Use of Arabic on Signs in Mixed Cities.

A joint petition with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) was filed in 6/99 against the mixed Arab-Jewish cities of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Ramle, Lod, Akka (Acre), and Natseret Illit, demanding that these municipalities add Arabic to all traffic, warning and other informational signs in their jurisdiction. At the time of the petition’s filing, the signs appeared only in Hebrew and/or in English. The petitioners’ argued that since Arabic is an official language in Israel together with the Hebrew, according to Article 82 of the Palestine Order-in-Council (1922) the municipalities must post signs in at least both languages. This law, which was originally codified under the British Mandate, was later adopted by the Knesset and became part of Israeli law. By request of the Court, the AG joined the case as a respondent, and submitted a legal opinion in which he defended the partial and discretionary use of Arabic by the municipalities, and emphasized the superior status of Hebrew, despite the identical official status of both languages.

Result # 1: In 7/02, the Supreme Court ruled, 2-1, in favor of the petitioners’ request. Chief Justice Aharon Barak and Justice Dalia Dorner delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice Barak reasoned that the right to equality, the freedom to use one’s own language, and the special status of the Arabic language as opposed to other minority languages in Israel, mandated that the mixed-city municipalities use Arabic on their informational signs. Justice Dorner, in reaching the same result, relied on Article 82 of the Palestine Order-in-Council (1922), namely, the official status of the Arabic language in Israel. Justice Mishael Heshin, who wrote a minority opinion, argued that the majority decision constitutes the recognition of collective rights for the Arab minority that finds no basis in Israeli law. In his opinion, this politically sensitive issue is non-justiciable, and the appropriate forum to deal with the matter is the Knesset. Despite this favorable ruling, the Court did not decide that the Arabic language is equal in status to the Hebrew language; in fact, all three justices stressed the superiority and dominance of the Hebrew language in Israel.

Result # 2: Following the Court’s decision, in 8/02 and 9/02, the municipalities and the AG requested a second hearing. They claimed that an additional hearing on the case should be held as the Court’s judgment sets forth a precedent as to the official status of the Arabic language and recognizes collective rights for the Arab minority in Israel. In 8/03, the Supreme Court delivered its decision on the request for a second hearing. In the four-page judgment, Justice Matza ruled that the Court’s 2002 decision did not constitute a broad precedent regarding the status of the Arabic language in Israel. He explained that the decision applies only to the mixed-city municipalities, especially since the judgment of the majority - Justices Barak and Dorner - relied on different arguments and legal bases, although they arrived at the same outcome regarding the case. Further, Justice Matza stated that the denial of the request for a second hearing relates directly to the socio-political character of the issue, namely, that the requesters have “other venues,” more suitable than the Supreme Court, to contend with this issue.

(H.C. 4112/99, Adalah, et. al. v. The Municipalities of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, et. al., decision delivered 25 July 2002; request for a second hearing denied on 14 August 2003).

  Supreme Court Decision of 25 July 2002 in English