legal critique of the Supreme Court's judgment in this case, see "Case Review: Unrecognized Education System" by Dori Spivak, Deputy Director of Clinical Programs, The Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University

 Petition in Hebrew

Suitable Classroom Facilities for Hearing-Impaired Arab Children. Adalah filed a petition in 5/03 on behalf of eight hearing impaired Arab children, citizens of Israel, against the Ministry of Education (MOE). Adalah demanded that the MOE reopen two hearing-impaired kindergarten classes at a school in Tirah at which the children had previously studied. In 12/02, the MOE decided to move the children to an unsafe, sub-standard kindergarten classroom. Subsequent refusals by parents to send their children to school under these hazardous conditions led to the closure of the special kindergarten classes by the MOE. Adalah argued that the MOE’s decision violates the children’s basic rights to education, dignity and equality, as well as conflicts with the stated goals of the Special Education Law (1998). In 7/03, the Court ordered the MOE to locate suitable classrooms within 15 days. The MOE identified classrooms that, while appropriate, needed extensive renovation. The MOE stated that this was the responsibility of the local municipalities. At the final hearing in 8/03, the Supreme Court ordered the MOE and the local municipalities to provide appropriate classrooms within one week, before the beginning of the new school year. It also instructed the MOE to pay NIS 10,000 in legal fees.

(H.C. 4219/03, Hani Aamer et. al. v. Minister of Education et. al.)

Demanding Education Ministry to Appoint Counselors for Arab Bedouin Students in the Naqab At Risk of Dropping-Out of School. Petition submitted in 7/03 in the name of 19 individual petitioners, parents of students aged five to 17, parents’ associations, the Follow-up Committee for Arab Education, and in Adalah’s own name, against the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Rahat Municipality, and the other six local councils in the Naqab. The petitioners demanded that the MOE appoint the required number of counselors for Arab Bedouin students in the Naqab, who are at risk of dropping out of school, in accordance with the MOE's own set criteria. The seven recognized Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab - Rahat, Lagiyya, Kseife, Tel el-Sabe, Hura, ‘Arora, and Segev Shalom - have the highest drop-out rates in the country and the least number of counselor positions to address the problem. For example, in 2002-2003 in Rahat, ninth-grade students dropped out at a rate of 23.6%, compared with an overall drop-out rate of 6.2% of Jewish ninth graders in the country. According the MOE’s own criteria, Rahat, the largest Arab Bedouin town in the Naqab, should have 15 counselors for at-risk students, while in fact the town has only one counselor. The State Comptroller has repeatedly criticized the MOE for not allocating enough counselor positions for both Arab and Jewish state-run schools. Adalah argued that the MOE’s failure to appoint the required number of counselors violates the Compulsory Education Law - 1949 and the Rights of Students Law - 2000, as well as contributes to the high drop-out rate, and thus, to the wider social and economic problems of the Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab. Adalah further argued that the MOE is violating the students’ right to education, a part of the right to dignity, which is protected by the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty - 1992, as well as international human rights treaties to which Israel is a state party.

In 8/03, the Court issued an order nisi compelling the state to explain why the MOE does not appoint the required number of counselors for Arab Bedouin students in the Naqab. In response, the state committed to the appointment of at least 4.5 additional counselor positions in 2004. At a hearing in 9/04, the state undertook to assign a further five counselors to schools in the seven towns. Adalah argued that, although an improvement, the addition of the five counselors still failed to meet the needs of Arab Bedouin students who, according to the MOE's criteria, required a further 32.8 counselor positions. In its final arguments, Adalah argued that, even if an equal percentage of counselors were appointed for Arab Bedouin students in the Naqab as for Jewish students, they would still be discriminated against, since the former are in greatest need of the counselors owing to their higher-than-average drop-out rate.

In 1/05, in a precedent-setting judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the educational gap, of which the rate of dropping out is a part, between the Jewish and Arab Bedouin sectors in the Naqab requires a policy of affirmative action to bring the Arab Bedouin sector to a similar starting point to that of the Jewish sector, in order to achieve equal opportunities for all social groups. The Court further ruled that there exists an obvious inequality in the assignment of the counselors among the Arab Bedouin and Jewish sectors in the Naqab. The Court noted in the ruling that, while the rate of dropping out of Jewish pupils in Israel as a whole is 4.59%, and among Jewish pupils in the south 4.86%, the percentage of dropping out among Bedouin pupils in the south is 12.56%. The Court further noted that the assignment percentage of counselor positions in Jewish towns throughout Israel is approximately 40% of the recommended number, and for Jewish towns in the south around 35%, whereas in the Arab Bedouin towns in the south the assignment percentage is approximately 25%. The Court then added that in the year 2003, 57% of the pupils in the country were entitled to a matriculation certificate, while in the Arab Bedouin sector there were only 25.6% entitled to this certificate, thereby drawing attention to the damaging impact of the under-assignment of counselors in the Arab Bedouin sector on the educational levels of Bedouin students.

Drawing on these statistics, which were brought before the Court by Adalah, the Court also decided that applying the principle of equality obliges the assignment of more counselor positions to regions and sectors where the problem of dropping out is worse, and might require differences in assignment in order to strengthen needy groups, with less support to privileged groups, in order for all groups to be given equal opportunities. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the state's appointment of counselor positions should be gradual and accomplished within a "reasonable" timeframe. However, the Court ordered the state to pay legal expenses in the sum of NIS 10,000.

H.C. 6671/03, Munjid Abu Ghanem, et. al. v. Ministry of Education, et. al. (decision delivered 24/1/05).

Challenging the Discriminatory Appointment of Educational Psychologists for Arab Bedouin Schools in the Naqab. Petition submitted to the Supreme Court in 5/04 on behalf of five individuals - parents of children in the towns of Lagiyya and Rahat - the Follow-up Committee on Arab Education, the National Union of Arab Parents, the Naqab Culture Association, the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab, and in Adalah’s own name, demanding that the Ministry of Education (MOE) provide the necessary number of educational psychologists’ positions to schools in the seven government-planned Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab – Rahat, Lagiyya, Kessife, 'Arora, Segev Shalom, Hura and Tel el-Sabe' (Tel Sheva). Adalah further requested that the Court instruct the MOE and the Ministry of Social Affairs, the respondents in the case, to allocate educational psychologists’ positions between Jewish and Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel in the Naqab according to equitable standards.

MOE-appointed educational psychologists are primarily responsible for identifying, diagnosing and treating students with learning and developmental disabilities; providing suitable educational frameworks for students with special needs; giving consultation to teachers, principals, and other educators in dealing with the educational, emotional and behavioral difficulties of students; and providing consultation on the community level. The MOE's criteria for the number of positions allocated in each town in order to provide suitable educational psychological services for children are one position per 500 kindergarten and first graders; one position per 1,000 students in the second grade through high school; and one position per 300 special education students. However, only 15 of 49 educational psychologists’ positions have actually been allocated in the seven Arab Bedouin towns (equating to 30% of the recommended total). In comparison, 21.6 (or 80%) of the 27 positions designated in accordance with the MOE’s criteria in Jewish towns in the Naqab currently exist.

Adalah argued that the respondents have failed to fulfill their obligation in accordance with their own set criteria, thereby violating the students’ right to education, and perpetuating discrimination against Arab Bedouin students in the Naqab. Adalah further argued that attending to the special needs and mental wellbeing of students by providing educational psychologists’ services is an institutional responsibility under the Special Education Law – 1998. The MOE’s failure to do so impedes and prevents the students’ regular course of study. As the MOE has appointed most of the educational psychologists in line with its own set criteria in the Jewish towns in the Naqab, its gross failure to do so in the Arab Bedouin towns constitutes discrimination. Moreover, the MOE’s discriminatory implementation of its own set criteria violates the rule of law. The right to education, Adalah further argued, is a constitutional right, a component of the right to dignity, particularly when it concerns students being barred from elementary and basic educational services.

In 2/05, the state requested and received an extension of 45 days in order to prepare their response to the petition, following the decision of the Supreme Court in another petition filed by Adalah (H.C. 6671/03, Munjid Abu Ghanem, et. al. v. Ministry of Education, et. al.). In this case, the Court decided that the educational gap between the Jewish and Arab Bedouin in the Naqab requires a policy of affirmative action to bring the Arab Bedouin to a similar starting point to that of the Jewish population, in order to achieve equal opportunities for all social groups.

In 6/05, the AG submitted its response to the Court, in which it acknowledged that the MOE had discriminated against schools in the seven government-planned Palestinian Bedouin townships in the Naqab in the appointment of educational psychologists for students. In its response, the state also informed the Court that the MOE had committed to increasing the number of positions from the beginning of the new school year in fall 2005 from 30% to 50% of the positions it is required to provide, to rise to 80% within two years, so as to become equal to the current rate (80%) provided to Jewish schools in the Naqab. The state also obligated itself to pursue a policy of affirmative action in education over the long term for the Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab. In 6/05, the case was dismissed and the state ordered to pay Adalah's legal fees.

