Therefore, I am of the opinion that the only obvious interpretation of section 2(b) of the Law is that once it has been proven that we have before us a victim who was injured by an act of terror and suffered permanent disability (and I noted above that this also includes an indirect victim who meets the conditions of the rule Alsoja), the injured party will be entitled to compensation in the sum of NIS 5 million, no more and no less.
[In a parenthetical article, I wanted to clarify in the course of the discussion on the amount of compensation that section 2(a) provides for exemplary compensation in the amount of NIS 10 million for all the heirs of the estate Together, and see for this matter Minutes 157 of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee,p. 21.]
- Interim Summary: There is no room for the appellants' repeated attempts to limit the applicability of the law. Although this is a very unusual law in the landscape of tort legislation, the language of the law is clear and serves the purposes of the law – compensation for victims of acts of terror alongside deterrence of those involved in the commission of acts of terrorism and those who reward them (Matter PA, in paragraph 23; See also the minutes of the 158th session of the 15th Knesset, at p. 126). As to the appellants' argument that the judgment "makes the legal process redundant", I have no choice but to refer to what I wrote on the matter PA:
"In view of the presumption that has been established, once the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority has been proven and the victim has been determined to have permanent disability, the way is ostensibly paved for awarding punitive damages in the amounts determined by law, without judicial discretion (and I will note that proposals to determine the amount of compensation as a 'ceiling' or 'floor' amount or as a percentage of the disability rate were not reflected in the final version of the law). Since, according to the law, even a very low degree of disability can entitle the injured party, it can be held that the entitlement to compensation under the law is almost automatic, similar to an arrangement of awarding compensation without proof of damage" (ibid., at paragraph 21).