"Terrorist act" – as defined in the Counter-Terrorism Law, 5776-2016;
"Terror rewarder" – a person who transfers funds for the benefit of the perpetrator of the terrorist act or anyone on his behalf, including an association of persons, whether they are unionized or not, as well as the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization or anyone on their behalf;
[...]
Exemplary Compensation
- (a) If a terrorist act causes the death of a person, his heirs will be entitled to exemplary compensation from the perpetrator of the act of terrorism, from the terrorist rewarder or from a person whose liability has been determined under sections 12 to 14 of the Torts Ordinance, in the amount of NIS 10 million, in addition to any other compensation awarded, if a tort claim filed for that act was adjudicated.
(b) If a person is injured by an act of terrorism and has suffered permanent disability, whether determined under the Compensation Law or determined in a tort claim, the victim will be entitled to exemplary compensation from the perpetrator of the act of terrorism, from the rewarder of the terror or from a person whose liability has been determined under sections 12 to 14 of the Torts Ordinance, in the amount of NIS 5 million, in addition to any other compensation awarded, if it was ruled in his favor in a tort claim filed in connection with that act.
[...]
(e) For the purposes of this Law, it is presumed that the defendant is a terrorist rewarder for a terrorist act that caused death or disability under subsection (a) or (b), if his policy regarding the payment of compensation in connection with acts of terrorism is implemented by way of primary legislation, subsidiary legislation or the provision of instructions for the payment of funds for this purpose, as long as the terrorist rewarder has not proven otherwise.
Applicability
- The provisions of this Law shall apply to a claim against the perpetrator of a terrorist act, a terrorist rewarder, or against a person whose liability has been determined under Sections 12 to 14 of the Torts Ordinance in connection with an act of terrorism that has not yet become statute of limitations or which was pending on the eve of the commencement of this Law.
A petition filed against the constitutionality of the law was rejected (High Court of Justice 4395/24 Palestinian Authority v. Knesset (13.1.2025) (hereinafter: Matter PAI will refer to some of my rulings in the judgment that are relevant to our matter below.
- In light of the new law, and in light of the respondents' request for a partial judgment regarding some of the remedies requested in the lawsuit, on February 6, 2025, such partial judgment was granted. The District Court ruled that there is no dispute that the death of the deceased was caused by an act of terror and that the respondents are his heirs. It was further held that the presumption set forth in section 2(e) of the Model Compensation Law is irrelevant to our case, since there is a conclusive determination according to which the appellants are liable for the act of terrorism by virtue of section 12 of the Torts Ordinance, and in accordance with the law, this is sufficient to bind them; and that in any event, there are findings of fact in the specific case according to which the appellants fall within the definition of "terrorist rewarder" set forth in section 1 of the Law. As to the appellants' argument that the Anonymous If the court ruled that the respondents are not entitled to punitive compensation, it was held that although there is a conceptual affinity between the two types of compensation, the normative source is different; and that even from the legislative history it appears that the purpose of the law was to change what was determined in the matter Anonymous. In view of the aforesaid, the court ruled that the appellants would pay the respondents the sum of NIS 10 million by virtue of section 2(a) of the Law.
- On July 17, 2025, the judgment was given in the proceeding. At the outset, the District Court addressed the question of the amount of compensation due to the respondents as the heirs of the deceased in the heads of damages of non-pecuniary damages, past and future income losses, and burial, funeral and mourning expenses, and awarded a total of NIS 2,949,165 for the deceased's damages. Subsequently, the court moved to discuss the status of the respondents as indirect victims. In this framework, it was held that respondents 3-5 proved that the four conditions of the rule set forth in their case were metCivil Appeal Authority 444/87 Al-Sukha v. Dahan's Estate, IsrSC 44(3) 397 (1990) (hereinafter: the ruling Alsoja); However, with regard to respondent No. 2, it was determined that no medical opinion was submitted in his case and therefore the conditions for recognizing him as an indirect injured person were not met. The court awarded respondents 3-5 as indirect damages compensation for the following damages: non-pecuniary damages; past and future income losses; Third-party assistance; and treatment expenses – each according to his circumstances and the extent of his disability, and less National Insurance Institute benefits (hereinafter: The National Security Council) to the extent paid. In total, the following medical damages were awarded: in favor of respondent 3 in the sum of NIS 440,107.5 in favor of respondent 4 in the sum of NIS 2,301,470; and in favor of respondent 5 the sum of NIS 2,137,692. Finally, when respondents 3-5 were recognized as indirect damages under the terms of the rule Alsoja, the trial court ruled that each of them is also entitled to exemplary compensation in the sum of NIS 5 million in accordance with section 2(b) of the law. In summary, the respondents were awarded medical damages and exemplary damages in the total amount of NIS 32,828,434.5, together with attorney's fees.
The appeal against the partial judgment and the supplementary judgment was filed before us.