Adalah: “Moving public services such as the employment office in Sakhnin from Arab towns to Jewish towns in Israel, deprives Arab citizens of the rights to dignity, equality and a minimum standard of living as well as the right to the city.”

On 4 May 2006, the Supreme Court of Israel held a hearing on a petition filed by Adalah on 25 April 2006 against the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor and the “Tureq Handassa 1993 LTD” company seeking to overturn a decision to close the employment office in Sakhnin, a large Arab town in the north of Israel. While the Supreme Court acknowledged the right of Arab citizens of Israel living in Sakhnin to receive public services in the town, including the services of an employment office, the Court advised Adalah to withdraw the petition on the grounds that the company had won a published bid to find an alternative building to house the employment office in the industrial area of Tradyon, located within the jurisdictional borders of the Misgav Regional Council.

Adalah Attorney Sawsan Zaher filed the petition on behalf of two couples from Sakhnin, who have been using the services of the employment office to seek work on a weekly basis, and in Adalah’s own name.

The Sakhnin employment office has been in operation since 1992, and currently serves approximately 58,000 people living in the five towns of Sakhnin, Arrabe, Dir Hana, Kawkab Abu al-Hija and Sha’ab, including approximately 3,000 unemployed individuals. In the petition, Adalah argued that the decision to close the office is extremely unreasonable, as it violates the basic rights of the people living in the five towns, including their right to dignity, equality and to a minimum standard of living. Those who seek to use the services provided by the employment office are unemployed Palestinian citizens of Israel looking for work, and many of whom live in extremely poor socio-economic conditions. As a result of the decision to move the office, they will be forced to use a significant portion of their already low income, obtained from the social security system, on covering the cost of travel to and from the new employment office.

An additional burden on the job-seekers, who include elderly individuals, includes the infrequent and irregular availability of public transport from the Arab towns to the industrial area in Misgav. Further, the residents will be forced to walk an additional distance (around 600 meters) from the bus station to the employment office, as the buses do not pass by the new building designated for the new office, but only as far as the main street which runs parallel to the industrial area.

Attorney Zaher added that closing the employment office in Sakhnin and transferring it to an area under the jurisdiction of another local authority, violates their right to their city and realizing their residency in their own town. It is the right of the residents of Sakhnin to receive public services in their own town, and not to be forced to travel to other towns, even neighboring towns, in order to receive services. It is their right to enjoy services which they can access in the area in which they live. Adalah contended in the petition that as a result of the decision to move the office, direct employment services will be made unavailable in one of the largest Arab towns in Israel.

The petitioners also argued that the decision discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel living in Sakhnin relative to Jewish citizens living in other towns with similar populations and rates of unemployment. For instance, all Jewish towns without an employment office are of a high socio-economic status, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and enjoy a low level of unemployment. Therefore, there is not a strong need for employment offices in such towns. By contrast, most Arab towns without employment offices, including Sakhnin, are ranked at the bottom of the CBS’s socio-economic scale; indeed, they are officially classified as areas of high unemployment with rates exceeding 18%.

In their written response to the petition, the respondents claimed that the decision to announce a bid for funding a public building was made following an order from the Akka Magistrate Court to cease the operation of the employment office. The order was issued in accordance with a demand made by the "Lev Haglil" Local Committee for Planning and Building, which claimed that the building which had been leased to serve as the employment office in Sakhnin was not licensed to be used for a “public purpose,” and it, therefore, could not continue to provide governmental services. The respondents further contended that, following the aforementioned closure, the “Tureg Handassa 1993 LTD” company had won a public bid to find an alternative building for the employment office. As a result, the respondents requested that the petition be dismissed.

H.C. 3441/06, Manal Gantous, et. al. v. Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, et. al. (petition withdrawn)