Recognition for the Unrecognized Neighborhood of Al-Jelasi. Al-Jelasi is a neighborhood in the Arab village of Kammaneh, located in northern Israel, which was excluded from the plan to recognize Kammaneh. The main objective of this exclusion was to pressure the residents of Al-Jelasi to move to other neighborhoods in Kammaneh, thus leaving its lands open for the expansion of the nearby Jewish village of Kamoun. Petition filed in 11/99 on behalf of 140 residents of Al-Jelasi against the Misgav Regional Council, both the District and Local Planning Committees, the National Planning Council, and the Ministry of Interior. The case was joined with another petition filed by a private attorney on behalf of Kammaneh's western neighborhood. The petitions demanded that the Court order that both of the respective neighborhoods and their residents be included in the plan to recognize and grant municipal status to Kammaneh. Adalah argued that the government's decision to recognize the village of Kammaneh must relate to all of the village's neighborhoods, and that the continued denial of recognition to Al-Jelasi violated the rights of its residents.
Result: In a precedent-setting written judgment delivered in 9/01, the Court ordered the District Planning Committee to submit an expanded version of the plan to recognize Kammaneh, including the previously excluded western neighborhood and Al-Jelasi, within 18 months. Further, the Court blocked the Planning Committee from demolishing any homes or removing residents in those areas. This decision marks the first time that the Court has essentially afforded recognition to a previously unrecognized Arab village in Israel. As an initial sign of this recognition, in 11/01, the residents of Al-Jelasi were connected to the network and received electricity in their homes. Adalah was awarded legal fees of NIS 20,000.
Motion for Contempt of Court: In 5/05, Adalah submitted a motion for contempt of court, on behalf of inhabitants of Al-Jelasi, to the Supreme Court, against the respondents from the case, as they had failed to comply with the Supreme Court's decision on the petition (H.C. 7960/99, Hashem Sawa'ed, et. al. v. Misgav Regional Council, et. al.) In the years that passed since the Court’s decision was delivered, the planning authorities have failed to fulfill their obligations, neither submitting nor approving any plan to include Al-Jelasi neighborhood within the boundaries of Kammaneh village.
In the motion for contempt, Al-Jelasi residents argued that the different decisions taken in the planning committee meetings indicate that the planning committees are dragging the process out intentionally. In addition to failing to implement their own decisions, these committees are disregarding the Court’s decision and have proven themselves unwilling to find a proper solution for Al-Jelasi neighborhood, as the Court's decision obliges them. Additionally, the neighborhood’s inhabitants argued that the non-fulfillment of the Court’s decision continues a severe violation of their rights to dignity, property and adequate housing, since the failure to formalize the status of the neighborhood prevents the neighborhood’s inhabitants from being provided with infrastructure, basic services, or adequate living conditions, and therefore from developing their neighborhood.
Update: In 12/05 – over four years since the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition – the planning authorities submitted a master plan for Kammaneh incorporating the neighborhood of Al-Jelasi, thereby affording it official recognition. The plan was submitted just a few days before a hearing scheduled to be held before the Supreme Court on the motion for contempt of court filed by Adalah in 5/05. Following the submission of the plan, the Court ordered the state to pay legal expenses in the sum of NIS 10,000.
H.C. 7960/99, Hashem Sawa'ed, et. al. v. Regional Council of Misgav, et. al. (Decision delivered 05/09/01)
Challenging the Expansion of Omer Municipality’s Jurisdiction to Encompass the Land of Arab Unrecognized Villages.
A petition was filed in 9/00 against the Minister of Interior and others to stop the proposed expansion of Omer (a wealthy Jewish town in the Naqab (Negev)) from including two neighboring unrecognized Arab villages - Em Batin and Al Maquman - within its jurisdiction. The petition argued that the expansion plan was recommended without any consultation or community participation in planning by the affected Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel living in these unrecognized villages. Supreme Court issued an injunction freezing the implementation of the plan. As a result of the filing of the petition, a new Committee was established to re-examine Omer’s borders.
