48 Israeli Land Grab and Forced Population Transfer of Palestinians ‘Public Purposes’ The 1943 Land Ordinance itself deems a public purpose as “any purpose the Finance Minister approves as a public purpose”.187 ‘Public purposes’ can encompass a range of land designations, for example green areas, transport, schools and housing. As such, this Ordinance may be used, not only for the confiscation of land but also in hindering the use of and accessibility to land where the landowner is not permitted to build for instance, on land that has been designated as a green zone or national park. The intended use for a particular area is ordinarily provided for in the Master Plan. Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, notes that following various Supreme Court rulings the authorities must now specify the ‘public use’ and for what reason it is deemed. The landowner should be notified and given the possibility to object. Additionally, they are entitled to compensation.188 In the Har Homah Case, the Israeli Supreme Court considered the issue of what constituted the ‘public’ and held that the building of a residential Jewish neighborhood on confiscated Palestinian land fulfilled a ‘public purpose’.189 As this finding was clearly detrimental to the original Palestinian landowners, the verdict manifested preference towards Jewish-Israelis with respect to what is meant by ‘public’. 187 Allison B. Hodgkins, The Judaization of Jerusalem: Israeli Policies Since 1967 (1996); available from http://www.passia.org/jerusalem/publications/HODGKINS_Jud_of_J_txt.htm; accessed 26 April 2013. 188 ‘Israel’s Sale of Palestinian Refugee Property Violated Israeli and International Law’ (June 22, 2009). 189 The Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center V. District Planning Committee; B’Tselem, A Policy of Discrimination, Land Expropriation, Planning and Building in East Jerusalem, May 1995, 48– 51; available from http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/199505_policy_of_discrimination; accessed 23 April 2013.