Adalah Challenges Attorney General's Claim that Discriminatory Cuts in Child Allowances are Legitimate and Proportional

On 5 March 2003, at a hearing held before a panel of 13 justices of the Supreme Court of Israel, Adalah challenged the Attorney General's claim that even though cuts in child allowances sanctioned by a new amendment to the National Insurance Law may be discriminatory, such discrimination is legitimate and proportional.

Last week's hearing was the latest on a petition filed in June 2002 by Adalah and the National Committee of Arab Mayors, seeking the cancellation of an amendment to Article 68 (a) of the National Insurance Law (1995). This new amendment would apply a 4% cut to all child allowance payments, and an additional 20% cut in the amounts paid to parents of children without a parent serving in the Israeli army. Palestinian citizens of Israel, the majority of whom are exempt from and do not serve in the army, would be most severely affected by the new amendment. The Supreme Court joined six other petitions challenging the amendment, filed by Members of Knesset and Israeli human rights and children's rights organizations, to Adalah's petition for hearing and decision.

In the petition, Adalah argued that the amendment is unconstitutional, as it amounts to intentional discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel on the basis of national belonging and denies this community the right to equality. The right to equality, Adalah argued, must be protected by interpretations of the right to dignity contained in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992). The petitioners also stressed that it is not legitimate, in a democratic society, to make the enjoyment of equal civil rights conditional on military service. Adalah asked that the Court declare the law unconstitutional and void.

A temporary injunction issued by the Court on 13 October 2002, in response to a motion submitted by Adalah, is still in effect, freezing the implementation of the new law until the end of proceedings.

At the hearing on 5 March 2003, the State claimed that it is legitimate and a proportionate measure to give higher child allowances to parents who have served in the Israeli army, as these individuals have provided several years of service to their country, and in some cases have risked their lives.

Adalah General Director Hassan Jabareen, Advocate, and Adalah Staff Attorney Marwan Dalal prepared the petition and represented the petitioners at the Supreme Court hearing. Adalah argued before the Court that the Absorption of Former Soldiers Law (1994) already provides significant benefits for former soldiers, including education grants, housing subsidies, and funding for small business start-ups. This law should preclude the need for any further legislation providing benefits to former soldiers, Adalah argued.

Adalah also argued that it is irrational to provide higher child allowance benefits to former soldiers on the basis of their military service, as many completed this service years, even decades, earlier. Adalah argued that by definition, child allowances exist to serve the poor, and accordingly, socio-economic considerations should be uppermost, not military service. Adalah cited official statistics demonstrating that unemployment and poverty are highest among Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The State further claimed that violations of the right to equality, as a component of the right to dignity, can only be used to declare a law unconstitutional when there is evidence that the law will lead to the humiliation of affected persons. The State claimed that the amendment in question does not satisfy this test. In response, Adalah argued that humiliation is a subjective term, and that it is impossible to state objectively that the law will not lead to the humiliation of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Further, Adalah stated that in any case, any breach of equality is harmful to dignity.

The Supreme Court then questioned the Attorney General's representative intensively on the meaning of equality. When the representative could not provide a satisfactory response, the Court gave the State an additional two weeks to submit their arguments in writing. Following this submission, Adalah will have another two weeks to respond.

See Adalah News Update, "Supreme Court Freezes Discriminatory Budget Cuts in Child Allowances," 13 October 2002.