Result: In mid-2002, the Committee recommended that the disputed land be returned to its original, pre-expansion status, thus canceling the proposed annexation. The Minister then adopted the recommendations. Adalah requested that the Court compel the Minister to issue a writ abolishing the initial expansion plan for Omer. The Court refused this request, stating that the commitment of the Minister to adopt the Committee’s recommendations sufficed. In 11/02, the petition was dismissed.
(H.C. 6672/00, Jazi Abu Kaf, et. al. v. Minister of the Interior, et. al., petition dismissed).
Challenging Demolition Orders against the Sawaed Brothers’ Homes in Husseniya.
In 7/01, Yousef and Housni Sawaed, Arab citizens of Israel living in the village of Husseniya, were informed that administrative home demolition orders had been issued by the Misgav Local Planning and Building Committee (MLPBC) for each of their houses. The brothers thereafter filed an appeal to the Acre Magistrate Court. In 10/01, their request to cancel the orders was rejected. They immediately filed an appeal against this decision to the Haifa District Court, which cancelled the demolition in 1/02. The following month, the MLPBC filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. At this stage, the Sawaed brothers approached Adalah to assist them in their case.
In 1/04, Adalah submitted legal arguments on behalf of the Sawaed brothers to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court should uphold the decision of the Haifa District Court, which ruled that the failure of the MLPBC to consult with the head of the local committee of Husseniya prior to the issuance of the demolition order, as required by the Planning and Building Law – 1965, rendered the order invalid; the MLPBC had only consulted with the head of the Misgav Regional Council prior to issuing the orders against the Sawaed brothers’ homes. Adalah also argued that the Local Council Order - 1958 provides that in cases of home demolition orders, the authority of the MLPBC to decide upon these issues is transferred to the local committees that fall within the jurisdiction of the Misgav Regional Council - in this case, the local committee of Husseniya. Thus, the MLPBC should have consulted with the head of the Husseniya local committee and not with the head of the Misgav Regional Council. Therefore, the orders are invalid and the Haifa District Court’s decision to cancel the demolition should be upheld.
At a hearing before the Supreme Court in 2/04, the MLPBC argued that the heads of local committees could not be trusted regarding the issuance of home demolition orders, as they are influenced by community forces that prevent them from providing impartial consultation. Supreme Court Justice Matza criticized the MLPBC for advancing such an argument. Essentially, the MLPBC’s argument, if accepted, would moot all powers of elected local committees. Adalah submitted supplemental arguments to the Court in 2/04.
In 12/04, the Supreme Court issued its decision, accepting the MLPBC's appeal and overturning the Haifa District Court's decision. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no duty to consult with local villages / settlements committees before issuing home demolition orders. The Supreme Court held that “both the literal interpretation and the purpose [of section 238(b) of the Planning and Building Law - 1965] indicate that, before issuing an administrative demolition order, the head of a regional planning committee is obliged to consult with the head of the regional council, rather than with the head of the local committee of the village in which the illegal building is located.” The Court rejected Adalah’s argument that a local authority “includes the local committee,” holding that a “‘local committee’ is not a ‘municipality’ or ‘local council’ as this expression is defined in the Local Authority Laws and in the Planning and Building Law, which applies to this case.” The Court also decided that consultation with the head of the regional council is sufficient because the judgment of local elected leaders regarding demolitions can be compromised by their close relationships with residents of the village/settlement.
It is Adalah’s position that the Court’s decision deviates from accepted principles of statutory interpretation, and renders meaningless the purpose of the obligation to consult with the head of the local authority, in this case, the local committee, which is to gain public participation through consultation with the representatives of local residents. Consultation with a community's directly elected body is part of the democratic process, and especially important where administrative decision-makers are responsible for decisions taken without a legal procedure or prior hearings. In Adalah’s view, the argument that the close relationship between a local committee and its residents might prejudice the committee's decision-making abilities is very problematic, as it legitimizes different treatment for villages which are managed by elected local committees, and those managed by municipalities or local councils, which also enjoy close relations with their residents. In addition, this argument is fuelled by unfavorable prejudices against small elected bodies, with the absurd result that because of the close relationship between an elected body and the concerns of its residents - which an elected body is supposedly duty-bound to enjoy - the representative body is not allowed to express its interests.
