Background
Five consolidated appeals challenged District Court judgments awarding damages to individuals detained and tortured by the Palestinian Authority between 1996 and 2002 on suspicion of aiding Israel. The appellants sought compensation under the Law for Compensation of Victims of Terrorism (Exemplary Damages), 2024, which provides for fixed damages of five million shekels to victims of terrorist acts. A prior Supreme Court ruling established that the PA is liable for unlawful detention of suspected Israeli collaborators. The District Court had awarded both compensatory damages (for false imprisonment, lost income, and non-pecuniary harm) and punitive damages ranging from 50,000 to 500,000 shekels depending on detention duration.
The appellants argued that the PA’s conduct qualified as terrorism under the statutory definition, entitling them to exemplary damages. The PA contended that its actions were internal security and disciplinary measures against alleged traitors within Palestinian society, motivated by preventing betrayal rather than political or ideological aims, and therefore fell outside the terrorism law’s scope. The Court was asked whether the PA’s conduct met the statutory definition of terrorism and what level of punitive damages was appropriate.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeals and upheld the District Court judgments. Justice Yitzhak Amit held that the Law for Compensation of Victims of Terrorism does not apply to these cases. The law requires three cumulative conditions for an act to constitute terrorism: (1) commitment from a political, religious, nationalist, or ideological motive; (2) intent to incite fear or panic in the public or coerce a government authority; and (3) causation of serious harm to someone’s person or liberty. Although the PA’s detention and torture of alleged collaborators satisfied the second condition—the PA did intend to create fear to deter cooperation with Israel—the first and third conditions were not met. Regarding the first condition, the Court found that the PA’s motivation was to enforce internal discipline within Palestinian society and prevent what it perceived as disloyalty by its own members. This internal governance concern, though arguably including deterrent elements, lacked the political, ideological, or nationalist motive required by the statute. As to the third condition, while the PA’s actions inflicted serious physical and psychological harm to detainees, the Court found this did not constitute the “serious harm” contemplated by the terrorism law. The law was enacted in response to mass-casualty terrorist attacks aimed at maximizing casualties. The PA’s conduct, though deliberate and systematic, aimed at deterrence rather than mass killing, and therefore did not constitute terrorism in the statutory sense.
On the question of punitive damages, the Court affirmed their propriety based on prior precedent recognizing that the PA’s grave and systematic abuse merits condemnation. The Court established and endorsed a graduated damages scale tied to detention duration: 50,000 shekels for detention lasting days to weeks; 500,000 shekels for detention lasting approximately 1.5 years (the average); 800,000 shekels for detention lasting several years; and 3,000,000 shekels when detention resulted in the detainee’s death. The Court rejected arguments for equating these amounts to exemplary damages awarded to victims of mass-casualty terrorist attacks, noting the distinct nature of the PA’s conduct. Special circumstances may justify deviation from these standard amounts, either upward or downward, based on the specific facts of each case, but the Court found no basis to alter the graduated framework established in prior decisions.
Key Takeaways
- Terrorism under Israeli law requires three cumulative elements: a qualifying motive (political, religious, nationalist, or ideological), intent to incite fear in the public or coerce a government, and causation of serious harm; internal security measures lacking the requisite motive do not qualify, even if cruel or systematic.
- Punitive damages for unlawful detention and torture by state actors are proper under tort law and operate independently of terrorism statutes; damages may be structured on a graduated scale reflecting detention duration.
- The scope of “serious harm” in terrorism law is informed by the law’s legislative purpose and the types of conduct it was enacted to address; conduct not rising to the level of mass-casualty terrorism may not satisfy this requirement despite causing genuine injury.
- Substantial punitive damages may be awarded for grave violations of human rights by state actors without resorting to terrorism law classifications when the conduct does not meet statutory requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision defines the outer boundaries of Israel’s 2024 terrorism compensation law by requiring genuine political, ideological, or nationalist motivation in addition to the capacity to incite fear. The Court’s holding prevents the statute from expanding beyond its intended scope—addressing mass-casualty terrorist attacks—to encompass state conduct motivated primarily by internal governance and discipline. While narrowing the terrorism law’s reach, the decision reaffirms robust liability under traditional tort principles, demonstrating that serious state-inflicted harm remains subject to substantial compensation even absent a terrorism classification.
The Court’s graduated damages framework, anchored to detention duration with the baseline 500,000-shekel award reflecting approximately 1.5 years of detention, provides predictability and consistency. The decision affects how Israeli courts balance recognition of grave abuses by the Palestinian Authority against precise application of statutory definitions. It signals that the characterization of state conduct—whether as terrorism or unlawful detention—has real consequences for the damages regime applied, but does not eliminate accountability or reduce the severity of sanctions for systemic abuse. The ruling is likely to guide future litigation involving alleged Israeli collaborators and damages claims against the PA.