H.C. 4177/04, Yusef Abu-Abied, et. al. v. Ministry of Education, et. al. (Decision delivered 21/6/05).

H.C. 4177/04, Yusef Abu-Abied, et. al. v. The Ministry of Education, et. al. (petition withdrawn).

Demanding End to GSS Intervention in Appointments of Arab Educators. Petition, motion for injunction, and request for an urgent hearing submitted to the Supreme Court in 9/04 on behalf of the Union of Parents of Arab Students in Israel and in Adalah's own name demanding that the General Security Service (GSS) be prohibited from intervening in the appointment of teachers, principals and inspectors to the Arab Education Division of the Ministry of Education (MOE), against the MOE, GSS and Prime Minister’s Office. In the petition, Adalah relied upon numerous sources to confirm the GSS’s intervention in the appointments of Arab educators; Adalah provided letters from three former education ministers and an affidavit from a former senior employee in the MOE, all of whom confirmed the practice of GSS intervention and that the post of deputy director of the Arab Education Division in the MOE is filled by a GSS representative. Though not a pedagogical expert, the representative has the decisive word in the appointment of Arab educators.

The petition emphasized that security agencies have maintained structural control over the Arab education system since the time of military rule (1948-1966) imposed only on Palestinians in Israel. The petition included letters written by Arab school teachers dating back to the 1950s, criticizing the MOE's hiring and firing practices, and exposing the system of control. Adalah argued that there is no authority in law for GSS intervention in the appointments of Arab educators, and that the practice thus constitutes a serious breach of the rule of law. Adalah also contended that such intervention is discriminatory and violates the principle of equality, as the GSS only interferes in the appointment of Arab candidates. This interference is humiliating to Arab educators, thereby impairing their right to dignity. Further, the GSS’s practices contravene the Equal Employment Opportunities Law - 1998, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national belonging. Adalah also argued that the institutionalization of the GSS intervention violates candidates' right to freedom of employment. Moreover, by targeting Arab educators, the GSS infringes the Arab students’ right to education. Arab students are forced to study in an atmosphere of suspicion, as teachers are fearful of losing their jobs and not free to fulfill their roles as educators within an open education system. Finally, Adalah argued that the MOE’s failure to disclose the reason for a job rejection to applicants infringes their right to due process.

In its response to the petition of 10/04, the AG claimed that, under the principles of administrative law, the MOE has the authority and is charged with the duty of gaining as much information as possible from the GSS to investigate the potential criminal background of applicants for teacher, principal and inspector positions in the MOE. In 11/04, Adalah responded that, by advocating the retention of a GSS post in the MOE, the AG’s Office is perpetuating a continuing illegality. Further, Adalah countered the state's arguments by stressing that the petition does not address the issue of a candidate's criminal past, and that, while Adalah does not dispute the state’s contention that where a candidate has been convicted of criminal activity this should be taken into consideration, the intervention and monitoring carried out by the GSS far exceeds that required for such purposes and only concerns candidates for the Arab Education Division.

In 6/05, the AG announced to the Supreme Court the cancellation of a policy by which a GSS representative serves as the deputy director of the Arab Education Division. The AG also informed the Court that the MOE accepts the recommendation of the Dovrat Committee, which stated in its report that, "The MOE intends to cancel the position of the deputy director of the Arab Education Division as soon as possible. We recommend that, in the future, a similar position should not be created in the Arab Education Division or in any of its departments. The regional administrator and the MOE will be responsible for preventing the appointment or ordering the dismissal of teachers, principals and other staff members, whether Jews or Arabs, who fail to fulfill official aims." This announcement contradicts the AG's previous position, set forth in a 10/04 submission to the Court.

In response to the announcement, Adalah stated that, whilst it considered the intended cancellation of the GSS post an important step, future appointments should be monitored to ensure that the GSS does not find new ways to intervene in the Arab Education Division. Adalah withdrew the petition on 29/7/05. The Court refused to award legal fees to the petitioners.

H.C. 8193/04, Union of Parents of Arab Students in Israel, et. al. v. The Ministry of Education, et. al. (Petition withdrawn 29/7/05).

Demanding the Establishment of a High School for 750 Arab Bedouin Students from Abu-Tulul – El-Shihabi and Six Surrounding Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab. Petition filed to Supreme Court in 3/05, demanding the opening of a high school in the region of Abu-Tulul – El-Shihabi, in which lie seven villages inhabited by approximately 12,000 Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel. The petition was filed in the name of Adalah, and on behalf of 35 Bedouin girls and six other NGOs, against the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Regional Planning Committee – Southern District, the Abu Basma Regional Council, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Israel Lands Administration. All of the villages are unrecognized by the state and therefore lack essential infrastructure and services, including a high school. Students from the villages who wish to pursue a high school education must therefore travel 12 km to attend school in the recognized, state-planned Arab Bedouin towns of Segev Shalom or Arara. Adalah presented data demonstrating that the dropout rate in the villages, which is extremely high at around 77%, is even higher among girls than boys. Adalah argued that the reason for this disparity is the fact that Arab Bedouin tradition and customs forbid female students from traveling outside of their villages without the accompaniment of a relative, from studying with students who belong to other tribes, or from being in the company of unfamiliar boys. Adalah brought further data to demonstrate that in Palestinian Bedouin towns which do have a high school female students drop out of school at a considerably lower rate - in some cases lower than the rate for boys - and girls are therefore able to fulfill their right to an education. Further Adalah emphasized that the MOE established schools for Jewish children in many other areas in the Naqab with populations smaller than those of the seven unrecognized villages, including in the neighboring settlement of Kibbutz Shuval, which has a population of just 350 people. Adalah argued that the higher dropout rate among female students in the area represents a violation of the petitioners' right to an education, and constitutes compound discrimination against them on the basis of gender and nationality: both as women in a traditional society and as members of the Palestinian minority in Israel. Adalah further argued that the state is under a grave obligation under domestic and international law to consider the social factors which lead to the higher dropout rate among Arab Bedouin girls than boys, and accordingly to eliminate the ongoing discrimination against the petitioners, and to guarantee equal educational opportunities for them by providing accessible high school education.

Result: In 1/07, the Supreme Court approved a settlement reached between the MOE and Adalah, according to which the MOE will establish a high school in Abu-Tulul – El-Shihabi, the first high school in any of the unrecognized villages in the Naqab. Under the settlement, the state is obliged to open the school from 9/09; should it not be opened for any reason, the petitioners retain the right to re-approach the Court.

H.C. 2848/05, Fatimah Abu Sabila (Ali) et. al., v. The Ministry of Education, et. al. (decision issued 23.01.07).

Demanding Repairs to Road and Junction for Elementary School in Arab Bedouin Village in the Naqab. Petition filed in 7/05 to the Supreme Court on behalf of the head of the Local Committee of al-Fur’a against the Ministries of Education, Interior, Construction and Housing, and Transport, as well as the Abu Basma Regional Council in the Naqab, demanding that the appropriate state authority cut and pave a four kilometer-long dirt track which currently leads to the elementary school in the unrecognized Arab Bedouin village of al-Fur’a in the Naqab (Negev). The dirt track poses several safety concerns for the school’s teachers and 1,187 pupils, which prevent them from reaching the school during bad weather. Adalah argued that the state’s failure to pave an appropriate and safe road to the elementary school violates the children’s rights to education and access to education under both Israeli and international human rights law.

During a hearing held in 8/05, the state responded announcing that the relevant authority would repair the road. At the hearing, Adalah raised the additional question of necessary repairs to the junction linking the main road between Beer el-Sabe (Beer Sheva) and ‘Arad to the track. The state, however, refused to consider the status of the junction arguing that Adalah had not raised the issue in its initial petition. Adalah further argued before the Court that the question of improved access to the school was inexorably connected to the condition of the junction, and that the state must therefore repair it as well as the road. The Court ordered the state to repair the road leading to the school within two months and to submit its response regarding the junction within 30 days. In 9/05, the Court ordered the state to repair the junction in addition to the road and report to the Court regarding which ministry will pay for the repairs.

In 10/05, the AG responded that the Ministry of Education and Prime Minister's Office will bear responsibility for the cost of making repairs to the junction. In 11/05, Adalah informed the court that the road repairs carried out by the state were insufficient. In 12/05, the state committed to carry out repairs to the road immediately should any damage occur to it in the course of the coming year. The Court suggested to Adalah to accept the state's commitment, confirming that Adalah reserves the right to revert to the Court in case of any such damage. Following a request made by Adalah, in 1/06, the Court ordered the state to pay 15,000 NIS in legal fees to Adalah.

H.C. 6773/05, Ali Afnan Jabouah, et. al. v. Ministry of Education, et. al.

