[Translated from the Hebrew]

At the Jerusalem High Court
Acting for the High Court of JusticeHigh Court Petition (Bagatz) No. 5580/05

Regarding the matter between:

Zochrot, NGO No. 580389526
By Adv. Michael Sfard
Of 31 Rothschild Ave., Tel Aviv 66883
Tel. 03-5607345, Fax 03-5607346

The Petitioner

-- Versus –

1. The Military Commander in the Judea and Samaria Region

2. The Civil Administration – Office of Planning

By its representative from the office of the Attorney General
Salah a-Din St., Jerusalem

3. The Jewish National Fund

By its representative Adv. Meir Alfiyah
and/or Racheli Shor and/or Oshrat Shlomovitz and/or Yehudit Pasternak and/or
Shoshi Tarnin and/or Ofir Eyni
Of 1 JNF St., Jerusalem 91002
Tel. 02-6707313, Fax 02-6707519

The Respondents

Preliminary Response by Respondent 3 [the JNF] to the Petition

In accordance with the decision of the Honorable Court dated 9 June 2005, Respondent 3 (Hereafter: "the Respondent") has the honor of providing a preliminary response the petition.

1. In this Petition the Petitioner has requested permission to post signs in Canada Park (Hereafter: "the Park") detailing, among others, the fact that Arab villages existed in different areas of the Park until 1967.

2. The Respondent is responsible for the development and preservation of the park, its upkeep and maintenance. Among others, the Respondent acts to prevent incursions into the Park, including the posting of signs without legal permission.

3. In June 2003 Mr. Eitan Bronstein, in the name of the Petitioner, proposed a suggestion to post signs in the Park that would designated the existence of the villages Yalu and Imwas in the area until 1967.

4. Pursuant to this letter, the advisor to the Chairman of the Directorate of the Respondent replied that the Respondent does not deal with such issues, and advised the Petitioner to turn to the official parties relevant to the matter. The letter of the advisor to the Chairman, Mrs. Lior Tsoref, is attached to the Petition as Appendix C.

5. The Respondent was notified that the Petitioner had indeed turned to Respondents 1 and 2 in this matter, which are the parties authorized to confer approval to post signs in the area of Judea and Samaria.

6. Pursuant to the request of the Petitioner, Respondents 1 and 2 also turned to the Respondent, as the Respondent is responsible for the Park and is the professional body to be consulted with on matters relating to the management of the Park.

7. The Respondent did not oppose presenting relevant information on the villages Yalu and Imwas in the framework of the signs posted in the Park, and even suggested wording that would give expression to the history of these villages in the framework of the same signs that are posted in the Park today. The offer made by the Respondent was clearly based on a purely professional position, in consideration for the character of the place and from the view that a multiplicity of signs in the Park would likely to impair the aesthetics of the place, and with the desire to preserve the park as a place that is used for recreation and enjoyment.

8. The Respondent is certain that its agreement to post signs and the solution it has offered to Respondents 1 and 2 should satisfy the wishes of the parties to the matter and make any further discussion of this Petition redundant.

Racheli Shor, Adv.
For Respondent 3