Following a second hearing of the petition submitted by ACRI to the Supreme Court, to protest the state’‘s decision to renege on its promise to allocate plots of land to dozens of Bedouin families in the town of Laqia, Justice Edmond Levy made clear that a comprehensive solution must be found for this problem that was first brought before the court in 1999. To facilitate this, the court granted an extension to the petitioning parties until November, during which it demanded that ACRI and state representatives hold negotiations to examine two potential areas of compromise: the first, the possible expansion of the town of Laqia to incorporate additional plots of land; and the second, the status of the land to which the residents were temporarily moved as a result of a petition that was submitted in 2000. Justice Levy further made clear that the meeting should take place at the earliest possible date, that any relevant information should be made available, and that the court should be updated as to the level of suitability of the compromise proposals. All the aforementioned, the court reiterated, is to be completed by November.
The Association for Civil Rights (ACRI) submitted the petition to the Supreme Court almost seven years ago, against the Israel Lands Authority (ILA), the Administration for the Promotion of the Bedouin Community in the Negev, and the Minister of National Infrastructures, in the name of fifty Bedouin families from the town of Laqia. The petition was submitted after the ILA failed to honor its commitment, which was made over thirty years ago, to allocate residential plots of land to the Bedouin community. Attorney Yehuda Goldberg, and Attorney Yoni Ran, who submitted the petition on behalf of ACRI, stated in the petition that the ILA’‘s refusal to honor this commitment has resulted in an untenable situation in which dozens of families have been forced to live in dire circumstances without a viable roof over their heads.
At the time of the petition’‘s submission, in October 1999, the Supreme Court issued an order nisi, and instructed the state to explain within 60 days, why the petitioners had not been allocated plots in the town of Laqia or its environs. In its response, the state denied that it was under any obligation to honor its commitment, despite an explicit promise to the families, and even though the state had avowed to act, for humanitarian reasons, to find a solution to this serious problem. In spite of repeated declarations by state officials that the petitioners should and would be settled on land that was free from any claims of private ownership, and that the state is working to expand Laqia’‘s outline plan to accommodate them, and after a number of hearings that were dragged out over several years, the state reneged on all its promises and is currently preparing to settle the petitioners on land that is subject to claims of private ownership.
The fifty petitioners are Bedouins who are Israeli citizens from the A-Sana tribe. The tribe, and the families who are among its members, have lived in the area of Laqia for many generations. As a result of heavy pressure that the state brought to bear on the Bedouins to leave the location in the early 50s, the tribe members were forced to move to the border with Jordan. However, after negotiations were held between the head of the tribe and the Israeli government, a principled agreement was reached by which the members of the tribe would be allowed to return to the area of Laqia. Unfortunately, in contravention of what they were assured, government officials did not settle the tribe members on their land, but rather on land that was subject to ownership claims by other Bedouins in the area of Tel-Arad. The state then informed the residents of its intention to evacuate them from this area as part of a government policy to concentrate the Bedouin population in permanent towns. The residents only agreed to evacuate after they were assured that they would be able to purchase land in Laqia when the town was fully established. The agreement that was reached between the two parties states that the Bedouins would be housed in temporary structures, which would be situated in close proximity to Laqia, until the competition of the town’‘s construction. The Bedouins therefore agreed to transfer to the state the land that was at their disposal in the area of Tel-Arad. Some of them even paid for plots in Laqia, which have still not been transferred to their owners.
Some thirty years have passed since this guarantee was issued, during which the Bedouin citizens have been living in shameful conditions under the assumption that it was a temporary situation that the state had promised to rectify. As a result the Bedouins are living in residential structures that are reminiscent of the tent camps that were established, ad hoc, to house immigrants in the early years of the state. The homes have been built with no proper foundations and with temporary roofs that are made of tin or asbestos (the latter was later defined as a cancerous substance), and in unstable structures that are full of cracks which let water in and cause serious damp problems in the winter months, and which of course provide no protection against excessive heat or cold. Only in the year 2000, and as a result of a submitted petition, were the petitioners allowed to connect the structures to an electricity supply.
In the petition ACRI lays special emphasis on the government’‘s obligation to honor the agreement it reached with the Bedouin community. Even if it is determined that the government agreement is not binding, the petition states, it still represents a state commitment that must be honored. The fact that state officials made these promises, which resulted in individual citizens changing their personal situation for the worse, places a basic and legal obligation on the part of the authority to act fairly towards these citizens and to honor its commitments to them. It should be emphasized that the battle, which has gone on for a number of years, has resulted in a serious violation of the rights of the petitioners and their families who have been unable to live in reasonable and suitable conditions. Respect for the law means the honoring of a governmental commitment which includes undertaking the completion of planning programs, if it is required, in such a way that would enable the petitioning families to receive what was promised to them by the state, and allow them to settle, finally, on a plot of land that is worthy of being called “home”.
In the previous hearing of the petition that was held in January this year, the Supreme Court delayed the hearing in order to allow the petitioners to study the area’‘s new outline plan that is currently being formulated, and to update the court as to the level of suitability of the proposed plan. An examination of this plan reveals that it is not practical, and that it includes a re-recommendation by the state to settle the petitioners on plots of land that have been subject to ownership claims by other Bedouin residents. The plan even ignores compromise proposals that were prepared by the petitioners.
last updated : 17/10/06