Permission for Criminal Appeal 1782/03, Misgav Local Planning and Building Committtee v. Yousef and Housni Sawaed (decision delivered 30/12/04).
Seeking Cancellation of Discriminatory ILA Land Distribution Decision. In 10/03, Adalah filed a petition and a motion for an injunction to the Supreme Court on behalf of the National Committee of Arab Mayors and in its own name against the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Industry and Trade. The petitioners asked the Court to cancel an ILA decision, approved by the government, which awards a 90% discount on the price of leasing lands managed by the ILA to discharged Israeli soldiers and individuals who have completed one year of national service. The ILA decision applies to 423 towns containing fewer than 500 residential units in the Galilee in the north of Israel and the Naqab (Negev) in the south that also have been designated by the government as National Priority Areas, and entails a massive redistribution of land. None of the towns covered by the ILA decision was Arab. Towns classified as “A” or “B” priority areas receive substantial, lucrative benefits such as extra educational funding, additional mortgage grants and tax exemptions to residents, and tax breaks to local industries.
Adalah argued that the ILA's decision discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel on the basis of national belonging, both at the level of the individual, since only individuals who have performed military or national service are eligible for the lucrative benefit of being able to lease lands at 10% of their market value, and at the level of towns and villages, since the decision only applies to towns and villages previously designated as national priority areas by the government. The government assigns national priority status almost exclusively to Jewish towns and settlements. Therefore, the decision violates their rights to equality and housing. Further, Adalah contended, there is no clear link between the qualifying criteria of military service and the stated aim of the decision, which is to bring residents to the Galilee and the Naqab: rather, by conditioning this benefit on military service, it appears that the actual aim of the decision is to direct more Jewish citizens of the state to these regions. Adalah further contended that the Law of Absorption of Soldiers – 1994 provides a wide scope of social and economic benefits for discharged soldiers, and thus any additional benefits aim to exclude Arab citizens of Israel. Adalah also argued that the ILA’s decision is arbitrary, as it fails to consider relevant socio-economic factors in affording such a benefit. Arab villages in the Galilee and in the Naqab are almost completely excluded from the national priority areas list, although they rank lowest on all socio-economic indices and suffer from severe land and housing problems.
At a hearing in 12/03, the Court decided to join this petition for hearing to another petition filed by Adalah, pending since 1998, which challenges the government’s authority to determine the national priority areas list without 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 Court also decided that the cases will be heard before an expanded panel of seven justices. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) has also filed a petition challenging the ILA decision (H.C. 10248/03, Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al.), which was joined by the Court to this case.
In 3/04, the Attorney General’s (AG) Office submitted its response to the petition and motion for injunction, claiming that: (1) the first aim of the decision is to strengthen small villages and towns in the national priority areas by encouraging residents to move to peripheral regions; and (2) the second aim of the decision is “to grant a reward to those who donated their free time to the public, and at times even endangered their lives during military service or national service.” The response fails to counter Adalah's argument that, by making the 90% leasing discount contingent on military service, its ostensible aim is the "Judaization" of peripheral areas. Moreover, if the ILA decision aims to reward those who contributed to state security, based on this criterion a discharged Israeli soldier could acquire land for almost nothing, and yet could sell it on years later to a person who did not serve in the military. This result is illogical in light of the stated aims of the ILA decision. In response to Adalah's argument in the petition that ILA’s decision is discriminatory and arbitrary, the AG declared the addition of 14 small Arab towns to the list of towns covered by the ILA's decision.
