On 3 May 2004, a Supreme Court hearing was held on a petition and a motion for an injunction filed by Adalah demanding that the Ministry of Education (MOE) issue a public bid for a replacement for Moshe Shohat, the former Head of the Bedouin Education Authority (BEA), among Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel in the Naqab (Negev). As a result of the filing of this petition, in 2003, Shohat was dismissed and compelled to leave his position. Adalah later learned from media reports that the MOE had appointed a new BEA head, without a bid and without notification to the petitioners or the Supreme Court, and sought, in November 2003, to freeze this appointment.

In its initial response to the motion, the state claimed that the new appointment was temporary, made in the usual course of filling vacant positions. At the hearing, the legal representative of the Attorney General’s Office notified the Supreme Court that the state intends to dismantle the BEA by January 2005. The state also informed the Court that in place of the BEA, the newly planned Abu-Basma Regional Council would provide all educational services to children living in both the seven newly planned Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab as well as to the rest of the unrecognized villages.

Representing the petitioners, Adalah Attorney Marwan Dalal countered that the state’s position was unreasonable, as the individual currently filling the post was appointed outside of any legal process. Under the law, the MOE has a duty to publish public bids for open positions. When this obligation is postponed, as the MOE did in this case, a legal vacuum is created. Moreover, he argued that the Abu-Basma Regional Council was merely in the planning stages and did not currently exist in order to takeover the enormous responsibility of not only providing educational services to the newly planned towns that would fall within its jurisdiction, but also to the thousands of children living in the Naqab outside of its boundaries. The Supreme Court decided that there was no further need to continue hearing the case on the grounds that the main purpose of the petition – the dismissal of Moshe Shohat – had been met and that there was no need for a public bid given the state’s commitment before the Court to dismantle the BEA in the coming few months.

On 23 September 2001, Adalah Attorney Marwan Dalal filed the petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of 49 petitioners, including parents’ committees, students, and NGOs against the Minister of Education and the Head of the BEA. The petitioners sought to compel the MOE to dismiss Shohat in light of the racist statements he made; to issue a public bid for his replacement among Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel in the Naqab; and to comprehensively examine his management practices. Founded in 1981, the BEA is the agency appointed by the MOE to manage the education system in the unrecognized Arab villages in the Naqab. Shohat had served as the head of the BEA, the highest official position in the agency, since 1984, where he also sat on committees to appoint teachers. The petitioners provided evidence to the Court of Shohat’s failures to uphold his responsibilities as head of the BEA, including numerous letters of complaint from parents over the years, newspaper articles about demonstrations held to protest BEA policies, as well as other relevant reports. Many of these failures were also cited in the report of the Katz Committee, a Knesset-appointed body charged with reviewing the education system in the Naqab. Moreover, in an interview with the New York-based newspaper The Jewish Week published on 20 July 2001, Shohat spoke of “bloodthirsty Bedouins who commit polygamy, have 30 children, and continue to expand their illegal settlements, taking over state land.” Shohat further commented that: “In their culture, they take care of their needs outdoors. They don’t even know how to flush a toilet.”

In response to a public outcry immediately after the publication of Shohat’s statements, the MOE appointed an official to examine the issue. Adalah attempted to obtain a copy of the examiner’s report, prior to the filing of the petition, however, the MOE refused to release it. Adalah later learned that the examiner had recommended, among other things, that Shohat be immediately put on leave, that an open bid is published to hire for the position, and that a comprehensive check is made of the BEA.

The MOE did not adopt the recommendations of its own examiner, and in its initial response to the petition before the Supreme Court, even complimented Shohat, expressing appreciation and support both for him and for his work with the community. The MOE also asserted that it had no authority to dismiss him. Adalah countered that the Ministry did in fact have the power to dismiss Shohat, as it established the BEA and supplies its budget, including Shohat’s salary. Subsequently, the MOE reversed its position and informed the Court on 25 March 2002 that it intended to dismiss Shohat as a result of financial irregularities in his management of the BEA. One year later, after additional arguments were filed over whether the MOE in fact had the authority to fire the BEA head, in March 2003, the Director of the MOE finally ordered his dismissal.

H.C. 7383/01, Megel el-Hawashleh, et. al. v. Minister of Education, et. al. (decision delivered 3 May 2004).

petition (H) motion for injunction (H) SC ruling (H)