Seeking Cancellation of Discriminatory ILA Land Distribution Decision
In 10/03, Adalah filed a petition and a motion for an injunction to the Supreme Court on behalf of the National Committee of Arab Mayors and in its own name against the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Industry and Trade. The petitioners asked the Court to cancel an ILA decision, approved by the government, which awards a 90% discount on the price of leasing lands managed by the ILA to discharged Israeli soldiers and individuals who have completed one year of national service. The ILA decision applies to 423 towns containing fewer than 500 residential units in the Galilee in the north of Israel and the Naqab (Negev) in the south that also have been designated by the government as National Priority Areas, and entails a massive redistribution of land. None of the towns covered by the ILA decision was Arab. Towns classified as "A" or "B" priority areas receive substantial, lucrative benefits such as extra educational funding, additional mortgage grants and tax exemptions to residents, and tax breaks to local industries.
Adalah argued that the ILA's decision discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel on the basis of national belonging, both at the level of the individual, since only individuals who have performed military or national service are eligible for the lucrative benefit of being able to lease lands at 10% of their market value, and at the level of towns and villages, since the decision only applies to towns and villages previously designated as national priority areas by the government. The government assigns national priority status almost exclusively to Jewish towns and settlements. Therefore, the decision violates their rights to equality and housing. Further, Adalah contended, there is no clear link between the qualifying criteria of military service and the stated aim of the decision, which is to bring residents to the Galilee and the Naqab: rather, by conditioning this benefit on military service, it appears that the actual aim of the decision is to direct more Jewish citizens of the state to these regions. Adalah further contended that the Law of Absorption of Soldiers - 1994 provides a wide scope of social and economic benefits for discharged soldiers, and thus any additional benefits aim to exclude Arab citizens of Israel. Adalah also argued that the ILA's decision is arbitrary, as it fails to consider relevant socio-economic factors in affording such a benefit. Arab villages in the Galilee and in the Naqab are almost completely excluded from the national priority areas list, although they rank lowest on all socio-economic indices and suffer from severe land and housing problems.
At a hearing in 12/03, the Court decided to join this petition for hearing to another petition filed by Adalah, pending since 1998, which challenges the government's authority to determine the national priority areas list without clear objective criteria or legislation (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). The Court also decided that the cases will be heard before an expanded panel of seven justices. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) has also filed a petition challenging the ILA decision (H.C. 10248/03, Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al.), which was joined by the Court to this case.
In 3/04, the Attorney General's (AG) Office submitted its response to the petition and motion for injunction, claiming that: (1) the first aim of the decision is to strengthen small villages and towns in the national priority areas by encouraging residents to move to peripheral regions; and (2) the second aim of the decision is "to grant a reward to those who donated their free time to the public, and at times even endangered their lives during military service or national service." The response fails to counter Adalah's argument that, by making the 90% leasing discount contingent on military service, its ostensible aim is the "Judaization" of peripheral areas. Moreover, if the ILA decision aims to reward those who contributed to state security, based on this criterion a discharged Israeli soldier could acquire land for almost nothing, and yet could sell it on years later to a person who did not serve in the military. This result is illogical in light of the stated aims of the ILA decision. In response to Adalah's argument in the petition that ILA's decision is discriminatory and arbitrary, the AG declared the addition of 14 small Arab towns to the list of towns covered by the ILA's decision.
At a hearing in 11/04 before a seven-justice panel, Chief Justice Barak stated that, in his opinion, conditioning state land distribution on military or national service will result in discrimination against Arab citizens. The AG's representative set forth the arguments advanced in the AG's response of 3/04, adding that the decision was not intended to harm the petitioners' interests, but to improve those of discharged soldiers. Adalah countered that, while the state claims that the small towns listed as eligible for the discount are in need of financial assistance, it has failed to provide information detailing their socio-economic situation. Nor did the state demonstrate during the hearing that the small towns listed in the decision do indeed require financial support. Adalah further countered that the state's justification fails to adequately explain the relationship between granting the benefit of being able to lease state lands at a fraction of their market value, and the restriction of those entitled to receive this benefit to discharged soldiers, and that the state did not demonstrate why the benefit should not be extended to other groups.
Result: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in 7/06 at a hearing, on the grounds that the ILA decision, which was valid only for a period of two years, had expired and the petition had become moot. The ILA did not extend the decision. As Adalah argued at the hearing, the result of the Court's delay in hearing the petition was that ILA-managed lands continued to be leased according to the conditions of the decision for its two-year duration, without effective judicial review. Further, despite Adalah's requests, the Court refused to issue an injunction freezing the implementation of the decision. In its decision, the Court noted that it would strive in the future to hear petitions which require prompt treatment in a more expeditious manner.
H.C. 9289/03, Adalah, et. al. v. Israel Lands Administration, et. al. (petition dismissed)