At a hearing in 11/04 before a seven-justice panel, Chief Justice Barak stated that, in his opinion, conditioning state land distribution on military or national service will result in discrimination against Arab citizens. The AG's representative set forth the arguments advanced in the AG's response of 3/04, adding that the decision was not intended to harm the petitioners' interests, but to improve those of discharged soldiers. Adalah countered that, while the state claims that the small towns listed as eligible for the discount are in need of financial assistance, it has failed to provide information detailing their socio-economic situation. Nor did the state demonstrate during the hearing that the small towns listed in the decision do indeed require financial support. Adalah further countered that the state's justification fails to adequately explain the relationship between granting the benefit of being able to lease state lands at a fraction of their market value, and the restriction of those entitled to receive this benefit to discharged soldiers, and that the state did not demonstrate why the benefit should not be extended to other groups.
Result: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in 7/06 at a hearing, on the grounds that the ILA decision, which was valid only for a period of two years, had expired and the petition had become moot. The ILA did not extend the decision. As Adalah argued at the hearing, the result of the Court’s delay in hearing the petition was that ILA-managed lands continued to be leased according to the conditions of the decision for its two-year duration, without effective judicial review. Further, despite Adalah’s requests, the Court refused to issue an injunction freezing the implementation of the decision. In its decision, the Court noted that it would strive in the future to hear petitions which require prompt treatment in a more expeditious manner.
H.C. 9289/03, Adalah, et. al. v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al. (petition dismissed)
Challenging the ILA’s Spraying of Crops Cultivated by Arab Bedouin in the Naqab.
Petition and motion for injunction filed in 3/04 on behalf of four Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel, eight human rights organizations, and in Adalah's own name against the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture, seeking to prevent the ILA from aerially spraying agricultural crops belonging to Arab Bedouin inhabitants of the unrecognized villages in the Naqab (Negev). Adalah argued that the spraying of crops endangers the life and health of human beings and animals, as well as their environment.
The petition details that the ILA has destroyed thousands of dunams of crops, on multiple occasions over the last two years, in three unrecognized Palestinian Arab villages in the Naqab – Al-Arakib, Abda and Wadi el-Bekor, emphasizing that the ILA issued no warnings, before or after the spraying. In response to numerous letters sent by Adalah and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel regarding Abda, for example, the ILA admitted to the aerial spraying of crops with a chemical called ROUNDUP, but claimed that the agent did not and could not possibly cause any damage. These allegations are contradicted in a letter sent to Adalah by a health clinic in Mitzpeh Ramon, which reported treating at least 17 individuals, including children, following their exposure to chemicals sprayed by the ILA in Abda in 5/03. The ILA also claimed in its correspondence with the human rights organizations that its actions are legal, as the crops were planted illegally by the Arab Bedouin on state-owned land, and it is therefore enforcing the state’s right to the land. Adalah countered that these lands are the ancestral lands of the Arab Bedouin in the Naqab, who have suffered and continue to suffer from both historical and contemporary injustices, and that state attempts to assert ownership claims on the land are vehemently disputed.
The petition emphasized that ROUNDUP is a very dangerous substance. The label affixed to the bottle of ROUNDUP contains many warnings to users, notably that all physical contact with the chemical must be avoided. It also states, “Do Not Apply This Product Using Aerial Spray Equipment,” and that, even if the chemical is sprayed from ground level, no one should be allowed to enter the area for seven days. The ROUNDUP label also notes that the “level of toxicity is 4 – Dangerous.” Two expert opinions from Dr. Elihu Richter, Head of the Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and Center for Injury Prevention, Hebrew University and Dr. Ahmad Yazbek, senior researcher with the Regional Research and Development Center – The Galilee Society, describing a variety of human health and environmental problems associated with using ROUNDUP in aerial spraying were included in the petition.
The petitioners contended that the ILA’s spraying of the crops violates the rights to life, health, and dignity under both domestic and international law. The petitioners further argued that the ILA has no authority to destroy the crops, regardless of the legal status of the land in question. The Law for the Protection of Plants – 1956 governs the issue of crop spraying. The law's purpose is to protect health and the environment; it grants sole authority to the Agriculture Minister to further this purpose alone. Moreover, the ILA is also violating regulations made pursuant to this law which prohibit aerially spraying chemicals if nearby plants could be damaged. They also mandate that any spraying of poisonous chemicals must follow the instructions and warnings on the material. The petitioners also contended that the ILA’s spraying of the crops constitutes criminal offences under the Penal Law – 1977 regarding use of dangerous toxins and malicious damage. The Court issued a temporary injunction immediately after the filing of the petition, prohibiting the respondents from aerially spraying the crops in question.
