objection (H)
On 24 August 2004, Adalah, in cooperation with the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages, submitted an objection against a proposed plan for the agricultural lands of Kibbutz Shuval (Detailed Plan MSD/30), in accordance with the Planning and Building Law – 1965. The plan was put forward by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA). The objection was submitted to the Joint Regional Committee for Re-division of Agricultural Land (JRC), by Adalah, in the name of seven residents of the Naqab (Negev) and the Arab Center for Alternative Planning (ACAP).
The proposed plan is intended to set out detailed arrangements for registering the lands of Shuval and surrounding area with the Israel Land Registry, and to redefine divisions and re-classify sections of the land. The plan affects 13,532 dunams of land. If passed and implemented, the plan would result in the denial of the rights of the objectors to the plan, and of the landowners' rights to property and to future land use.
The lands at issue are in the Wadi Zuballa region, currently known as Kibbutz Shuval and its surrounding areas. This area was mostly populated by Arab Bedouin, who were living there for decades, even before the establishment of the State of Israel. With the establishment of the state and the imposition of military rule over Arab citizens of Israel (1948-1966), the residents received orders from the regional military governor instructing them to leave the area and to move to other areas in the Naqab. Some of the residents moved to Heirbat Zuballa, which is known today as the Rahat area, while others moved to the area of Hura.
In May 1971, the Israeli Land Registry published a notice in accordance with the Land Registration Ordinance (revised 1969) announcing the beginning of a process of land registration in the Naqab. Some of the region's residents, including the objectors to this plan, submitted land ownership declarations in response to this notice. Since the notice was published and the land claims were filed, no schedule was set, no action was taken, and nothing has been resolved.
In June 2003, Adalah, together with the Committee for the Defence of Land Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in the Naqab (CDLRIDP), filed an objection to the JRC against a similar plan (Detailed Plan MSD/10), also put forward by the ILA. On behalf of the objectors, Adalah argued that the motives behind the plan were illegal, unacceptable and impractical. The objectors added that, "Despite the plan's lack of clarity, an examination of it exposes that its objective is to nullify the land registration process, and deny the Arab objectors to the plan their right to property, and even their right to submit lawful land ownership claims." Following Adalah and CDLRIDP's intervention, the JRC decided to cancel the plan.
In June 2004, the plan was re-submitted, under the title 'Detailed Plan MSD/30', after all of the lands which had been entered into the land registration process had been excluded from it. As a result, the area covered by the plan has been reduced by almost 7,600 dunams.
In the objection, Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara and Adalah's Urban and Regional Planner, Hana Hamdan argued that the plan contains inaccurate information, that it is inconsistent with the aims of the objectives of the Planning and Building Law, and that it was initiated without appropriate legal authority. The objection further contended that the plan is vague and ambiguous, which could impinge upon the transparency of its administration and violate the public's right to know and to object to the plan, as well as the principle of public participation in the planning process, and therefore that it must be cancelled immediately.
Adalah asserted that an analysis of the plan, despite its obscurities, reveals that the fundamental – and conceivably the only – goal behind the plan is "the registration of the lands of Kibbutz Shuval and surrounding area with the Israel Land Registry." This aim contradicts Article 69 of the Planning and Building Law.
Adalah stressed that the plan does not propose to alter the lands' uses, since most of the lands were and remain agricultural, and that its drafters failed to conduct any research or investigations prior to adopting the order for the plan. For instance, they disregarded the current situation in the area, and did not appraise the need for such a plan, nor its likely effects.
Adalah also asserted that the plan's map is incomplete and unclear, and does not present an accurate reflection of the actual situation on the ground. For example, in the key, many of the map's symbols are indistinct and Adalah argued that the plan consequently "… divests interested parties of their right to scrutinize the details of the plan and to object to it."