KKL Loyalty to its Principles in Light of the Draft Agreement Between Itself and the State / Adi Arbel

 

Executive Summary   

 

Necessary Adjustments to the Agreement Between the State and the KKL/ Adi Arbel

 

 

On 4 Sivan 5769, 27.05.09, as part of the preparation for the meeting to be held that day, a draft agreement between the State and the KKL, dated 27 Iyar 5769, 21.05.09, was presented to the members of the KKL Directorate.  As a result of the fact that the KKL members only received the details of the agreement on the day of the meeting, the Directorate members decided to postpone their deliberation on the issue.  A new date for the meeting was called for 10 Sivan 5769, 2.06.09.  Preceding this meeting, a new draft agreement between the State and the KKL was submitted, which was not substantially different from the original draft.[1]

The Institute for Zionist Strategies sees the continued activity of the KKL, in accordance with the principles stated in the founding documents of the KKL, as a first rate Zionist interest.  In light of this, the IZS seeks to present its opinion on the draft agreement between the KKL and the State:

1. Clause 1 of the agreement states that the KKL is in support of the reform in the Israel Land Administration.  As previously described in the position paper published in May 2009 by the Institute for Zionist Strategies,[2] the current version of the proposed reform contains several components that harm the vision of the State of Israel as the National Home for the Jewish People.  This position paper includes detailed recommendations for solving these problems with out impeding the goals of the reform.
2. Clause 2 states that the KKL "agrees to the management of its lands by the Lands Authority… including the transferring of ownership over the land to the lessees… in a manner that would preserve the KKL principles regarding its lands".  It is likely that this clause will be unable to withstand the test of reality: A petition against the KKL and the ILA[3] demanding that the ILA lease JNF lands in opposition to the principles of the KKL is currently up for debate in the Supreme Court.  The proposed agreement does not contain reference to a scenario in which the judicial situation does not allow the Authority to manage KKL lands in accordance with its principles.  In this situation the KKL will find itself in a hopeless situation, as it will be obligated to the agreement, but will be unable to manage its lands in accordance with its original goals as described in the association's memorandum.  The final agreement must contain reference to such a scenario, so as to ensure an arrangement that would allow the KKL to continue to operate according to its principles – whether by means of appropriate legislation, independent KKL management of its lands, or by an alternate method.
3. Clause 6.1 states: "In exchange for the transfer of ownership to the State… the State will transfer ownership of available and unplanned-for land of the same dimensions in the Galilee and the Negev to KKL or to the Himnuta company". This clause is problematic for several reasons:
   1. Lands transferred to the KKL must be in developable areas and not in areas that cannot be developed, e.g. nature reserves, cliffs, etc.  Clause 6.4, which states that at least 90% of the lands to be transferred to the KKL are located either in the south or center of the Negev, reinforces this concern.  Additionally, it is safe to say that even if it was possible to make use of these lands for settlement, the chances of this actually coming to pass are slim because of the low demand to live in such places.
   2. KKL lands are designated for Jewish settlement.  It should be clear to all that well-developed urban areas in the center of the State are more able to house residents than the same sized piece of land in the rural Galil or Negev would.  Therefore, the land exchanges between the State and the KKL should not be carried on a dunam for dunam level, but rather according to land value, which more clearly reflects the potential for settlement of the land.  This aside, the agreement must be amended in such a way that the KKL's loyalty to the nation's assets will not be harmed.
   3. The Himnuta Company is a subsidiary of the KKL and is not obligated to the founding principles of the KKL, and thus is permitted to sell KKL land.  For that reason, we are fear that lands that are to be permanently reserved for the Jewish People will be exchanged for lands that are under the temporary ownership of Himnuta, and are liable to be sold.  Therefore, Himnuta, or any other third party, should not be included in the land exchange between the State of Israel and the KKL.
4. Clause 12 states that this agreement constitutes "an amendment to the Charter between the State and the KKL".  In fact, and considering all that was mentioned above, it actually constitutes a blow to the fundamental character of the original intention of the Charter, which stated, among other things, that KKL lands should be managed in accordance with the founding memorandum of the Keren Kayemeth L'Yisrael.
5. Clause 13 states that "both sides agree that the State Attorney General is to resolve all discrepancies concerning the interpretation and implementation of the agreement".  In such a sensitive agreement, the fact that the Attorney General, who is associated with the State, and thus biased, has been chosen to resolve disagreements between the sides goes against all legal norms.  Aside from this unacceptable fact, the current Attorney General has already stated his opinion, as opposed to other opinions on this matter, that in the current judicial situation, the KKL will be unable to manage its lands in accordance with the founding principles upon which it was established.[4]

In light of all that was mentioned above, the members of the KKL Directorate are hereby recommended to postpone the current draft agreement between the State and the KKL, until after the required changes are made.  Moreover, we received a legal opinion on the matter which stated that before the draft agreement comes to pass, each member of the KKL Directorate, even more so each member of its leadership, must decide if his approval constitutes a violation of his obligations as a trustee and as a public servant for the implementation of KKL policy in accordance with its original principles.

 

Executive Summary

Necessary Adjustments to the Agreement Between the State and the KKL/ Adi Arbel