Based on an expert opinion from the MOH's Chief Toxicologist, the AG's representative claimed in response to the petition that the ILA's crop spraying operations posed no health risks. The AG's representative also claimed that the crop spraying is legal, and a useful and efficient means of solving the problem of Arab Bedouin “trespassers” allegedly “creeping” onto state-owned lands.
During a hearing in 10/04, Adalah countered that the Chief Toxicologist had copied the main parts of his opinion verbatim from a public relations statement posted on the website of Monsanto, a company that produces ROUNDUP, and thus should be deemed inadmissible by the Court. One Justice of the Court further stated that the central issue is a land dispute and suggested that the Arab Bedouin farmers pay the ILA to lease the land, without relating to the issue of title or ownership. Adalah rejected the state's arguments and the Justice's suggestion, stressing that even if the respondents had a court decision determining title to the land, the petition still stands as the argument remains that ROUNDUP constitutes a danger to life and health: the state cannot ignore the major health risk to citizens associated with its aerial spraying operations. The Court issued an order nisi instructing the state to explain the crop spraying operations within two months, and extended the injunction.
The ILA responded to the petition in 2/05, admitting to aerially spaying crops in the unrecognized villages in the Naqab with chemical agents unauthorized by the Ministry of Agriculture. In the response, the ILA disclosed for the first time that during 2004, two additional chemical – Typhoon and Glyphogen – had been used. The ILA's response also emphasized the effectiveness and cost- efficiency of these operations in decreasing Arab Bedouin “encroachment” on “huge swathes of land belonging to the state,” and contained an admission by the ILA that the basis of the Chief Toxicologist's expert opinion was the scientific material on ROUNDUP and its chemical composition as posted on Monsanto's website. Adalah commented that the ILA's response confirmed its status as an organization hostile to the Arab Bedouin in the Naqab that does not contribute to the good of the Arab Bedouin or regional development. The Court extended the injunction in a hearing in 11/05.
Result: In 4/07, the Supreme Court issued a precedent-setting decision prohibiting the ILA from aerially spraying crops cultivated by Arab Bedouin in the unrecognized villages, and stated that spraying the toxic chemicals is insensitive, disrespectful and endangers their lives and health. In the decision, Justice Arbel also discussed the reality of life for Arab Bedouin living in the unrecognized villages: “It should be that the harsh reality faced by the Bedouin population in the State of Israel requires a systematic comprehensive solution … I am using this opportunity to call for a thorough examination of the subject [the unrecognized villages] and for the speedy promotion of a settlement …
H.C. 2887/04, Saleem Abu Medeghem, et. al. v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al. (petition accepted).
Challenging ILA Policy of Tenders Open Only to Jews for Jewish National Fund Lands. Petition submitted in 10/04 against the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Minister of Finance (MOF), demanding the cancellation of an ILA policy and a regulation promulgated by the MOF, permitting the marketing and allocation of JNF lands through bids open only to Jews. Adalah also requested an injunction ordering the ILA to freeze all open and imminent tenders for JNF lands and ban their lease pending a final decision on the petition. Under Israeli law the ILA manages “Israel’s lands.” Since 1948, large tracts of Arab-owned land have been confiscated or otherwise appropriated under law and taken into the possession of the state or Zionist institutions, such as the JNF, for exclusive use by Jews, bringing about state control of over 93% of the land in Israel. “Israel’s lands” include land owned by the JNF. Of the 2.5 million dunams of land currently owned by the JNF (approximately 13% of the total land in Israel), close to two million dunams were transferred to it by the state in 1949 and 1953, giving the JNF special status under Israeli law. The JNF enjoys a huge influence over land distribution policy in Israel, nominating, for example, half of the members of the ILA Council. Although under Israeli law state-owned land cannot be sold, the JNF's special status enables the transfer of lands to it from the state. The ILA has acknowledged that tenders for JNF lands are only open to Jews, claiming that the agreement signed between the state and the JNF in 1961 obliges it to respect the objectives of the JNF, which include settling Jews on lands and properties within the Israeli government's jurisdiction.
