Adalah: “The Supreme Court’s decision contains a grave error of law in that it considered that the disputed financial support to former soldiers was established by a specific law, while in fact it was determined on the basis of a governmental policy and governmental directives.”

On 8 February 2007, Adalah filed a motion to the Supreme Court of Israel requesting a second hearing on the petition challenging substantial financial support or “extended support” – in the form of low-interest governmental loans – which is provided by the state for home mortgages to Israeli citizens who have completed military or national service. This “extended support” is provided in addition to and supplements generous financial support that is already given to former soldiers for housing as well as other benefits under the Absorption of Former Soldiers Law – 1994. According to the law, this support and these benefits are limited to a period of five years after the end of an individual’s military or national service. On 13 December 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that granting benefits even after the five-year period stipulated in the law is legitimate. (See H.C. 11956/05, Suhad Bishara, et al. v. The Ministry of Construction and Housing.) According to the Ministry of Construction and Housing’s policy, a married couple in a poor socio-economic situation, each of whom completed full military service, gets NIS 125,000 (approximately US $30,000) more towards their home mortgage than a similarly-situated married couple neither of whom served in the military or completed national service.

In the motion, Adalah argued that there is a grave error of law in the Supreme Court’s decision, in that the Court considered that the disputed support was established by a specific law. However, this support is not specified in any law but was determined on the basis of a governmental policy and governmental directives, specifically the internal directives of the Ministry of Construction and Housing. Adalah Attorney Marwan Dalal filed the original petition and the motion for a second hearing.

Adalah also argued that the Supreme Court’s decision contradicts many of its own previous rulings. Firstly, the Court disregarded its prior rulings in which it held that illegal discrimination can exist when the government intends to discriminate or when discrimination is the result of a governmental policy. Secondly, the Court disregarded its landmark decision delivered on a petition filed by Adalah against the exclusion of Arab towns from the list of ‘National Priority Areas’. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled on 27 February 2006 that the government is not permitted to grant significant benefits affecting a large or specific group of citizens based on its own decisions and policies but rather Knesset legislation is required. (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).

Adalah further argued that the Supreme Court should re-consider its decision as it entails harsh and intolerable consequences. In issuing its decision to dismiss the original petition, the Court disregarded the socio-economic crisis faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel, in addition to the Absorption of Former Soldiers Law, which enumerates the benefits to be awarded to those who undertake military and national service, for a period of five years after the completion of their service. Adalah emphasized that the Arab minority in Israel has not been asked to perform military service and cannot do so on the grounds of its social status and historical circumstances.

H.C. 1241/07, Suhad Bishara, et al. v. The Minister of Construction and Housing (filed 8/2/07, case pending)

 The Motion (Hebrew)
 The Supreme Court's Decision in H.C. 11956/05 (Hebrew)