On 6 November 2008, Adalah submitted its concluding arguments to the Beer el-Sabe (Beer Sheva) Magistrates’ Court against evacuation orders issued by the state of Israel against all residents of the unrecognized Arab Bedouin village of Atir–Umm el-Hieran in the Naqab (Negev). Never in the judicial history of the State of Israel has a court delivered a decision to destroy an entire village and expel all of its residents, as the state is requesting that it do so in this case.
The arguments were submitted by Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara, and contained an historical overview of the village, which was established in 1956 at the order of the military regime, after the Israeli army had expelled its current residents from their original village in the region of Wadi Zaballa. The army then prevented them from returning to their land, which was allocated for the use of the Jewish residents of “Kibbutz Shuval”.
Indeed, the state expelled the villagers from their homes in 1948, and relocated them from their homes to the area of Kharbet al-Huzeil, and then once again to Kahla and Abu Kaff. In 1956, they were expelled for a third time to Atir-Umm el-Hieran where they are living today. In Atir–Umm el-Hieran, the villagers rebuilt their homes as permanent structures made from brick and cement. They made great efforts to resume their social and tribal lives, which were disrupted each time they were expelled from their homes. Today, around 150 families live in the village, and its population stands at approximately 1,000 people, all members of the Abu al-Qian clan.
In the concluding arguments, Attorney Bishara emphasized that it is apparent from the government's master plan that was drafted for the area and received approval in 2002 that the expulsion of the residents of Atir–Umm el-Hieran and the destruction of the village is designed to allow for the establishment of a Jewish village on the land named “Hiran”. The official documents attached to the plan reveal that the planning authorities treated the existence of the Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel in the area on which the state wishes to create a new Jewish village as a “problem.”
Adalah has provided the court with a document marked "confidential" from the state’s archives dated 28 August 1957 and that has been signed by a person named Loubrani from the Prime Minister’s Office stating that, “The members of the Abu al-Qian tribe have consented to move to the area of Atir and have rented alternative land in accordance with the criteria established by the Ministry of Agriculture, and are engaging in agriculture” (land defined as state land is generally not sold but is rented to citizens on long-term leases for a token sum). The document indicates that the village was approved by the government. Furthermore, in 1997, the village was hit by a hurricane, which resulted in the destruction of many houses. Shortly after the storm, the Minister of Infrastructure visited the village and provided financial assistance from the government to its inhabitants to enable them to rebuild the destroyed houses.
Testimonies by governmental experts that have been presented to the court at previous hearings demonstrate that there is nothing to prevent the redrafting of the engineering plan for the village, and to allow the village to develop rather than demolish it. However, the only option that has been seriously considered by the state is the evacuation and destruction of the village. These testimonies also show that the government’s experts have not examined the repercussions of their decision to destroy the village on its inhabitants, which include the violation of their constitutional rights to property and dignity. Further, the decision will leave the villagers homeless, without a permanent abode, and will cause them severe economic harm.
The case of Atir–Umm el-Hieran is totally different from previous cases in which the courts have examined orders to evacuate villages, stated Adalah, i.e., the expulsion of the residents of the Palestinian villages of Iqrith and Bir’am, and the removal of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. The expulsions from Iqrith and Bir’am, according to the state, were carried out according to military orders issued in the early 1950s. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court made numerous recommendations that an agreement should be reached that would allow the village’s residents to return to their homes, something which has not been achieved even today.
As regards the Gaza settlements, they were dismantled in accordance with a Knesset-enacted law and not an administrative order, as is the case of Atir–Umm el-Hieran. Moreover, in the case of the Gaza settlements, the law guaranteed the rights of the settlers under the “evacuation and compensation” agreement. Further, as the Supreme Court reasoned, the evacuation of the settlements was possible under Israeli law and international law because the Gaza Strip was not considered to be a part of the State of Israel, and that under the laws of occupation, the Israeli presence in Gaza was temporary, not permanent.
Adalah therefore demanded that the Beer el-Sabe Magistrates’ Court cancel the evacuation and demolition orders issued by the government.