Obligation to pay compensation for damage to Palestinian innocents

Responsa > Category: General > Obligation to pay compensation for damage to Palestinian innocents
Pine Asked 5 months ago

Hello Rabbi,
Is there a duty on the State of Israel to compensate innocent Palestinians who have been harmed by the actions of the State of Israel against Hamas?
And another question, if you fall Mistake In the action of a certain force, and as a result of the mistake a Palestinian was injured, is there an obligation to compensate him?
Best regards,

Leave a comment

1 Answers
mikyab Staff Answered 5 months ago

In my article on the dilemma of a defensive wall (individual and public), the conclusion is that if it was a third party (non-Palestinian) who was harmed by our actions, I would say yes, and then Hamas can be sued for the damage. But in the case of the Palestinians, it seems to me that they should turn directly to Hamas, which is fighting for them and whose mission will compensate them. Just as there is no need to compensate the people we are fighting with for soldiers who have been wounded in battle unnecessarily. It has been said that when there is war, chips splash.

Pine Responded 5 months ago

I remember but you also wrote there that if the persecuted can save the persecutor in one of his limbs and did not save then he must. Why is it not valid here as well regarding mistakes?

mikyab Staff Responded 5 months ago

First, who said it was a situation he could have saved? There are vulnerable refugees who are inevitable. Second, even if there is a way to avoid in this particular case mistakes happen and are part of the way of a world in war.
Maimonides' method is that such a killing is not obligatory. It's forbidden but he's not a killer. The Thos method is yes.

mikyab Staff Responded 5 months ago

Hasbra states that if I have accidentally damaged the possessor's property I do not have to compensate him. And some first and last wrote that in the persecuted himself there is also no prohibition to kill even when he can save him in one of his limbs. This is only said about a third party.

Pine Responded 5 months ago

If there is a case in which one of the emissaries of the State of Israel (soldier / policeman) deviated and committed a maliciously committed act against a Palestinian citizen (suppose a soldier rapes a Palestinian). In such a case, is there an obligation of the State of Israel to compensate the same victim of the crime?

mikyab Staff Responded 5 months ago

I think so. There is then room to sue the soldier who will return the money to the state. But he acted on the power and strength (authority and weapons) she gave him, so she is responsible for his actions.

mikyab Staff Responded 5 months ago

If he was raped for nothing, not by the power of arms or the authority he received but like any other man, then in my opinion the claim is personal against him and there is no obligation on the state to compensate.

Pine Responded 5 months ago

As for the responsibility of the state, how does it get along with what you wrote above that the state is not responsible for its mistakes, whereas here it is responsible for the malice of its emissaries (which from the state's point of view it is not considered malicious).

mikyab Staff Responded 5 months ago

Because there is talk of damage caused in the war, and for that there is no responsibility because there is a collective persecuting law. But just an arbitrary act that is not for the purpose of the war surely there is a duty of compensation. There is no persecuting law here.

Pine Responded 5 months ago

A similar case is known that in 2000 Mustafa Dirani sued the State of Israel for damages, claiming that he had been subjected to two cases of sexual abuse by his interrogators. Among other things, the indictment alleges that a major in Unit 504, known as "Captain George," inserted these into Dirani's anus. According to Dirani, during his interrogation he was tortured, including shaking, humiliating, beating, deprivation of sleep, and being tied up in a kneeling position for long hours, and for his humiliation he was interrogated while naked. [10] Investigative tapes, filmed by Unit 504, were shown on the television program "Fact" on December 15, 2011. [11] In one of the videos, investigator George is seen calling one of the other investigators and instructing him to roll up his pants to Dirani and threaten Dirani with rape if he does not provide information. [12]

In July 2011, the Supreme Court ruled, in the majority opinion, that Dirani could continue to pursue a tort claim he filed against the State of Israel, even though he resides in an enemy state, and even returned to involvement in hostile activity against the state. [15] At the state's request, another hearing was held, and in January 2015 it was ruled that Dirani's claim should be struck out, on the grounds that after Dirani was released from detention he returned to a terrorist organization whose goal was to take action against the state and even destroy it.

It is seen from this that there is relevance to the question of whether the plaintiff resides in an enemy state or not. I also remember that there is a regulation from the days of British law which holds that an enemy cannot sue.

mikyab Staff Responded 5 months ago

My answers are not legal (I am not an expert in international law). I said my opinion on the moral level.
As for Dirani, the problem was not that he lives in an enemy state but that he is an active enemy. Anyone living in an enemy state can certainly claim compensation, but only if something is done to him illegally and not in the context of war (i.e. incidentally harming innocent people). I guess these tortures were not done just to abuse him but to extract information from him. Therefore these are warlike actions. If they had just abused him, even if it was at the GSS facility as part of the investigation, then even as an enemy he might be able to claim compensation, and that was the discussion that took place there.
By the way, the argument that if he acts to destroy the state it deprives him of the right to use its institutions sounds to me quite legally dubious. Every enemy (captive) soldier is in such a situation, and I guess no one would say that about a soldier. They said this about Dirani because he is a terrorist.
Moreover, there is an argument here: if the abuse went beyond what was permissible or was done for the sole purpose of abuse, then even if Dirani has no right to sue the state should have investigated and punished those who did so (criminal punishment, regardless of Dirani's civil prosecution). And if they did not deviate - then what does it matter that he is an enemy. There is no cause of action.

B.S.D. XNUMX in the P.B. tribe

It seems that the terrorist organizations for whose murderous actions the IDF needs to take defensive and preventive action - are the ones who must compensate for the damages caused during the fighting to innocent civilians, Jews and Arabs.

Regards, Hasdai Bezalel Kirshan-Kwas Cherries

Leave a comment