Petition (H)
On 9 November 2004, the Supreme Court of Israel held a hearing on a petition filed by Adalah in October 2003, which challenges the legality of an Israel Lands Administration (ILA) decision awarding a 90% discount on the price of leasing ILA-managed lands to discharged Israeli soldiers and individuals who have completed at least one year of national service. The ILA's 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. The decision limits eligible towns to those classified as National Priority Areas "A" and "B" and entails a massive redistribution of land. None of the towns covered by the ILA decision was Arab. A seven-justice panel headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak presided over the hearing.
The petition was submitted by Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara on behalf of the National Committee for Arab Mayors and in Adalah's own name, against the ILA, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry and Trade. In the petition, Adalah argued that the ILA's decision discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel 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 government assigns national priority status almost exclusively to Jewish development and border towns, and settlements in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories and excludes Arab towns.
At the hearing, Attorney Bishara emphasized that the military service criterion discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel on the basis of national belonging, since Palestinian citizens of Israel are exempt from and generally do not serve in the army. Adalah further argued that the Law of Absorption of Soldiers – 1994, which replaced a statute from 1984, provides a wider scope of social and economic benefits for discharged Israeli soldiers, and thus, any benefits granted in addition to those already provided by the law, aim to exclude Arab citizens of Israel.
Chief Justice Barak stated during the hearing that, in his opinion, conditioning state land distribution on military or national service will result in discrimination against Arab citizens.
The AG's representative, Orit Koren, responded that, in addition to encouraging Israeli citizens to relocate to the Galilee and the Negev, there are two other aims behind the decision: (1) to support small towns classified as National Priority Areas; and (2) to grant a reward to those who have served the community, and at times even exposed their lives to danger by performing military service or national service. She added that the ILA's decision was not intended to harm the petitioners' interests, but to improve those of another group – discharged soldiers.
Attorney Bishara 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. As Adalah pointed out in the petition, the state's discriminatory assignment of national priority status means that even the very few Arab villages with fewer than 500 residential units are excluded, although these are ranked lowest on all socio-economic indices and suffer from acute overcrowding. Nor did the state demonstrate that the small towns listed in the decision do indeed require financial support during the hearing.
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. Adalah further contended the state also failed to demonstrate why the benefit should not be extended to other groups.
The AG's representative replied that, although it would be preferable to extend the scope of the decision to include all citizens, it is necessary to limit the group of recipients in some way for budgetary reasons. In response, Adalah argued that, according to this logic, it would be legitimate for governmental agencies to resolve any budgetary limitation by discriminatorily restricting the group of recipients according to arbitrary and inequitable criteria. Despite Adalah’s requests for the Court to issue an injunction freezing the implementation of the ILA's decision, the Court did not do so. As a result, the ILA-managed lands have been and continue to be leased according to the conditions of the two-year decision for more than one year. The Supreme Court will issue a decision on the case after further submissions by the respondents and the petitioners.
H.C. 9289/03, Adalah, et. al. v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al. (case pending).
An additional petition against the ILA's decision was filed by ACRI – The Association for Civil Rights in Israel joined for hearing by the Court to Adalah's petition. (H.C. 10248/03, Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al.)