petition (H)
On 28 March 2004, the Attorney General’s Office submitted its response to a petition and a motion for an injunction filed by Adalah to the Supreme Court on 19 October 2003 demanding the cancellation of a discriminatory Israel Lands Administration (ILA) land distribution decision to award a 90% discount on the leasing of “state lands” to discharged soldiers. Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara filed the petition on behalf of the National Committee of Arab Mayors and in Adalah’s own name against the ILA, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry and Trade. Responding to Adalah’s argument that the use of a military service criterion in land resource allocation discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel on the basis of national belonging, the Attorney General’s Office claimed as follows: (1) the first aim of the decision is to strengthen small villages and towns in the National Priority Areas in the Galilee and in the Naqab (Negev) 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.”
One of the main arguments raised by the petitioners is that the use of military service as a criterion to award lucrative benefits to former soldiers discriminates against the Arab minority because Arab citizens are exempt from and do not serve in the military or do national service. Thus, they are completely excluded from the group who would enjoy this extremely valuable benefit – the ability to purchase leasing rights to state-controlled land for a fraction of its value. The Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - 1994 provides numerous social and economic benefits for discharged soldiers, and thus, Adalah contended, any benefits granted in addition to those already provided by the law, aims to exclude Arab citizens of Israel. Adalah further argued that the relevant criteria for granting discounts on the price of leasing lands should based on the socio-economic situation of an individual. Moreover, if indeed the ILA decision aims to reward those who contributed to state security, a discharged Israeli soldier, based on this criterion, will be able to acquire land for almost nothing, and yet, he would be to sell it to an individual who did not serve in the military at all. This result is illogical in light of the stated aims of the ILA decision. As there is no clear link between the qualifying criterion of military service and the aim of encouraging residents to move to peripheral areas, it appears that the aim of this decision is to direct more Jewish citizens of the state to these regions. Thus, the ILA decision fails to adhere to the principle of “just allocation,” which was adopted by the Supreme Court.
Another main argument set forth in Adalah’s petition is that the ILA’s decision is discriminatory and arbitrary as it applies solely to Jewish towns and villages - 141 in the Galilee and 157 in the Naqab. No Arab towns or villages in the north or the south were included in the ILA decision. While very few Arab villages in the Galilee and the Naqab have less than 500 residential units and fall with National Priority Area “A” and “B”, although they rank lowest on all socio-economic indices and suffer from severe land and housing problems, even these villages were excluded from the ILA’s decision. In a separate petition which has been pending before the Supreme Court since 1998, Adalah is challenging the government’s authority to determine the National Priority Area 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) Selected towns classified as “A” or “B” priority areas receive substantial benefits such as extra educational funding, additional mortgage grants and tax exemptions to residents, and tax breaks to local industries. The government assigns priority status almost exclusively to Jewish development and border towns, and to settlements in the 1967 Occupied Territories. Almost all severely socio-economically depressed Arab towns are excluded from “A” priority area status.
In response to this argument, the Attorney General wrote that following an additional review, 14 small Arab towns, which adhere to the geographic criteria as set forth in the ILA decision, would be added to the list.
In earlier proceedings, in December 2003, the Supreme Court denied the motion for injunction, rejecting the petitioners’ request to freeze the implementation of the ILA decision. The Court also decided to join this petition to Adalah’s case challenging the National Priority Areas list (noted above). Further, the Court 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 Supreme Court to these cases. No date for the next Supreme Court hearing has been set.
H.C. 9289/03, Adalah, et. al. v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al. (case pending).