Adalah argued that the ILA, as a public agency established under law, is not authorized to adopt positions or pursue goals contrary to the principles of equality, just distribution and fairness, and cannot be a sub-contractor for discrimination on the basis of nationality. Adalah also argued that the ILA's policy is not based in statutory law, but only on a regulation - Article 27 of the Regulations of the Obligations of Tenders - promulgated by the MOF pursuant to the Obligation of Tenders Law - 1992. Adalah maintained that the regulation must be cancelled because the Tenders Law does not authorize the MOF to issue it, and because it contradicts Article 2 of the Tenders Law, which provides that bids must respect the principle of equality and prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. Moreover, the ILA's policy and the regulation conflict with the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom - 1992, by discriminating on the basis of nationality, and do not rely on Knesset-enacted statutory law. The continuation of such practices, Adalah also argued, will lead to the further creation of racially segregated towns and neighborhoods, which will resemble those established under the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Moreover, land is an essential resource for social and economic development. The ILA's policy will exacerbate the severe lack of land resources in Arab towns, acute housing shortages and a scarcity of land for building, which precludes virtually all development, Adalah stated.
In 10/04, the JNF stated that it would freeze new and existing tenders in the North and in the Galilee until the hearing date. In 12/04, the JNF submitted its response, in which it claimed to have purchased its lands using monies donated by Jews from around the world for the purpose of buying land in Israel and its distribution among Jews. The JNF further argued that its loyalty is only to the Jewish people, not to the general public in Israel, and that it operates only for the benefit of Jews. The JNF demanded that the Court refuse to decide on the issues raised in the petition, claiming that they are purely ideological matters relating to the character and identity of the Jewish state, and the relationship between Jews in Israel and Jews in the Diaspora. The JNF also argued that non-Jews do not have the right to choose land given to the Jews for the sake of achieving their right to equality. Regarding Article 27 of the Tenders Law, the JNF responded that it is constitutional, and denied that it contradicts the Tenders Law. The JNF further stated that its cancellation would not lead to the allocation of JNF lands to non-Jews, because the state must still uphold its duty to the JNF to manage its lands in accordance its agreement with the JNF. The bids for JNF-owned lands in the North and the Galilee frozen since 10/04 remain frozen.
According to reports in the media, in response to the petition, the AG ruled in 1/05 that the ILA cannot discriminate against Arab citizens of Israel in the marketing and allocation of the lands it manages, even lands belonging to the JNF. Adalah's position is that there are two sides to the AG's ruling: on the one hand the decision is positive, since the AG concurred with Adalah's argument that the ILA's policy of marketing and allocating JNF-owned lands through bids open only to Jews is discriminatory. However, on the other hand, the AG also decided whenever a non-Jewish citizen wins an ILA tender for a plot of JNF-owned land, the ILA will compensate the JNF with an equal amount of land, a process which Adalah opposes as it involves the transfer of state-owned lands to the JNF, an institution which publicly acknowledges that its land policy is discriminatory. To date the AG has not submitted his response to the petition.
H.C. 9205/04, Adalah v. The Israel Lands Administration, et. al. (case pending).
Challenging Discriminatory Governmental Policies Regarding the Leasing of Land and Eligibility for Housing Assistance in Arab Bedouin Towns in the Naqab.
