Adalah's Response of 25.3.2004 (H)
On 15 November 2004, the Supreme Court of Israel heard a petition submitted by Adalah in July 2001 on behalf of the National Committee of Arab Mayors requesting the determination of equal, clear, transparent and unified criteria for the allocation of budget balancing grants. The petition was brought against the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Minister. Supreme Court Justices Heshin, Beinisch and Jubran presided over the hearing, at which the Court decided that, due to the importance of the issues raised, it would expand the panel to seven justices for further hearings.
The purpose of budget balancing 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 communities under their jurisdiction.
Representing the petitioners, Adalah Attorney Hassan Jabareen presented data before the Supreme 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.
In June 2002, the Supreme Court issued an order nisi (order to show cause) 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 January 2004, the Attorney General (AG) submitted arguments to the Court detailing a new equation by which the allocation of budget balancing grants would be calculated. This equation included elements which inherently benefit local councils and municipalities of Jewish towns only, thereby heightening the discrimination between Arab and Jewish local councils and municipalities. For example, the new equation provides increased grants to municipalities and local councils for the absorption of Jewish immigrants to Israel (olim), for towns designated as ‘National Priority Areas’ (which applies to 553 Jewish towns and only three small Arab villages), and for towns classified 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). In a response submitted in March 2004, Adalah argued that most of the elements in the equation set forth by the AG result in discrimination on the basis of national belonging, since they exclude the vast majority of Arab local councils and municipalities. Adalah also argued that this new equation increases the existing socio-economic gaps between the Arab local councils and municipalities and their Jewish counterparts, 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.
H.C. 6223/01, National Committee of Arab Mayors v. The Ministry of Interior, et. al. (case pending)
For further information, see: Dr. Dan Ben-David & Dr. Yuval Erez “Unbalanced Funding of Local Authorities: A Local Perspective to National Priorities", October 2004, (Hebrew).