Demanding Transportation for Arab Bedouin Children from Unrecognized Village of al-Za’arora to Preschools in Neighboring Villages. Petition filed in 10/05 in Adalah’s own name, and on behalf of 51 children from the village and a number of educational organizations, against the Minister of Education, the Director of the Ministry of Education (MOE) – Southern District, the District Committee for Planning and Building – Southern District, the Regional Council for Planning and Building, and the Israel Lands Administration (ILA). The petitioners demanded transport for the 280 three and four year-old children from the unrecognized Arab Bedouin village of al-Za’arora in the Naqab (Negev) to preschools in neighboring villages, or the construction of preschools in the village. Adalah has submitted two previous petitions to the Supreme Court on the issue (see H.C. 3757/03 and H.C. 5108/04), which resulted in the MOE committing before the Court to transport the children to preschools outside of the village. The MOE, however, refused to construct buildings for preschools within the village, due to its unrecognized status.

Adalah emphasized in the petition that the MOE has broken its commitment to provide transport for the children, who have been left without an educational framework. Adalah argued that the MOE’s failure violates the children’s right to education, which cannot be conditioned on the status of their village. Adalah further contended that the MOE is not implementing the Compulsory Education Law, which mandates education for children from age three, stressing that, although al-Za’arora, like the other unrecognized villages, is among the most socio-economically depressed and underdeveloped areas in the country, its inhabitants cannot exercise their rights under the Law.

In response to the petition, the MOE claimed that there is no legal basis to the petitioners’ demand, stating that it does not provide or fund transportation for children of this age group, because of concerns for the children’s safety during transportation and budgetary shortages. The MOE added that there is insufficient reason to make an exception in the case of an unrecognized village in the Naqab, as buildings in these villages are considered “illegal constructions, and thus the implication of consenting to the petitioners’ demand is lending support to illegal construction, which could damage the efforts being exerted to organize Bedouin settlement.”

Result: In 4/06, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that it was unable to decide that the relevant authorities had made an extremely unreasonable decision, obliging the Court not to interfere in the matter. The Court ruled that it is not possible for transportation to be provided for the children, relying on the MOE’s contentions. The Court further ruled that buildings which can be used as kindergartens cannot be constructed in al-Za’arora, because “the issue concerns a group of illegal settlements, and no plan exists to enable construction in these villages.” The Supreme Court’s refusal to order the MOE to provide a concrete remedy for the petitioners comes despite its previous acknowledgment, made in the context of Adalah’s second petition on this case, that the lack of transportation for the villagers violates the children’s right to education, given that permits are not issued for buildings in unrecognized villages.

Demanding Repairs to Arab Elementary School in Akka to Remove Serious Health and Safety Hazards. Petition submitted in 2/06 to the Supreme Court demanding that the Court compel the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Akka Municipality to repair all safety hazards at the “el-Manara” Arab elementary school in Akka, in accordance with their legal obligations. The school currently has an enrollment of 670 children and was established as recently as 2004. Nevertheless, it suffers from a large number of safety and environmental defects and damage, which, as Adalah argued, must be repaired immediately in order to remove the dangers they pose to the lives of the pupils of the school. As Adalah emphasized, the Municipality has previously acknowledged the health hazards at the school, and the MOE has made several commitments to deal with the issue. Contrary to the MOE’s own regulations, for example, there are no drinking water fountains in the school and children are forced to drink from water faucets in the school’s small toilets. The school’s playgrounds present other serious hazards, as, in addition to lacking shaded areas, the ground is slippery and completely unsafe. Further, the area through which the pupils enter and leave the school is also used as a car park for teachers from el-Manara and neighboring schools, again in breach of the MOE’s regulations. In the petition, Adalah argued that the Municipality of Akka and the MOE’s shortcomings and failure to fulfill their legal obligations and commitments violate the children’s basic constitutional rights to education, health, bodily integrity and dignity.

In 3/06, the MOE and the Municipality responded to the petition, revealing that they had appointed experts to investigate safety concerns at the school, and that the experts concurred with almost all of the petitioners’ arguments. Following the submission of the petition, the Municipality undertook a number of inadequate repairs. For example, the Municipality installed two water fountains at one of the entrances to the school which also present a danger to the children according to one of the reports from the experts appointed by the respondents. Further, the Municipality prevented cars from entering the area by placing a number of stones in their way. However, cars still park in the entryway and continue to pose a safety threat, and a structural, permanent and considered solution which completely separates the pupils from the cars and guarantees a prepared pathway for their use remains to be found.

In 3/06, at a hearing on the petition, the Supreme Court found the petitioners’ facts concerning the existence of numerous safety hazards at the school to be true. In 8/06, the Court ordered the state to complete repairs by the end of 12/06. In 3/07, Adalah visited the school, and found that not all of the required repairs had been completed. Adalah then sent a motion to the Court stating its intention not to withdraw the petition until the school has been made completely safe.

H.C. 1203/06, The el-Manara School’s Parents’ Committee, et. al. v. the Municipality of Akka, et. al. (case pending)

Challenging Severe Shortage of Educational Psychologists in Unrecognized Arab Bedouin Villages in the Naqab.Petition submitted in 5/06 to the Supreme Court against the Ministry of Education (MOE), demanding the appointment of educational psychologists in five schools in unrecognized Arab Bedouin villages in the Naqab, in accordance with the MOE’s own criteria. 3,650 students study at the schools, none of which has an educational psychologist on staff. 85% of schools in Bedouin villages in the Naqab operate without educational psychologists, compared to only 13% of Jewish schools in region. As Adalah stressed, the failure of the MOE to provide the required number educational psychologists cripples the ability of the school system to provide necessary student support and assessment, and that the dire socio-economic situation and neglect of the Arab educational system in particular necessitates the allocation of educational psychologists. Adalah argued that the enormous gap in the resources invested in the Arab and Jewish educational systems in the Naqab violates the principle of equality and constitutes discrimination on the basis of national belonging.

The petitioners’ request for the appointment of educational psychologists is in accordance with MOE’s own recommendations, which have been applied by the MOE to other schools in the Naqab, although not in the unrecognized villages. Adalah included in the petition official reports issued by committees established by the MOE, human rights organizations and the State Comptroller, all of which discuss the essential role played by educational psychologists and the need for them in the Bedouin villages in the Naqab. The petition was submitted after the filing of a previous petition by Adalah in 5/04 (H.C. 4177/04, see above), which demanded that the state provide the necessary number of psychologists in the seven government-planned Bedouin towns in the Naqab. In response to this petition, the state committed to adopt a policy of affirmative action in education over the long-term for Bedouin students in the Naqab. In submitting the current petition, Adalah seeks to build on this decision to secure the educational benefits afforded to students by educational psychologists for Arab Bedouin citizens living in the unrecognized villages, to enable them to exercise their right to education.

H.C. 3926/06, Al-Sayed Abed El-Dayem et. al v. The Ministry of Education and The Abu Basma Regional Council (case pending)

Seeking Cancellation of Haifa University's Discriminatory Policy of Including Military Service as a Main Criterion in Allocating Student Housing. Adalah is representing three Arab women students at Haifa University on an appeal filed by the university to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Haifa District Court that the use of the military service criterion to allocate student dorms discriminates against Arab students and must be cancelled. Those who have performed military service, overwhelmingly Jewish students, are granted 35% of the points needed to qualify for a place in the dorms, while students who did not serve in the military, almost all of whom are Arabs, are not awarded these points. The District Court issued its decision in 8/06 on a petition filed to it by Adalah in 10/05, challenging the university’s policy of using the military service criterion to allocate student housing. In the petition, Adalah argued that the use of this criterion discriminates against Arab students, most of whom are exempt from military service on the basis of national belonging. Adalah further argued that participation in military service does not reflect a student’s needs for university housing, making it an irrelevant criterion used to exclude Arab citizens of Israel. Adalah emphasized that students who serve in the army receive substantial benefits under The Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law (1994).

In 4/07, the Supreme Court accepted a motion filed by Haifa University to postpone the implementation of the Haifa District Court’s decision, allowing the university to use the criterion of military service in the allocation of student accommodation pending the issuance of its final decision on an appeal submitted by the university. In its decision to accept the motion, the Supreme Court stated that the ruling issued in H.C. 11956/05, according to which the use of the criterion of military service is not void, could have a bearing on the aforementioned appeal filed by Haifa University (See H.C. 11956/05, Suhad Bishara v. The Minister of Construction and Housing, decision delivered on 13.12.2006 on a petition submitted by Adalah challenging the enormous financial support by the state to former soldiers for home mortgages. A motion for a second hearing is pending before the Supreme Court: H.C. 1241/07, Suhad Bishara, et al. v. The Minister of Construction and Housing).

In 5/07, Adalah filed its concluding arguments to the Supreme Court against the appeal by Haifa University. Adalah argued that the university’s position disregards the socio-economic needs of the students and thus harms the principle of equality on the basis of national belonging, and would legitimize the use of the military service criterion in many other instances, which could transform it into a means for expanding the socio-economic gaps between the two national groups.

C.A. (Civil Appeal) 8695/06, Haifa University v. Haneen Naamnih, et al. (case pending).

