Weekly Commentary: Apply Torts Ordinance Article 12 to Recover From The PA All Compensation to Terror Victims

Weekly Commentary: Apply Torts Ordinance Article 12 to Recover From The PA
All Compensation to Terror Victims
Dr. Aaron Lerner 14 April 2022

This week it was reported the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the payment
by the Palestinian Authority of stipends to terrorists and their relatives
constitutes the “expression of consent” referred to in Torts Ordinance
Article 12 thus enabling terror victims and their families to sue the
Palestinian Authority for compensation if the terrorist responsible for the
attack or the terrorist’s family received a stipend from the Palestinian
Authority.

But Justice Yitzhak Amit went considerably further than that.

In Paragraph 53 of his decision, Justice Amit notes that the State of Israel
can apply Torts Ordinance Article 12 to have the Palestinian Authority
indemnify it for any and all payments which the Government or The National
Insurance Institute makes to victims of terror under the Victims of Hostile
Acts Law in terror incidents in which the terrorist was identified and
received a stipend or their family received a stipend from the Palestinian
Authority.

The Government of Israel could readily streamline this operation,
systematically checking, terror incident by incident, to see if the
perpetrator was identified and in turn if the terrorist or the terrorist’s
family received a stipend from the Palestinian Authority. Armed with this
information, the Government of Israel could sue in Israeli court to recover
from the Palestinian Authority the payments it made to the victims to date
as well as ongoing payments. As the collector of VAT and customs duty for
the Palestinian Authority for cargo destined to the Palestinian Authority,
the Government of Israel has easy access to Palestinian Authority funds when
the Israeli courts rule on these cases.

Given the straightforward nature of the proceedings, it would be reasonable
to expect a unification of cases so that ultimately there would be one
fortnightly or monthly lawsuit.

Justice Amit noted repeatedly in his decision that the previous Attorney
General declined to share his opinion in the case, but that doesn’t mean
that Gali Baharav-Miara has to follow his example.

Its time for justice.

________________________________________
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il