The Petition (H)
On 13 September 2006, Adalah submitted a petition to the Supreme Court of Israel challenging the state’s compensation scheme for war damages to businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as discriminatory against Arab towns in the north of Israel and Arab citizens of Israel. Specifically, the petition challenged three designations and compensation formulas regulated by the Minister of Finance, Avraham Hirshzon, in July 2006 as they apply to: ‘border towns’; ‘restricted towns’; and ‘not-for-profit organizations’. The petition was submitted by Adalah Attorney Sawsan Zaher.
Regarding ‘border towns’, the petition sought an order requiring the Finance Minister to grant the status of ‘border towns’ to four Arab villages in the north of Israel, which are currently excluded. Residents of the towns and villages afforded such status are eligible for higher compensation payments for damages incurred during the war between Israel and Hizbullah under the amended Property Tax Regulations and Restitution Fund (Compensations Payments) (Direct and Indirect War Damages) (Temporary Order), 2006. The four villages – Arab al-Aramshe, Fasuta, Ma’alia and Jesh (Gush Halav) – are located on or very close to the border with Lebanon and in close geographic proximity to Jewish towns granted the status of ‘border towns.’ All four Arab villages suffered serious damages during the war. The petition further demands the setting of clear, transparent and equitable criteria for the granting of ‘border town‘ status.
In the petition, Adalah also requested that an equitable policy be determined for the calculation of compensation payments covering the remaining towns and villages in northern Israel, which have been classified as ‘restricted towns’. This would entail applying an equal method of compensation, in accordance with the Property Tax Regulations and Restitution Fund (Compensation Payments) (Direct and Indirect War Damages), 1973, to all towns and villages exposed to the same dangers during the war.
Adalah further demanded that the Finance Minister not exclude not-for-profit organizations (or NGOs) from those organizations and businesses entitled to compensation for indirect damages sustained as a result of the war. These organizations, which rely on donations for one third of their income, were omitted from those defined as ‘damaged’ and entitled to compensation payments for indirect damages sustained during the war, including compensation for salaries to employees. The petitioners contended that this exclusion constitutes discrimination based on type of association.
Adalah submitted the petition on behalf of two business owners from Ma’alia and Jesh who suffered damage to their businesses as a result of the war. The fact that Ma’alia and Jesh were included solely in the Ministry of Finance’s list of ‘restricted towns’ and not on the list of ‘border towns’ grants them lower compensation payments.
The petition was also submitted on behalf of a number of Arab organizations, including the High Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel, the Kayan Feminist Organization, The Arab Business Club in Israel, The Galilee Society and in Adalah’s own name. The first two of these organizations have been damaged by the exclusion of not-for-profit organizations from the definition of those ‘damaged’ under the amended regulations.
As Adalah maintained in the petition, “The legal situation, which results from discriminatory regulations, constitutes disproportionate damage to constitutional rights: the right to equality, the right to freedom of occupation, the right to property and the right to freedom of association. The regulations are inappropriate and disproportionate; therefore they do meet the conditions of the test of the limitation clause, as stipulated in the Basic Laws.”
H.C. 7444/06, Abeer Shehade, et al. v. The Minister of Finance, et al. (case pending)