Petition and motion for an injunction submitted to the Supreme Court in 10/05 in Adalah’s name and on behalf an Arab Bedouin citizen of Israel against the Bedouin Development Agency (BDA), the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), and the Ministry of Construction and Housing. The petition challenged the following policies governing eligibility to lease land in Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab: (i) the BDA requirement that individuals submitting applications must have served in the Israeli army or in other Israeli security forces; (ii) the ILA’s Decision No. 1028 from 5/05, which affords large discounts on the price of leasing land to those who have served in the Israeli army or in other Israeli security forces; and (iii) the Ministry of Construction and Housing’s policy of not issuing a certificate required by the BDA to an applicant who is married to a non-citizen, irrespective of the couple’s socio-economic situation.
Adalah argued that the policy of awarding large discounts on leasing land for those who serve in the Israeli military and in other security forces is illegal, as it is not based primarily on socio-economic need and as there is no connection between army service and the marketing of land. Adalah emphasized the illegal nature of using state-owned economic resources in this manner. Regarding the denial of housing assistance to citizens of Israel married to non-citizens, Adalah contended that this policy is discriminatory and violates the right to family life as it distinguishes between citizens on an illegitimate basis - one’s choice of life partner – and disproportionately impacts Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are primarily the citizens who are married to Palestinians from the OPTs or other Arab countries. Further, Adalah argued that there is no link between the status of a citizen’s spouse and the right to housing.
In 10/05, the Attorney General’s Office announced in its initial response to the motion for an injunction the cancellation of the military service requirement as a pre-condition for eligibility to lease land. It also announced that the Ministry of Construction and Housing annulled its policy of denying housing assistance to married couples, one of whom is a citizen and the other a non-citizen in 4/05, as long as both spouses are present in the country. The AG’s Office did not address the issue of the deep discounts offered on the price of leasing land to those who serve in the Israeli military or the security forces, and this question remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Update: At a hearing held in 4/07 on the issue of the ILA decision to award large discounts in the leasing of land to those who have completed military service, the Supreme Court suggested that Adalah withdraw the petition and file a new petition focused exclusively on this issue.
H.C. 9457/05, Rizeq Gilawi, et. al. v. The Bedouin Development Agency, et. al. (petition withdrawn).
Challenge to the “Wine Path Plan” for the Establishment of Individual Settlements in the Naqab.
Petition submitted in 3/06 in Adalah’s name and on behalf of Bimkom – Planners for Planning Rights and The Negev Coexistence Forum, after the Sub-Committee for Principle Planning Issues (VALNTA’) rejected objections to the plan submitted by the organizations. The named respondents are the National Council for Planning and Building (NCPB) and Israel Land Administration (ILA). The petition seeks the cancellation of the Regional Master Plan TAMAM 4/ 14/ 42: Partial District Master Plan for the Southern District – Amendment No. 42, otherwise known as the “Wine Path Plan.” The petition states that the plan seeks to establish and retroactively legalize approximately 30 expansive ranches or "individual settlements" in the Naqab for the purpose of securing the land for exclusive use by Jewish citizens and preventing the use and development of the land by Arab citizens of Israel. In general, individual families live in the settlements, often without permits and in violation of the planning and building laws and regulations. Adalah argues that the establishment of individual settlements under the plan runs contrary to administrative regulations and violates planning principles. Moreover, the plan’s goal to restrict the amount of land in the Naqab available for use by Arab Bedouin constitutes a violation of their right to equality and the principle of distributive justice, and is dehumanizing and indicative of the state’s view of Arab citizens living in the Naqab as a “problem” for which it seeks to implement “solutions” through discriminatory planning policies. VALNTA’s decision to reject the objections submitted by the organizations therefore contradicts the principles of equality, justice in land allocation and sustainable development. The petition included two expert opinions critical of the plan written by Hubert Law-Yon, former Associate Professor at the Department of Architecture and Town Planning at the Technion – the Israel Institute of Technology, and by Oren Yiftachel, Associate Professor at the Department of Geography and Environmental Development at Ben-Gurion University.
