Court\u2019s Response: <\/u><\/em><\/h4>\n

\n
1. There has been no demand for exclusively Arab communal settlements. In reality, the State of Israel is discriminating through this policy, even though the reason for separation is not a desire to discriminate.<\/li>\n
2. The Court does not accept an approach that places the values of the State of Israel as a justification for discrimination between its citizens on the basis of nationality or religion. Jewish heritage is certainly a central component of Israel’s religious and cultural heritage, but this does not mean that the State will discriminate between its citizens.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

   The Court recognizes that if the land for the communal settlement had been allocated directly by the State, the State would have been obliged to act equally towards all those who applied for the right to build a house on it. Anyone could have competed for the right to build a house in the Katzir communal settlement.<\/p>\n

   However, in this case it is not the State itself that transfers the land. This raises the question: Has the State itself violated its obligation to act equally when a third party to whom State land has been transferred adopts a policy of allocating land exclusively to Jews? Yes, what the State cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly. The State cannot escape its legal obligation to respect the principle of equality by using a third party that adopts a discriminatory policy. A State action carried out in a discriminatory manner by a third party does not lose its discriminatory character simply because it was carried out by the Jewish Agency.<\/p>\n

   Conclusion: <\/u><\/em><\/h4>\n

   The State of Israel violated its duty to act in accordance with the principle of equality by transferring the land to the Jewish Agency. It is from the duty of \u00a0the State to consider the request of the claimants to purchase for themselves a plot of land in the settlement of Katzir for the purpose of building a house.<\/p>\n

   [author_and_contact_info]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

   Our office provides summaries of key High Court of Justice rulings that affected current interpretations of Israeli law. This article explains the case of Aadel Ka\u2019adan v. Israel Lands Administration, which helped clarify issues of Israeli land law. \u00a0The case of Aadel Ka’adan v. Israel Lands Administration is a landmark ruling made by the Israeli…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[627,150],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgment-summaries","category-real-estate-property-law-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n