Right to Health

The Right to Preventive Health Services for Palestinian Bedouin Women and Children in the Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab. Petition filed in 12/97 on behalf 121 Palestinian Bedouin citizens of Israel living in unrecognized villages in the Naqab, the Association of Forty, Al Tufula Centre and Adalah against the Ministry of Health (MOH) demanding the establishment of 12 mother and child health clinics. Palestinian Bedouin women and children citizens of Israel have to travel for long distances in the desert to access health care facilities, provided only in Jewish localities and government-planned Arab towns.

Result: In 3/99, the Court ordered the MOH to establish six clinics and provide public transportation to existing ones. Motion for contempt filed in 1/00 to enforce the Court's order, seeking a heavy fine against the MOH for its failure to build the clinics. After months of delay, the Court ordered the MOH to set a new timetable for the construction of the clinics. As of 6/01, the MOH had built five clinics, operated one mobile clinic and provided some public transport. A sixth clinic was completed in 12/01. Hundreds of Palestinian Bedouin families now have reasonable access to on-site health care facilities, where none previously existed. Adalah was awarded legal fees of NIS 20,000.

(H.C. 7115/97, Adalah, et. al. v. Ministry of Health, et. al.)

Family Health Clinics in Lagiyya and Hura in the Naqab. Adalah filed a petition to the Supreme Court in 1/04 on behalf of two mothers, three married couples, all Palestinian Bedouin citizens of Israel living in Lagiyya and Hura, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, the Galilee Society, the Regional Municipality of Lagiyya, and in Adalah’s own name demanding that the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) allocate the necessary physician and nurse positions needed to operate two family health clinics in the Arab Bedouin towns of Lagiyya and Hura in the Naqab (Negev). According to the MOH, the role of family health clinics is to prevent infectious diseases through immunizations, to facilitate the early detection of health problems through regular check-ups, and to provide training and guidance to the local community for a healthy and disease-preventative lifestyle. Additional functions of family health clinics are to provide guidance to women on general health issues, domestic violence, and family planning.

The petition included affidavits from individuals living in the two towns describing the poor services provided by the existing clinics. At the time of the filing of the petition, there was one family health clinic operating in Lagiyya, providing health services to some 11,000 people who reside in the town and other surrounding unrecognized Arab Bedouin villages. The average annual birth rate in Lagiyya stands at 260. In 2003, there were 1,345 children between the ages of 0-6 living in Lagiyya; the number of children aged 0-14 stood at 2,934. The one family health clinic which was operating concurrently in Hura provided services to its 7,000 inhabitants as well as to Arab Bedouin living in the surrounding unrecognized villages. In 2003, there were 1,695 children between the ages of 0-4 living in Hura; the number of children aged 0-14 stood at 3,899. MOH regulations require that a family health clinic be established in any community with at least 30 births per year; the number of births in Lagiyya and Hura far exceeds this level.

The MOH acknowledged on various occasions the need for additional clinics, and recognized the lack of suitable health services in both villages. However, while the MOH approved the construction of an additional clinic in each town, it failed to open them, claiming a lack of the necessary funds to finance physicians and nurses. The petition argued that the MOH’s failure to operate the new clinics was illegal and violated the rights to life, health, dignity, and privacy. Adalah emphasized the necessity of staffing and operating these clinics, particularly noting that the Arab Palestinian Bedouin living in the Naqab have the highest infant mortality rate in Israel: 17.1 per 1,000 births, as compared with 4.7 per 1,000 births among Jewish Israelis living in this region.

In 4/04, the state responded to the petition, admitting that the family health care provided for the villages' residents was substandard, and committing that the MOH would allocate 3.5 positions (three registered nurses and a 0.5 physician position) needed to operate an additional family health clinic in each town. At a hearing held later in 4/04, Adalah argued that the posts should be filled immediately, given the low quality of health services being provided at the time. At Adalah’s request, the state undertook to submit a timetable and provide other logistical information for the implementation of this decision to the petitioners and to the Court by 5/04. After the state submitted this information, Adalah responded that, according to the required number of medical staff stipulated by the MOH's own criteria, the state's proposals were inadequate.

Result: In 7/04, the Court delivered its final decision on the petition. The Court decided that the petitioners had received what they had demanded in the petition, and ordered the MOH and MOF to pay legal expenses in the amount of NIS 5,000. The Court also decided that the petitioners reserve the right to approach the Court again, should the two clinics fail to provide suitable health services for the residents of the two villages.

H.C. 786/04, Ahlam el-Sana, et. al. v. Ministry of Health, et. al. (decision delivered 8/7/04).

Right to Water

The Right to Water in the Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab. A petition was filed in 5/01 in Adalah’s name and on behalf of the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages, the Association of Forty, the Galilee Society, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, and Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel living in Abu Tlul, Shahbi, Wadi el-Neem, Em Tnan, Em Batin and Drejat (population 750-4,000). The petitioners charged that the Minister of National Infrastructure, the Water Commissioner, the Israeli Water Company, the Minister of Agriculture and Environmental Protection, and the MOI maintained a policy of denying clean and accessible water to thousands of residents of these villages. Most residents of these unrecognized villages obtain water via improvised, plastic hose hook-ups or unhygienic metal containers, which transport the water from a single water point located on main roads quite far from their homes. This situation poses health risks to the residents (e.g., dehydration, dysentery, etc.) as well as numerous daily hardships caused by lack of access to water. The petitioners maintained that water, like any other public good, should be divided in an equal, fair and non-arbitrary manner.

The State initially claimed that the villages were “illegal settlements” and that residents were trespassers on state land, who were not entitled to water network connections. However, as a result of the filing of the petition, an inter-ministerial Water Committee was formed in 10/01 to examine the water situation in the villages. Adalah provided numerous submissions to the Water Committee detailing the particular water situation in each village.

Result: The petition was dismissed in 2/03, after the state reported that water access points had been added for five of the seven villages named in the petition. Adalah stressed that these measures are still not sufficient to meet the residents’ needs or to achieve their rights, as distant water points and improvised access to water is not unlike the current situation. The appropriate solution is to connect the unrecognized villages to the water network. While entire unrecognized Arab villages are deprived of adequate access to water, individual Jewish Israeli families, living on vast, expansive ranches in the Naqab, are promptly provided with water access and other services.

Follow-up: To date, Adalah has filed two motions to the Water Committee in an attempt to gain additional water access points for the residents of the unrecognized villages. In 4/03, one motion was filed on behalf of 62 families from Drejat, 17 families from El-Gara, and five families from Abu Grinat. While most requests were denied, some water points were added for Abu Ginat. In 9/03, a second motion was filed on behalf of 18 families from Al Hawashle, 15 families from Abu Msaed, 11 families from El-Ganami; and 17 families from Al-Atrash. To date, no response was received to this motion.

(H.C. 3586/01, The Regional Council for Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab, et. al. v. The Minister of National Infrastructure, et. al., decision delivered 16 February 2003).

Appealing against Policy of not Providing Drinking Water in Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab. Appeal filed in 11/06 against a ruling delivered by the Haifa District Court (sitting as a Water Tribunal) in 9/06, that upheld prior decisions of the Water Commissioner not to provide water to hundreds of Palestinian Arab Bedouin families living in unrecognized villages in the Naqab. Adalah argued in the appeal that the Water Commissioner’s decisions to deny the basic right to water to hundreds of families were based on improper and arbitrary considerations, primarily the political issue of the “illegal” status of the unrecognized villages. The aim of these decisions is to support the government’s policy of seeking to relocate Arab Bedouin from their land to government-planned towns by refusing to provide them with basic services such as access to clean drinking water. Adalah asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Water Tribunal decision, and to order the provision of water access points via the existing main water distribution network to the affected families. Adalah argued that refusing to provide the families with drinking water of the necessary quality and quantity constitutes a violation of their basic, constitutional right to dignity, which includes the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to health as well as the right to life, and that conditioning these rights on the application of a racist and discriminatory governmental policy is illegal.

C.A. (Civil Appeal) 9535/06, Abdullah Abu Musa’ed, et al. v. The Water Commissioner and the Israel Lands Administration (appeal pending).

Economic Rights

Equal Distribution of Holiday Charity Funds. The Minister of Labor and Social Welfare (MSLW) and the Minister of Finance (MOF) administer a "holiday charity fund" to aid the poor in their observation of religious celebrations and feasts. Over the years, the state used the Fund to assist the Jewish poor in observing Passover, but did not allocate any money to "non-Jewish" organizations or give any support to members of Arab religious communities. Successfully petitioned the Court in April/May 1998 against the MLSW and the MOF for 20% of the Fund to be set-aside for needy Arab Muslim, Christian and Druze religious community members.

(H.C. 2422/98, Adalah, et. al. v. Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, et. al.)

The Right to Social Services for Palestinian Bedouin in the Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab. Petitioned the Court in 8/99 on behalf of seven organizations against the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare and the government-appointed head of the Segev Shalom local council demanding that welfare services, completely stopped due to budgetary constraints, be resumed immediately to 60,000 Palestinian Bedouin residents of the unrecognized villages and that the number of social service providers be increased in appropriate proportion to the needs of the population.