H.C. 2817/06, Adalah, et al. v. The National Council for Planning and Building, et al. (case pending)
Defending Residents of Kammaneh against Attempt by Jewish Town of Kamoun to Cancel the Village’s Master Plan. Response filed in 11/06 on behalf of residents of the Arab village Kammaneh to a petition submitted to the Supreme Court by residents of the neighboring Jewish town of Kamoun seeking to cancel the master plan for Kammaneh. In the petition the residents of Kamoun requested the cancellation of the master plan for Kammaneh, unless three demands are met:
1. “The cleansing of Kamoun of its Arab residents.” The residents of Kamoun demanded that the master plan for Kammaneh should include a “solution” for an Arab family currently living in Kamoun in their relocated to Kammaneh. In the response, Adalah argued that conditioning the approval of the master plan for Kammaneh, which is a basic right of the residents of the village, on the relocation of the Arab family is arbitrary and illegal. Adalah further argued that the implication of this request is the imposition of an apartheid system through the exploitation of planning and building procedures, by preventing Arab families from living in the town.
2. The paving of a road for the exclusive use of the residents of Kammaneh. This demand involves the paving of a by-pass road to circumvent Kamoun, so as not to force its Jewish residents to travel on the same road as their Arab neighbors in Kammaneh. Adalah indicated that the position of the National Council for Planning and Building is that the existing road was planned to meet the transportation needs of both towns. Adalah further contended that, even if there were a need for a further road, the approval of the master plan for Kammaneh cannot be made contingent on an “exclusive” road for Kamoun.
3. The safeguarding of a Jewish majority on “Mount Kamoun” in the long-term. The residents of Kamoun claimed that the master plan for Kammaneh will preclude future expansion of the master plan for Kamoun. Adalah argued, however, that the master plan does not prevent the expansion of Kamoun, as the proposed master plan for the expansion of Kamoun is not planned according to a calculation the area of land in the master plan for Kammaneh.
H.C. 6176/06, The Cooperative Organization for the Agricultural Settlement of Kamoun v. The National Council for Planning and Building et al. (case pending)
Appeal to Supreme Court against Confiscation of Land in Lajoun Belonging to 300 Arab Families in Umm al-Fahem. Appeal filed in 5/07, against a 3/07 decision of the Nazareth District Court to reject a lawsuit filed on behalf of approximately 200 Arab citizens of Israel regarding the ownership of the lands of Lajoun. The District Court rejected the claimants’ main argument that the confiscation is fundamentally invalid and that the land must be returned to its original owners, because it has not been used for “essential settlement and development needs,” in accordance with the order issued by the Minister of Finance in 1953. The District Court also ordered the Justice Ministry to register the land in the name of the Development Agency, a state body. The lands of Lajoun were previously part of Umm al-Fahem in the center of Israel. The plot was confiscated, along with other plots of land totaling 34,600 dunams, on 15 November 1953 according to an order of the Finance Minister under Article 2 of the Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law – 1953 for “essential settlement and development needs”. In its decision, the District Court focused on the interpretation of the term “settlement” used in the confiscation order, accepting the Development Agency’s argument that it is possible to give very broad interpretations of this term and decided that the current use of the land as a man-made forest containing an industrial facility belonging to the “Mekorot” water company are compatible with the term “settlement.”
The appellants argued that the District Court had erred in deciding that planting a man-made forest falls within the definition of a “settlement needs,” as this interpretation is broader than and incompatible with the definitions contained in Israeli law. Further, it legitimizes the illegal seizure of land and violates the landowners’ constitutional right to property, as guaranteed by the Basic Laws of Israel. The appellants further argued that the land has not been used for “essential settlement and development needs” for over 50 years, and therefore the Finance Minister’s order is, or was, inappropriate, or issued for false or unacceptable reasons. In addition, even if the confiscation were declared legal, the state’s failure to address the alleged essential settlement and development needs since 1953 indicates that there is no need to construct residential settlements on the land. Thus, the public need is no longer valid and the land should therefore be returned to its owners.
C.A. (Civil Appeal) 4067/07, Jabareen, et al. v. The State of Israel, et al. (case pending)
UN Special Consultative Status, ECOSOC
Member, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network 
