Jewish National Fund Plants Forests Illegally in Order to “Maintain Control” of the Land
On 13 December 2010, Adalah sent a letter to the Israel Land Administration (ILA) demanding the cancellation of an internal ILA decision issued in 2007 that orders public land to be transferred to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) for forestation purposes. The decision was issued despite the fact that the land in question is not earmarked for forestation in the national master plan, but rather for the purpose of “maintaining control” of the land, as stated in the decision. In practice, by transferring public land to the JNF, a body that openly states that it serves the interests of Jewish citizens of Israel only, the decision will be used to prevent Arab use of the land, especially in the Naqab (Negev).
In the letter, Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara argued that the issue of forests in Israel is covered by special National Master Plan No. 22, which sets out the areas that have been assigned for forestation throughout the country. Furthermore, by law once the master plan has been approved by the competent authorities it assumes the status of law. Therefore, the forestation of any area that has not been assigned for that purpose in the master plan is illegal. In addition, according to Supreme Court case law no area of the country may be forested without a detailed plan being prepared for it, drafted on the basis of the special national master plan for forestation.
Adalah emphasized that the forestation of land outside the scope of the special national master plan and further detailed master plans violates the principle of transparency and compromises the public's right to object to plans that may cause harm to themselves and their interests. The public has the right to submit objections to a detailed plan for the planting of a forest in a specific area, in accordance with the Planning and Building Law (1965). Thus arbitrary forestation that is not based on planning, such as that permitted by the aforementioned ILA decision, denies the public their right to object and protest.
Adalah further argued that decisions to forest land must be viewed within the wider context of the general operation of the ILA, and in particular a further ILA decision regulating the process of the transfer of land to cooperative societies and regional councils in order to protect the land “from persons who would use it without permission,” particularly in the Galilee and the Naqab (Negev). The decision also supplements the determined efforts of the ILA to uproot the unrecognized Arab Bedouin villages in the Naqab.
