After the Palestinian Authority petitioned the Supreme Court last year and requested to overturn a law which allows victims of terrorism to demand compensation from the entity that finances it, Supreme Court Justice and Acting President Isaac Amit rejected the PA's petition on Monday.
Amit ruled that "we will begin and say what is absent from the petition but deserves to be said: The Palestinian Authority pays terrorists and members of their families significant amounts of money and benefits, in close connection with the criminal acts of terrorism they committed." Amit also ruled that "even if the law is based on a political motive, this does not lead to its repeal." Justice Khaled Kabub and Justice Yael Wilner also joined Amit in the decision.
In May, the Palestinian Authority petitioned the Supreme Court to strike down the Compensation for Terror Victims Law (Exemplary Damages), enacted in 2024 by the Knesset.
The law establishes entitlement to compensation in tort claims filed against a perpetrator of a terrorist act, a person determined to be liable for an act of terrorism, or an entity that supports the perpetrator. The law states that if the act of terrorism caused the death of a person, his heirs will be entitled to compensation. It was also determined that the compensation will be paid in addition to any other compensation awarded in a tort claim filed due to the same act, and that the damages will not be deducted from any amount paid by the state or one of its institutions to the injured party or his next of kin.
According to the Palestinian Authority, the laws should be scrapped due to their "inappropriate purpose and the disproportionate harm to the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian residents," in violation of Israel's obligations under international law. It was claimed that another hidden purpose is to bring the Palestinian Authority to economic collapse "and to undermine its sovereignty in order to complete the annexation of the West Bank to Israeli territory."
According to the PA, there are approximately 180 claims pending against it for compensation for acts of terrorism. The PA further argued that the Knesset does not have the authority to enact a law intended to apply extraterritorially to the assets of another sovereign, and that the laws violate basic legal rules and change the law of torts.
Amit rejected the PA's petition and cited in the ruling a quote from his ruling in an earlier case, where he noted that "the PA's compensation policy is disgusting. It is intolerable. The heart shrinks and rejects it. The eye feels its sting strongly. The metaphorical sting of the eye joins the pain and anguish of the heart and soul of the families of the victims of terrorist attacks and we cannot list them because they are many."
The ruling shows that the Palestinian Authority's payments to terrorists and members of their families amount to hundreds of millions of shekels each year. "The reason why the law applies to the Palestinian Authority and defines it as a 'terrorist rewarder' lies in its own actions and its policy of paying salaries and benefits to terrorists and members of terrorist families," Amit stated.
"In enacting the laws before us, the legislator sought to deter those involved in committing terrorist acts and those who approve of these acts, and to establish arrangements that benefit their victims. It would have been better if the need for their enactment had not arisen in the first place, but unfortunately this is not the case. For a number of reasons, we found that there is no constitutional basis for interfering with the law challenged in the petition, even though they deviate from the normal tort laws," he added.
Amit further ruled that the PA "claims a violation of its rights, but the alleged violation stems from its actions and its choice to pay money and benefits to murderers stained with the blood of innocent Israelis. The Palestinian Authority has the option of choosing a different path and to cease its policy that rewards and encourages carrying out terrorist acts."
Compensation does not depend on disability
The law stipulates that the heirs of a person killed as a result of an act of terrorism will be entitled to 10 million shekels, while a person injured by an act of terrorism and permanently disabled will be entitled to 5 million shekels. This means that the punitive compensation that can be awarded for a single event will reach tens of millions of shekels. The PA pointed out that there are approximately 180 lawsuits pending against it, in which hundreds of injured parties are suing, so that the amount of liability that could be imposed on it could reach billions of shekels.
Imposing these amounts on the Palestinian Authority carries with it political and security implications. It is not without reason that different positions were heard during the legislative process regarding certain aspects of the law. Compensation also established at a uniform level of 5 million shekels, regardless of the degree of disability, contradicts the basic principles of tort law, but in the constitutional context this is not a reason to repeal this part of the law.
<< Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv >>
Attorney Dr. Asaf Posner, who represented the families of the victims in the proceedings demanding compensation, noted that "the Supreme Court's decision should put an end to the claims of the Palestinian Authority, which is trying to evade providing compensation for criminal acts of terrorism. The plaintiffs say they hope that the state will quickly transfer funds to the victims who have already succeeded in their claims. We hope there will be no obstacles for the transfer of the funds approved by the claims, the Knesset, and now the Supreme Court."
Attorney. Ravid Sharon, who represents victims of terrorism, stated that "the fact that the state is investing efforts in economic warfare on terrorism is bearing fruit. As someone who represents clients who were targeted by terrorists and their aides, including the Palestinian Authority, I see how economic warfare is beneficial in reducing the encouragement of terrorism."