Result: After filing the petition, services restored. In 9/00, the Court accepted the state's commitment to add 11 positions for social workers over two years. Even with this promise, Palestinian Bedouin living in the unrecognized villages in the Naqab will receive only one social service provider for 2,291 people, as compared with Jewish localities in the Naqab with a better socio-economic status, which receive one SSP for 641 people.

(H.C. 5838/99, Regional Council of the Unrecognized Villages in the Negev, et. al. v. Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, et. al.)

Equal Access for Arab Neighborhoods to Urban Renewal Programs. Petition filed in 1/00 against the Minister of Housing and Building and the Prime Minister for the government's discriminatory implementation of the "Urban Renewal Programs" (URP). Despite the stated purpose of the URP, which is to reduce societal inequities in the country, almost all of the poorest Arab municipalities are excluded. Since the establishment of the URP, 56 Jewish localities and 99 Jewish neighborhoods have benefited from the URP, as compared with 4 Arab villages and 14 Arab neighborhoods, which received these programs. Petitioners demanded that objective criteria, in accordance with socio-economic standards, be established to determine URP beneficiaries.

Result: In 12/01, the Court ruled that the criteria used to implement the URP should be equitable in character, and that the social-educational component of the URP, which includes funding for enrichment programs, scholarships, and extra-curricular activities, should be implemented in Arab communities in a way that meets their needs and level of deprivation. Beginning with the 2002 budget, the Court ruled that the percentage of the URP's social-educational budget designated to Arab communities should not be less than those communities' percentage-of-the-population. Further, the Court rejected the state's argument that a NIS 4 billion multi-year program to assist Arab communities promised in 2000 but not budgeted in 2001 or 2002, was a sufficient substitute for the URP.

(H.C. 727/00, The National Committee of Arab Mayors, et. al. v. The Minister of Housing and Building, et. al.)

Cutting the Balance Grants of Arab Municipalities and Local Councils. Petition filed in 8/00 against the Ministry of Interior (MOI), the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister challenging the cuts in balance grants to Arab municipalities. In accordance with the recommendations of a governmental committee, balance grants are given to all municipalities to close budget gaps between the municipalities. In the 2000 budget, the criteria used by the MOI to determine the balance grants discriminated against Arab municipalities in comparison to Jewish municipalities. Rather than remedying past discrimination, these criteria further widen the gap between Arab and Jewish localities.

Result: Petition withdrawn in 11/00 upon the establishment of a committee charged with re-assessing the formula used to determine the distribution of budget grants.

(H.C. 6099/00, The National Committee of Arab Mayors v. Ministry of the Interior, et. al.)

Unequal Distribution of Balance Grants to Jewish and Arab Municipalities. Petition filed to the Supreme Court in 7/01 on behalf of the National Committee of Arab Mayors against the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Minister, seeking equal, objective criteria to be used by the government in distributing budget balancing grants to municipalities. The purpose of these grants is to reduce budget deficits created when the expenditure of municipalities and local councils for essential services exceeds their income. The grant is allocated in order to secure a minimal and reasonable level of service for the residents of towns and villages. At the time of the filing of the petition, the budget deficits of Arab municipalities accounted for 45% of the total deficits of all municipalities in Israel. A complex method of calculating the distribution of these grants, which differs for Arab and Jewish towns, leads to discrimination in budget balancing grant allocation. In its initial response to the petition, the state argued that, based on its calculations, there was no discrimination in the distribution method; on the contrary, there is a policy of affirmative action that awards Arab municipalities 21.5% of the budget grants, which is greater than the percentage of the population of Arab citizens of Israel. Adalah rejected this claim and argued that in order to ensure a minimum of basic services for their residents, funding allotments for the Arab municipalities should be among the highest in the country, since these towns consistently rank lowest on all socio-economic indices. The percentage-of-the-population criterion is not a relevant consideration in this instance; rather, distributions should be based on economic need. Additional arguments were submitted and hearings held in 2002, and the Court issued an order nisi in 6/02 asking the respondents to explain why the state should not apply clear, equal and unified criteria for the allocation of budget balancing grants to all local councils and municipalities in Israel.

In 1/04, the state submitted arguments to the Court detailing a new formula for calculating the allocation of balance grants, claiming its proposed criteria are applicable on a fair and equal basis to all towns and villages. Adalah responded in 3/04 that the new formula included elements which inherently benefit local councils and municipalities of Jewish towns only, and that its effect is therefore to deepen the discrimination within the system of allocating balance grants. The new criteria rely, for instance, on the "National Priority Areas" list, which, Adalah has claimed before the Supreme Court in a petition pending since 1998, is itself not based on clear objective criteria or legislation (see H.C. 2773/98 and H.C. 11163/03, The High Follow-up Committee for the Arab Citizens in Israel, et. al. v. the Prime Minister of Israel). The revised criteria also award towns which absorb new Jewish immigrants with additional balance grants; Arab towns and villages are completely excluded, as well as "front line" communities (Jewish towns in the north of Israel and Jewish settlements in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories have been classified this way). Thus, while the new criteria in the proposed formula are now clear, they are not objective, or necessarily based on socio-economic need, and increase the existing socio-economic gaps between the Arab and Jewish local councils and municipalities, thus contradicting the very purpose for which the grant was intended. Adalah concluded that the new equation is even more discriminatory than that originally challenged in the petition. At a hearing held in 11/04, Adalah presented data to the Court illustrating the wide gap that exists between the allocation of budget balancing grants to Arab local councils and municipalities as compared to that which the government provides to Jewish towns. For example, by comparing local councils and municipalities of the same socio-economic level and population size in 2002, it is evident that the local councils and municipalities of Jewish towns in southern Israel received 35% more per citizen than Arab local councils and municipalities. In 2003, local councils and municipalities of Jewish towns received 59% more per citizen than their Arab counterparts. At the hearing, the Court decided that, due to the importance of the issues raised, it would expand the panel to seven justices for further hearings. In 2/05, Adalah submitted closing arguments to the Court. In 9/06, the Court ordered the state to submit to it an update regarding articles of the state’s budget for 2007 relating to budget balancing grants. The state did not provide details to the court, however, and in 12/06, Adalah requested an additional hearing on the case.

H.C. 6223/01, National Committee of Arab Mayors, et. al. v. Ministry of the Interior, et. al., (case pending).

Equal Access to Governmental “Ofeq” Program Funds to Alleviate High Unemployment. Petition filed in 7/02 with Tel Aviv University Law Clinic, on behalf of the National Committee of Arab Mayors, the Local Councils of Kufr Manda, Ein Mahel and Kesife, and in Adalah’s own name, against the Directors’ Committee for Fighting Unemployment in Settlements with High Unemployment Rates, the Government of Israel, and all of its ministries. The petition challenged the government’s arbitrary and discriminatory exclusion of Arab municipalities from the NIS 1.44 billion “Ofeq” program, which aims to improve areas where residents suffer from high unemployment rates and other socio-economic hardships. Of the 11 localities chosen for the program, only one is an Arab town: Tel el-Sebe (Tel Sheva), a government-planned town located in the Naqab, with a population of 10,000. According to 6/02 official statistics, however, all of the 25 towns with the highest unemployment rates in the country are Arab. The petitioners argued that clear, objective criteria, based on socio-economic standards, should be used in selecting towns to receive the program.

In 11/02, the Court issued an order nisi. In 3/03, the state responded that Arab municipalities should not be included in the “Ofeq” program as they receive similar benefits under the government’s Plan for Development of the Arab Sector ("the Plan"). However, the state admitted that it does not know exactly how much money each Arab town has received and for which project or projects under this plan. However, as Adalah argued in the petition, there is no overlap between the two programs, as the Plan only targets the basic infrastructural needs of poor Arab towns. At a Court hearing in 10/03, the state argued that the petition is moot as the 2004 state budget does not include additional funding for the continued implementing the Ofeq program, or the addition of any new towns to the program. However, the state also admitted that a few towns will continue to receive program funds through 2005, while implementation will continue in Lod and Akka through 2006.

Result: In 6/04, the Court accepted the petition, concurring with the arguments set forth by the petitioners. In a very important ruling, the Court held that: (i) The exclusion of Arab towns from specific socio-economic plans, which have defined and different objectives from that of the Plan, is prohibited discrimination. This exclusion also prevents attainment of the Plan’s goal – reduction of the disparity between Arab and Jewish communities; (ii) the existence of the Plan does not deny the rights of Arab communities to be included in economic assistance programs; and (iii) Arab communities are entitled to be included the future, based on equitable criteria, in the various socio-economic programs, if it is not proven that the objective of these plans – as reflected in the budget – is identical to the objective of the Plan. Although the Ofeq program has been discontinued and additional Arab towns did not receive funds pursuant to it, Adalah intends to use the Court's decision as precedent in its cases.

