For the sixth year in a row, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is offering a summer work camp intended to foster learning, discussion, and friendship between Palestinians, Israelis and internationals.
The demolition order against buildings in Anata, north Jerusalem, which for the past 80 years has been home to the Jadua-Kabua clan, a branch of the Jahlin tribe, could have been yet another, standard demolition order, like the scores that Jerusalem municipality issues in East Jerusalem daily. But this time, though, the municipality’s order was not issued under the Planning and Construction Law, but under power of the Municipal By-Law for Maintaining Cleanliness and Order. It is a law governing the removal of junk and waste from public areas.
Initially it could be assumed that the order simply reflected the private whim of an over-energetic city inspector, and that the legal system would retreat from this ploy once a grounded petition against it was submitted. But the municipality stood on its right to apply the by-law, relying on three arguments. First, it claimed, shacks and tents cannot be considered “dwellings” and therefore they are an “obstacle in open land”. It is the city’s duty to remove them “to prevent restrictions to movement, and also to prevent disfigure the appearance of a public place and causing nuisance and disturbance”. For this purpose the municipality cited some statements that were taken out of context. When a Tel-Aviv judge allowed dealing with Yisrael Twito’s encampment of homeless people in the heart of the city, using that same city by-law, Jerusalem city hall rushed to exploit the prize, seeking the same verdict for Bedouin and homeless demonstrators. Anyway, the municipality claimed, the clan’s dwellings cannot be considered “structures” because they can be “dismantled” and are not made of concrete or bricks. Second, even if they did consider the shacks and tents as “homes” they would have had to be demolished, because they were erected without a licence, in an open public area. And third, the municipality continued, a Bedouin tribe has no place in Israel’s capital, or in its words “it is a way of life that is unsuitable for the capital of Israel”.
The municipality’s claims are infuriating. Apart from the warped, condescending logic of its argument that the structures cannot be considered “homes” on the grounds of the “city’s appearance,” this also reflects a new level of hypocrisy. Where the Jadua clan reside is located next to the rubbish dump, where trucks unload construction waste, without licence, and without impediment. No less irritating is the assertion about building without a licence – because there is no greater offender in Jerusalem than the municipality itself, in everything pertaining to breaches of the Construction Law. Attesting to this is the municipality’s admission that in any case it is impossible to issue a building licence, because there is no city master-plan relating to the land. In other words, the municipality admits that, although the area has been under its control for over 40 years, and even though the law requires the local authority to plan its jurisdiction within a reasonable timeframe, it has failed to do so. Not does premise accord with recently published rulings, like those of Tel-Aviv District Court Judge Michal Agmon, Beersheva Magistrates Court Judge Yisrael Axelrod, and Justice Daniel Frisch in Haifa. All three have held that when the local authority is negligent and failed to draw up a master-plan, that is, has not upheld the law, it may not be enforced on the citizens either.
But the third argument is more important: someone in the municipality decided that there is no room for Bedouin in Israel’s capital. One can well ask, how come that it was a Bedouin tent that disturbed the municipality so much, while Israel’s capital is unembarrassed by appalling poor neighbourhoods – like those on Nurit, Stern or Hevroni Streets, or even a refugee camp like Shuafat. In fact though, there’s nothing new here. The methodical displacement of people from their land has been going on ever since our first days here. And the “light hand on the keyboard” in the civil service, is just an administrative version of the security forces’ “light hand on the trigger”. Except what was once written with a rather trembling hand, is now written far more confidently.
In March 2008, a hearing on the matter opened in Jerusalem’s Court of Local Affairs – A.L.S. 8047/08 - before Justice David Cheshin. It was conducted at the usual languid pace. Using sterile, polite language – “my learned colleagues”, “my distinguished friend” – the parties’ attorneys addressed each other and dealt with questions of interpretation. The city’s attorney tried to prove that Bedouin shacks do not match the definition of the term “home” as it appears in the Planning & Construction Law. The Bedouin’s attorney tried to prove that the land where they are situated does not comply with the term “street” as defined in the Planning & Construction Law. As usual, the judge made great efforts not to rule conclusively. Using a fatherly tone, he chided the municipality lawyer that it is inappropriate to evacuate people by means of an order intended for the evacuation of rubbish, and then asked – almost pleaded with – him, to withdraw the order. However, it is not within the attorney’s authority to decide himself, it transpired – he must consult with the general-manager of the municipality, because the instruction – unsurprisingly – comes from security agencies. Apparently the Bedouin are not disturbing anyone apart from the course of the wall, and so their fate is cast. The judge himself wondered “Are you contractors for the Defence Ministry?” but ultimately granted the municipality an extension in which to reconsider its position. As is the way of judges, Justice Cheshin wanted to avoid stirring up the system, and perhaps that is why, almost miraculously, the citing of the Defence Ministry cannot be found in the Minutes of the court proceedings (those involved no longer need the board of censors, they already know what is expected of them).
A month of deliberations elapsed until the municipality attorney delivered his response to the court. The municipality is prepared to abandon the evacuation by means of the Evacuation of Junk Law. That concession is contingent on any new structures erected by the Bedouin being removed in reliance on that law. A question of honour? Permission for future crimes? In any event, the attorney for the Bedouin, Advocate Shlomo Lecker, gave his consent to the arrangement, and the case has been closed. In the meantime, that is.
About ICAHD ICAHD is a non-violent, direct-action group originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories.
