Concealed Intentions- JLAC-.pdf

oundaries, and how it sees the existence of agricultural buildings as of lesser importance in terms of inclusion
within the boundaries. Moreover, since the area between the two neighborhoods belongs to residents of Yata, had
the committee taken the effort of acquiring this basic information, the land reserves for the neighborhood of Deirat
actually lie to the south of the road, so that it would have been justified to apply an exception to the prohibition of
construction along Road 3269. As for the area between the two neighborhoods, given the absence of any consultation
with the residents of the village and the lack of familiarity with the needs of the population, including the failure to
detail areas for public needs, it is unclear how the planning authorities can claim to be taking on the role of defending
land resources. This claim is paternalistic, given the absence of any cooperation and/or support for this position on the
part of the local population. It is unacceptable that, on the one hand, the plan is minimalistic in intervening to meet
the needs of the population, yet when it comes to areas outside the plan it suddenly switches to over-intervention in
the name of the population it does not represent, and whose needs it does not recognize.
Since the approval of the plan, the residents of the village have constructed 10 more buildings outside the plan
boundaries, most of which have received final demolition orders. These buildings include nine residential homes
and the new school building mentioned above, situated between the two neighborhoods. The threat of demolition
prevents development and construction by the residents.
Public areas: According to the minutes of the Subcommittee for Objections, the planners calculated the capacity of
the plan after deducting 30 percent of the plan area. In item 28, the committee determines that there are two empty
plots that may be used for public needs, with a size of 20 and 8 dunams, respectively. In practice, however, these are
the only two vacant plots within the plan area. Moreover, according to the plan itself, the plots are not empty, but
include two planned roads. The Civil Administration’s proposal is unreasonable. The larger of the two plots is owned
by a man who has 7 children, and the plot is intended for their future homes. The smaller plot is privately owned
by residents of Yata and used for agriculture. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine in an arbitrary manner that
private land is to be used for public purposes, particularly since the residents of the village have public areas that were
deliberately left outside the boundary plans, such as the two schools and the planned cemetery. This in addition to
the existing public areas – the clinic and two mosques. Only by calculating all these areas is it possible to reach a figure
of 30 percent public areas.
Preventing development: As noted above, the villagers have development relating to both infrastructures and public
services, in addition to development for residential needs. The committee’s claims are inconsistent with the residents’
desires, completely ignore these, and case damage to the development of the village. Since the plan was approved,
some five residential buildings have been demolished by the Civil Administration, one of which had been in existence
for 20 years and another for 12 years. According to the villagers’ plan, each neighborhood has desirable directions of
development on the basis of the land ownership patterns. Thus, in Ar-Rif’iya, the desirable directions of development
are to the south and west of the road, and in Deirat – to the north and east of the plan area. The villagers wish to
construct a cemetery and school between the two areas.
Negative migration: Due to the shortage of housing, there is negative migration of villagers to Areas A and B in
Hebron and Yata. This situation is the direct result of the planning failure of the Civil Administration in Area C in
general, and in Deirat – Ar-Rif’iya in particular.
Our demand is to update the plan boundaries in the following manner:
On the basis of the above, it is clear that the basic data used by the Civil Administration in planning the village of Deirat
– Ar-Rif’iya are incorrect and/or incomplete; the guiding considerations failed to address the social, demographic,
property, and cultural profile of the residents of the village; as a result, the decisions were arbitrary, injurious, and
have no connection with the development of the village., The result is a plan that failed to meet minimum standards
for proper planning from the day it was prepared, and all the more so today. Accordingly, the plan must be changed
and its boundaries extended on the basis of the above details in order to meet the residents’ needs and address the
planning problems created by the special plan, as detailed above.
To this end, we reiterate our alternative demands to transfer the planning authorities to the representatives of the local
Palestinian population in Area C, whether by way of the implementation of the Oslo Agreement or by the nullification
of Order 418 (with the necessary changes), insofar as this relates to the reinstatement of the authorities of the district
committees and village councils as described above. Pending the above-mentioned changes, or alternatively, we
56