H.C. 6488/02, The National Committee of Arab Mayors, et. al. v. The Director's Committee for Fighting Unemployment in Settlements with High Unemployment Rates, et. al. (decision delivered 2/6/04).

Discriminatory Budget Cuts in Child Allowances.

A petition was filed in 6/02 on behalf of the National Committee for Arab Mayors and in Adalah’s own name against Avraham Burg, then-Chair of the Knesset and others. The petitioners asked the Court to declare unconstitutional an amendment to the National Insurance Law (1995) that mandates a 4% cut in child allowances for all citizens of Israel, and an additional 20% cut for families in which neither parent served in the army. The majority of Arab citizens of Israel are exempt from and do not join the military, and thus would be most severely affected by these cuts. Adalah argued that the new law amounts to intentional discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel and violates the right to equality; that its effect would be to increase the already dramatic rate of poverty of Arab families and children; and that it is illegitimate in a democratic society to make the enjoyment of equal civil rights conditional on military service. Numerous petitions were filed to the Court challenging the new law, including case filed by ACRI, the National Council for the Child, and several religious organizations. The Court joined all of these cases for hearings and decision.

In 10/02, the National Insurance Institute published new data indicating that the new law would affect 375,000 families, as opposed to its original calculation of 223,000. In response to this new information, Adalah requested and the Court issued an injunction to stay the implementation of the law. In 3/03, at a Supreme Court hearing on the case, Adalah challenged the AG’s claim that even if the budget cuts may be discriminatory, they are legitimate and proportional. In 5/03, the Knesset passed the government’s new economic plan, which proposes cuts in child allowances for all families over a longer period time. The state subsequently submitted a motion to the Court claiming that the case should be dismissed, as the issue is moot. Adalah filed a response in 6/03 requesting that the Court issue a judgment on the petition arguing that the issue of using military service to discriminate against Arab citizens of Israel is a principle, constitutional matter that is still unresolved between the parties; and that it is an inappropriate time for the state to request dismissal of the case, as all Court hearings have concluded.

Result: In 7/03, the Court decided to dismiss the petition, as the relevant provision of the law was cancelled by the Knesset’s passage of the new economic plan. (H.C. 4822/02, The National Committee of Arab Mayors and Adalah v. Avraham Burg, Chair of the Knesset, et. al.)

Report: Potential Impact of Cuts in Child Allowances on the Palestinian Minority in Israel:
English |  Arabic  |  Hebrew

Exclusion of Arab Towns from the National Priority List (NPL). Petition filed in 5/98 in Adalah's own name and on behalf of the High Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel and the Follow-up Committee on Arab Education against the Prime Minister seeking the cancellation of a 1998 governmental decision. The decision divides the country into "National Priority Areas" in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, without legislative authorization or clear objective criteria. The national priority areas list classifies selected towns as “A” or “B” or “no status”: towns classified as “A” receive substantial additional budgetary allowances and services from the government such as extra educational funding, tax breaks to local businesses, and funds for infrastructural development. Residents of these areas receive enormous personal economic benefits such as additional mortgage grants and loans, tax exemptions, and educational benefits such as free pre-schools for children, additional hours of schooling, fully-funded computer labs from the Ministry of Education, and exemption of fees for exams. The government assigns priority A status almost exclusively to Jewish development and border towns, and settlements in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories. Of the 553 towns and villages classified as national priority “A” there were only three small Arab villages.

Adalah argued in the petition that the government lacks authority to divide the country into national priority areas, and that this division is against the rule of law; the economic benefits involved are of such a magnitude to require statutory legislation authorizing their provision and stipulating objective criteria for their distribution. Adalah contended that the purpose of designating towns as national priority areas is to help poorer towns to develop economically. However, although Arab towns and villages in Israel rank lowest in all socio-economic indices according to official government statistics, they are almost completely excluded. Moreover, Adalah argued that the government's division is based on arbitrary geographical considerations. For example, although the disparity in educational attainment levels and the quality of facilities between Jewish and Arab schools is overwhelming, Migdal HaEmek and Natzeret Illit (two Jewish towns in the north) receive priority “A” educational benefits, while eleven other neighboring Arab towns and villages do not receive these benefits. Adalah demanded that these eleven villages be classified as priority “A” for the purpose of receiving educational benefits, arguing that the exclusion of Arab towns and villages from this classification constitutes discrimination on the basis of nationality.

After years of hearings and written submissions, the Court ordered the state in 12/02 to explain why it should not cancel the decision excluding Arab towns from the national priority areas list. At a hearing in 12/03, the Court asked Adalah to submit a new petition on the case, and issued an order nisi. Adalah filed a new petition in 12/03. In 2/04, Adalah successfully requested a further order nisi as part of the new petition requiring the Attorney General's (AG) Office to explain the exclusion of seven Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab (Negev) from the national priority area “A” list in the field of education, advancing two main arguments: (1) the seven Arab Bedouin towns should be included in the list as the official data shows that they are the most in need of such a program. In comparison to Jewish towns, they are by far the most economically disadvantaged towns in Israel, with the lowest levels of educational attainment; and (2) in its final report, the official Or Commission of Inquiry, which investigated the causes and results of the October 2000 protest demonstrations, also examined the poor socio-economic situation of these towns, recommending that the state give special attention to the Arab Bedouin, emphasizing budgets to close the gaps in education, housing, industrial development, employment, and services.

The AG’s Office submitted its response to the order nisi later in 3/04, arguing that dividing the state into national priority areas has been a part of the government’s political program since the early years of the state and is thus a legitimate policy. The AG also stated that the classification is not based socio-economic considerations, adding that although there are no written criteria for the classification scheme, the designation is based on geographical considerations.

At a hearing held in 11/04, Adalah presented a government map which clearly demonstrates that the borders of the national priority area are drawn close to Arab towns and villages, and yet exclude them. At the hearing, the state argued that the objective of the decision is to encourage Israeli citizens to relocate to peripheral areas, and to support towns which absorb new Jewish immigrants (olim). In response, Justice Heshin asked the AG's representative why she would not admit that the Israeli government is attempting to "Judaize the Galilee." Adalah argued that the goal of assisting towns which take in olim is discriminatory against Arab citizens of Israel for three reasons: (1) Arab towns do not receive new Jewish immigrants, and therefore the decision effectively excludes them; (2) Israeli law already provides for a wide range of existing benefits and assistance for olim; and (3) if the aim of the decision is to facilitate the immigration of olim, then there is no reason for the educational benefits available under the decision to be extended to entire towns or villages. In response to the Court's questions over the exclusion of Arab towns from national priority area "A" for education and the existence of internal criteria for the drawing up of the borders for these areas, the state responded that the logic for the map is evident from the map itself: to encourage individuals to move to these areas. The AG's representative added that this logic also explains why benefits are afforded to entire towns and villages.

In 6/05, Adalah submitted a motion for an injunction to the Court, requesting that it freeze a governmental decision issued earlier in 6/05. The decision awards grants to individuals for the purchasing or leasing of apartments in national priority areas “A” and “B,” within buildings comprised of multiple storeys in the Galilee and in the Naqab. According to the decision, anyone who purchases or leases such an apartment in a multi-storey building in national priority area “A” will receive a grant of NIS 25,000 from the Ministry of Construction and Housing, and NIS 20,000 in national priority area “B.” Adalah emphasized in the motion that there are only four small Arab towns categorized as national priority area “A,” arguing that this constitutes blatant discrimination on the basis of national belonging, and that even these four are not covered by the government’s new decision, as they do not contain buildings of multiple storeys, a condition for receiving the grants. Adalah also stressed that the failure to freeze the governmental decision would cause material damages, harm the interests of the petitioners and violate their rights.

Result: In 2/06, concluding eight years of litigation on this issue, an expanded seven-Justice panel of the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling to cancel the government decision establishing national priority areas in Israel, finding that it discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel on basis of race and national origin. In its decision, the Supreme Court also accepted Adalah's argument that the government is not authorized to unilaterally divide the country into national priority areas unless the Knesset enacts legislation establishing criteria and justifications. Significantly, the Supreme Court’s cancellation of the government decision is not restricted to national priority areas for education, but affects all national priority areas. In accepting Adalah’s position, the Supreme Court has ruled that the executive, as is every other governmental authority, must respect the principle of equality and is prohibited from discriminating against the minority citizens of Israel.

The Court’s ruling transfers the issue of the establishment of national priority areas to the Knesset, making it more difficult for the government to independently make decisions affecting social and economic issues to such a large extent in Israel. Adalah views this ruling as groundbreaking for its recognition of the government’s collective discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel on the basis of race and national belonging. This ruling constitutes a precedent since it will affect every governmental decision and hinder the executive’s ability to circumvent the rule of law to arbitrarily violate the rights of Arab citizens, especially in the fields of social and economic rights. Thus, in accepting the petition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the executive branch including each governmental authority is compelled to respect the principle of equality.

