On 7 April 2008, the Israel Land Administration (ILA) sent its response to a letter filed by Adalah challenging the ILA Council’s Decision 1111 dated 25 May 2007, according to which “The Israel Land Administration will not grant land rights to a foreigner and will not consent to the transfer of land rights to a foreigner, including through transfer by inheritance or gift, except by approval of the Chairman of the ILA Council.” The land rights referred to in the ILA Decision are rights to lease state land for a period of more than five years or to own state land. In its response, the ILA’s legal counsel argued that, “The decision aims to create a control mechanism by establishing the requirement to receive approval in advance, usually from the Chairman of the ILA Council, as a condition for the transferal of rights to foreigners.”

Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara sent the letter to the ILA and the Attorney General on 17 March 2008, demanding the cancellation of the decision and that the ILA refrain from imposing unjustified and unconstitutional restrictions on the property rights of Arab citizens of Israel. Attorney Bishara argued that the practical result of the decision is that Arab citizens will be unable to pass on their rights to ILA-administered lands to family members living overseas who do not hold Israeli citizenship, and that they will be unable to jointly acquire land with spouses who are residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and who have often been waiting for years to receive residency status or citizenship in Israel following the enactment of the Citizenship and Entry to Israel Law (Temporary Order) – 2003. “This is a restriction that will apply primarily to the Arab population in the state, since the family members of a Jewish citizen will usually be eligible for an immigrant visa or immigrant documentation or citizenship under the Law of Return,” Adalah argued in the letter.

The letter also argued that the decision discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel on the basis of national belonging, severely violates the right to property and is contrary to the principle of equality. In its response the ILA refused to overturn the decision and argued that its policy is “reasonable and proportionate.”

The Letter (Hebrew)
The ILA’s Response (Hebrew)