Update: In 4/07, Adalah demanded that the Supreme Court reject the Attorney General’s (AG) request to extend a deadline requiring the state to cancel the governmental decision. According to the Supreme Court’s judgment, the decision should be cancelled within 12 months of its issuance, on 27/2/07. In the request, the AG argued that the state is preparing for the complete implementation of the ruling but, due to the complexity involved in formulating alternative and equitable criteria, this preparatory work has not yet been fully completed. The state also claimed that it would be difficult and damaging to cancel budgets in the middle of the school year. Adalah argued that the submission date of the AG’s request (a month prior to the end of the allotted period), and the reasons stipulated therein reveal a lack of good faith and integrity, and that over the previous year the state had many options to advance the implementation of the ruling. Adalah emphasized that the state is working simultaneously to promote a bill in the Knesset (the National Priority Areas Bill-2007) that in effect constitutes an attempt to anchor in primary legislation the classification of towns and villages as NPAs in a way that would circumvent the law stipulated in the Supreme Court’s ruling. The proposed bill grants general authority to the government to determine the list of towns and villages according to broad considerations, without clear and equal criteria, as required in the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling.

H.C. 2773/98 and H.C. 11163/03, The High Follow-up Committee for the Arab Citizens in Israel, et. al. v. the Prime Minister of Israel (petition accepted)

Preventing the Labor Ministry from Closing Kufr Kana Employment Office. Petition and motion for injunction filed in 9/04 by Adalah and the Laborer’s Voice (Sawt el-Amel), on behalf eight unemployed individuals from Kufr Kana and neighboring villages, against the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor (MITL). The petitioners demanded that the MITL be prevented from shutting down the unemployment office in Kufr Kana, which serves the approximately 71,000 Arab citizens of Israel and 4,000 job seekers living in nine towns and villages in the north, and merging it with the Nazareth office. On the same day, the Court issued an injunction prohibiting the MITL from closing the Kufr Kana unemployment office.

All of the nine towns suffer from poor socio-economic conditions and, according to the socio-economic criteria of the Central Bureau of Statistics, are ranked within the three lowest bands of a total of ten bands. The National Employment Service recognizes these towns as centers of high unemployment, as the unemployment rates in them exceed 10% of the total labor force: the rate of unemployment in the nine towns in fact ranges from 15% to 30%. Further, the unemployment office in Nazareth, which serves the 100,000 residents of Nazareth, Illut, Kufr Manda, and Yaffa, is already over-crowded and under-staffed, with the number of job seekers in these four towns amounting to approximately 6,200 individuals. These towns are also ranked in the three lowest socio-economic bands, and head the Labor Office's list of centers of high unemployment. Closing the Kufr Kana employment office, would result in the number job seekers served by the Nazareth office rising dramatically to over 10,000 people, severely compromising the service provided.

As part of its reform plan in 2004, the MITL decided to close ten unemployment offices throughout the country, including the Kufr Kana office, both in Arab and Jewish towns, and to transfer job seekers to neighboring offices. The rationale given by the MITL for this decision was cutting costs and increasing efficiency. Adalah argued that, unlike the unemployment office in Kufr Kana, the other offices slated for closure by the MITL serve small towns, with low unemployment rates relative to the unemployment rate in the towns served by the Kufr Kana office. Moreover, the statistics for Jewish towns in the same geographical area, and in which unemployment offices will remain open, reveal that the MITL's decision is not based on transparent, equitable criteria, and fails to fulfill the goals of the ministry's reform plan. Further, the MITL did not decide to close unemployment offices in Jewish towns with high rates of unemployment serving a smaller number of people than the Kufr Kana office.

Adalah contended that the decision violates the rights of the job seekers to dignity, since those who will be reassigned to the Nazareth office will be forced to pay for weekly public transportation, incurring an additional economic burden. The petition emphasized that the decision discriminates against job seekers on the basis of their national belonging and breaches their basic right to equality, as well as their constitutional right to dignity and their right to social security. In addition, the petition stated that MITL’s decision is unreasonable, disproportionate and must therefore be nullified. The state requested and received postponements on the submission of their response to the petition.

Result: In 5/05, the AG informed the Supreme Court that the MITL had decided to cancel its previous instruction to close the unemployment office in Kufr Kana. The Court accepted the MITL's decision in the same month.

H.C. 8249/04, Ziad Matar et. al. vs. Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor (Petition dismissed 25/05/05).

Demanding Annulment of Law Rendering Unemployed Car Owners and Users Ineligible for Income Support Payments. Petition filed to the Supreme Court in 11/04 in the name of Adalah and Sawt al-'Amel (the Laborer’s Voice), and on behalf of a secured income support recipient whose request to use a car was denied, against the National Insurance Institute (NII) and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor. The petition demanded the cancellation of Article 9A(b) of the Income Support Law - 1980 and Article 10(c) of the Income Support Regulations - 1982, which prevent unemployed car owners and users from receiving secured income support allowances. The petitioners argued that: the language of the law is vague, failing to differentiate between individuals who own a car and those who merely use one; the law does not distinguish between different models of cars or their relative value; and fails to give any weight to personal circumstances, such as the need of a secured income support recipient for a car, the location of their home, or the level of public transport service in their area.

The petition emphasized that the NII rigorously enforces the law without discretion. "Economic police officers” employed by the Ministry of Finance follow income support recipients and photograph and file reports on them arriving at unemployment offices by car, and even take photographs of the cars parked next to their homes. The NII not only deprives individuals it believes own or are using a car of further benefits, but also debits previous allowances provided to them. In cases where individuals are unable to pay the fines imposed by the NII, the NII has deducted debts from child allowances and from future income support payments which may be reactivated following a minimum period of three months. Arab citizens of Israel constitute a significant portion of individuals entitled to these benefits, and many Arabs in Israel also live in remote villages with limited or no access to public transport services. The petitioners argued that the law violates the constitutional right to dignity, which includes the right to a minimum standard of living, as well as the constitutional right to property.

In 4/05, in response to the petition, the state maintained that, since the costs of running and maintaining a car are high, "the financing of these expenses must come from other, independent income, which the unemployed person did not report to the NII when it assessed his entitlement." The state further stated that, even when another person covers the costs of running and maintaining the car, the unemployed individual should be deprived of his or her entitlement to income support, since, "we should see this unemployed person as being given from the car owner an amount of money equal to the car's value and the value of using the car." The state claimed that, "Israeli law does not encourage a reality where the public kitty pays for the basic needs of a person, while others finance his other, non-essential requirements."

Adalah argues that the state's response is absurd, representing an attempt to shift the entire burden of responsibility for the financial care of the unemployed from the state to their families, and, like the articles challenged by the petition, is arbitrary in that it does not give any weight to an unemployed individual’s personal circumstances, which often necessitate the ownership or use of a car.

In 3/06, the Supreme Court issued an order impelling the NII and the state to show cause as to why the articles should not be cancelled.

Update: In 1/07, as a result of Adalah’s petition, an amendment was passed to the legislation, which allows car owners and users to receive income support payments, with certain conditions. In 3/07, the respondents filed a motion to the Court for the cancellation of the petition, claiming that it has become moot. Adalah is currently examining the new amendment.

H.C. 10662/04, Salah Hassan, et. al. v. The National Insurance Institute, et. al. (case pending).

Challenging Discriminatory Law Which Excludes Arab Bedouin Towns from Income Tax Benefits. Petition submitted to the Supreme Court in 7/05, against the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General, requesting the inclusion of five Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab (Negev) in the list of localities eligible for income tax benefits. The petition, which was submitted in the name of the heads of Hura, Lagiyya, and Kessife local councils, the mayor of Rahat Municipality, residents living in the five towns cited in the petition, and in Adalah's own name, asks that the Court cancel the amendment to the Income Tax Ordinance (No. 146), which was enacted by the Knesset in 6/05. The amendment’s objective is to provide a 13% reduction in income tax payments to localities located up to 7km from the Gaza Strip, in accordance with Governmental Decision No. 2633. However, following the first reading of the bill, the Knesset's Finance Committee added a further 18 Jewish localities not located within a 7km radius of the Gaza Strip to the list of eligible localities.

In the petition, Adalah argued that, in 2003, the Economic Recovery Law was enacted, removing the five Arab Bedouin towns from the list of towns entitled to tax benefits under an amendment to a 2001 tax law which granted – for the first time – tax benefits to all recognized Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab. The benefits were revoked despite the fact that all five towns are classified in the lowest cluster (1 on a scale of 1-10) of localities on official socio-economic indices, and that localities with a higher socio-economic status remained eligible under the law. Adalah argued that arbitrarily revoking the eligibility of the five Arab Bedouin towns, whose socio-economic status is among the lowest in Israel, for income tax benefits violates the principle of equality and thus constitutes discrimination. Adalah therefore demanded: i) the cancellation of Amendment No. 146; ii) the application of clear and consistent criteria in determining which localities receive income tax benefits in the Naqab; and iii) the inclusion of the five aforementioned Arab Bedouin towns in the list of localities deemed eligible for such benefits.

During a hearing on 1/06, the Court issued the state with an order to show cause (order nisi) why the eligibility for tax benefits under Amendment No. 146 is not based on equal criteria and why the law should not be cancelled. The respondents were granted six months from the inauguration of the new government following the 5/06 elections to revise the law and establish clear and consistent criteria for the qualification of localities for tax benefits.

Update: In 3/07, the state asked for an extension in order to examine the possibility of amending the law though the Knesset.

H.C. 6901/05, Mayor of Rahat Municipality, et. al. v. Minister of Finance, et. al. (case pending).

Discriminatory State Financial Support to Former Soldiers for Home Mortgages. Petition submitted to the Supreme Court in 12/05 against the Ministry of Construction and Housing, challenging a governmental policy of providing substantial financial support in the form of low-interest governmental loans for home mortgages to Israeli citizens who have completed military or national service. This support supplements the already generous financial support awarded for housing and other benefits under the Absorption of Former Soldiers Law (1994). Adalah argued that the support for housing mortgage loans discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are exempt from and generally do not perform military or national service. Adalah further contended that the performance of military service is irrelevant to the purpose of supplemental governmental housing support, which is to assist the socio-economically disadvantaged to find housing solutions, and that support beyond what is already provided by the 1994 law therefore violates the Ministry’s declared purpose.

In Israel, home mortgages are comprised of low-interest government-financed loans and higher-interest bank-financed private loans. Eligibility for government-financed loans is calculated based on a points or credits system assigned for various personal factors such as the number of siblings, the number of children in the household, any health-related disabilities, and an individual’s socio-economic situation. Under current governmental policy, one of the main factors taken into consideration, which yields a great number of points or a lack thereof, is whether or not the individual(s) has performed military or national service. Thus, for example, a married couple who have both completed full military service and who are in a bad socio-economic situation receive NIS 124,500 more in total than a married couple in the same socio-economic situation, when neither spouse has served in the military.

The petition includes in-depth official data regarding the socio-economic status of the Arab minority in Israel, which is the lowest in the state as compared with all other population groups except for migrant workers, as well as poverty data, comparative figures related to unemployment rates, wage-levels and housing density. One of the statistics included in the petition is the fact that in 2004, 49.9% of Arab citizens of Israel were classified as poor (under poverty line) as compared with 15.9% of Jewish citizens, according to the National Insurance Institute.

Result: In 12/06, the Supreme Court rejected the petition, deciding that there is no impediment in principle to granting benefits to those who have completed full military and national service above that which is afforded in the Absorption of Former Soldiers Law, provided that the use of the military service criterion is justified in the circumstances. The Court rejected Adalah’s argument that the use of this criterion results in discrimination against Arab citizens. It is Adalah’s position that the Supreme Court allowed the use of a criterion that severely discriminates against Arab citizens, and that the authorities may abuse this verdict as a cover for intensifying discrimination against the Arab community. Further, the Court ignored the housing crisis faced by Arab citizens, and also contradicted prior rulings, according to which neither the intentions not the motives but the result of a certain policy should determine whether or nor we are dealing with discrimination among groups, as well as a recent ruling in H.C. 11163/03, The High Follow-up Committee for the Arab Citizens in Israel, et al. v. The Prime Minister of Israel, which dealt with the exclusion of Arab towns from the list of National Priority Areas. According to this ruling, the state is not permitted to grant benefits, especially significant benefits, in addition to what is already provided in primary laws.

Update: In 2/07, Adalah filed a motion to the Court requesting a second hearing on the basis that the decision contains a grave error of law.

H.C. 11956/05, Suhad Bishara, et. al. v. The Ministry of Construction and Housing (petition dismissed).

Challenging the Transfer of Sakhnin Employment Office to Industrial Area of Tradyon. Petition filed to the Supreme Court in 4/06 seeking to overturn the decision to close the employment office in the Arab town of Sakhnin and transfer the office to the industrial area of Tradyon, located within the jurisdictional borders of the Misgav Regional Council, rather than in Sakhnin. The petition was filed in Adalah’s own name and on behalf of two couples from Sakhnin against Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor and the Tureq Handassa 1993 LTD Company. The decision to transfer the Sakhnin employment office followed an order from the Akka Magistrate Court to close it after a local planning and building committee claimed that the building leased as the employment office was not licensed to provide governmental services. The Tureq Handassa Company then won a bid to find an alternative building for the office, proposing a building in the industrial area of Tradyon.

The Sakhnin employment office currently serves approximately 58,000 people living in Sakhnin and four surrounding Arab towns, including around 3,000 unemployed individuals. In the petition, Adalah argued that the decision to close the office is extremely unreasonable as it violates the basic rights of the people living in the five towns, including their right to dignity, equality and to a minimum standard of living. Those who seek to use the office’s services are unemployed Arab citizens of Israel looking for work, many of whom live in extremely poor socio-economic conditions. As a result of the decision to move the office, they will be forced to use a significant portion of their low income, obtained from the social security system, on covering traveling costs to and from the new employment office. An additional burden on the job-seekers is the infrequent and irregular availability of public transport from the Arab towns to the industrial area in Misgav. Further, they will be forced to walk an additional 600 meters from the bus station to the employment office. The petitioners further argued that the closure of the employment office discriminates against Arab citizens living in Sakhnin relative to those living in Jewish towns with similar populations and rates of unemployment. The closure also violates the residents’ right to their city and to realize their residency in their own town. It is the right of the Sakhnin residents to receive public services in their own town, and not to be forced to travel to other towns in order to receive services, Adalah argued.

Result: During a hearing in 5/06, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right of Arab citizens of Israel living in Sakhnin to receive public services in the town, including the services of an employment office, but advised Adalah to withdraw the petition on the grounds that the Tureq Handassa Company had already won the published bid and found an alternative building for the office. Adalah contended that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision not to overturn transfer of the office, direct employment services will become unavailable in one of the largest Arab towns in Israel.

H.C. 3441/06, Manal Gantous, et. al. v. Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, et. al. (petition withdrawn)

Challenging the State’s Discriminatory Compensation Scheme for War Damages. Petition filed in 9/06, challenging the state’s compensation scheme for war damages incurred during the Second Lebanon War between Israel and Hizbullah of July-August 2006 under the amended Property Tax Regulations and Restitution Fund (Compensations Payments) (Direct and Indirect War Damages) (Temporary Order) – 2006 to businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as discriminatory against Arab towns in the north of Israel and Arab citizens of Israel. Specifically, the petition challenged three designations and compensation formulas regulated by the Finance Minister in 7/06 as they apply to ‘border towns’, ‘restricted towns’ and NGOs. The petition sought an order requiring the Minister to grant ‘border town’ status to four Arab villages in the north of Israel which suffered serious damage during the war, and are located on or very close to the border with Lebanon in close geographic proximity to Jewish towns granted the such status, and thus eligible for higher compensation payments. Adalah further requested that an equitable policy be determined for the calculation of compensation for the remaining towns and villages in the north classified as ‘restricted towns,’ and demanded that the Minister not exclude NGOs from those organizations and businesses entitled to compensation. In 12/06, the Court ordered the Finance Minister to show cause as to why one calculation method should not be used for all towns and villages in the north, and compelled him to explain the reasons for excluding businesses in the four Arab villages from full compensation.

Update: In 1/07, the Finance Ministry announced its agreement to include the four Arab villages in the list of ‘border towns’, making business-owners in the four villages eligible for full compensation from the state not only for damages incurred during the Second Lebanon War, but also retroactively for damages sustained since 1973. The ministry also added 19 Jewish towns and villages to the list of ‘border towns’, all of which fall within nine kilometers from the Israeli-Lebanese border. The additional demands raised in the petition remain pending before the Supreme Court.

H.C. 7444/06, Abeer Shehade, et al. v. The Minister of Finance, et al. (case pending)

Seeking Annulment of Regulations Forcing Arab Business Owners in Akka to Close their Shops on Saturdays. Petition filed in 5/07, demanding the cancellation of an amendment to municipal regulations introduced by the Akka Municipality in October 2002 that prohibits business owners in mixed neighborhoods with a Jewish majority in Akka from opening their places of trading on Saturdays. Adalah argued that forcing all businesses in mixed neighborhoods to close on Saturday is unconstitutional, breaches the principle of equality, and violates the constitutional rights of Arab citizens living in Akka, including the rights to freedom of employment, freedom of religion and conscience, and freedom from religion. Adalah stressed that Saturday is not a day of rest for Arabs living in Akka, Muslims and Christians alike, and not a day which they can take advantage of socially, and that the regulations could damage their income unless they open their businesses on their traditional day of rest. Adalah further argue that the Knesset has enacted laws to govern the weekly days of rest and closures of businesses on Saturdays. Israeli law stipulates an obligation that the days of rest for each religious group should be determined separately. Thus, Arab citizens living in mixed cities, such as Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, Ramle, Led (Lod) and Haifa are not obliged to close their places of trade on Saturdays, according to Israeli law.

H.C. 4326/07, Elias Daw, et al. v. The Municipality of Akka, et al. (case pending)