Court to determine whether Israelis can sue PA

Supreme Court to rule on long-disputed case based on whether PA should be granted immunity as sovereign entity
Aviram Zino

Can Israelis sue the Palestinian Authority for damages incurred by terror and rocket attacks? After four years, Israel's Supreme Court intends to rule on the issue in the upcoming days. Such a ruling could have far-reaching consequences regarding the status of the PA.

A civil petition was submitted against the PA and its former leader, Yasser Arafat, in 2003, by Israelis affected by terror attacks.

Originally, the petition was disputed by lower courts, including the Jerusalem district court. In an unexpected step, PA representatives showed up to trial and claimed they could not be sued on the grounds of "sovereign immunity" – a legal term claiming that a government is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.

The Jerusalem district court determined, in an interim ruling, that the Palestinian Authority did not have sovereign immunity.

The ruling noted that the Israeli court system tended not to "rule on political issues regarding the presence or absence of agreements on PA jurisdiction, but was allowed to examine these agreements to determine the PA's status, including its defense claim that it had the right to immunity, as a state."

The Palestinian Authority appealed this district court's decision, which then went to the High Court. The case was originally presided over by former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak and is now led by Justice Eliezer Rivlin.

The PA's appeal was delayed until recently, when the Supreme Court set a precedent on an opposite case, regarding Israeli immunity: In December 2006, the justices overturned a key provision in a Knesset law and ruled that Palestinians who suffered damages in a situation that was demonstrably not combat-related could demand financial compensation from Israel.

In a statement submitted by attorney Yossi Arnon, the PA claimed that "the State of Israel can't have it both ways: On one hand protect itself by law from being sued for damages it caused during the intifada and, on other hand, declare that it can sue the opposing side."

The PA noted the "political changes" that had occurred since the original ruling of the Jerusalem district court - among them the 2005 disengagement from Gaza and the election of a Palestinian parliament – as evidence of the organization's sovereignty.

'Ruling could devastate PA's financial system'

Accepting suits against the Palestinian Authority, claimed Arnon, "could be perceived as unacceptable and disproportional intervention, and certainly cause harm to Israel, in the eyes of the international community."

"If, at the end of the day, the Palestinian Authority will be obligated to pay significant sums…it could lead to the collapse of the already dilapidated financial system in the PA, which could have direct, adverse effects on Israel."

Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz expressed the State's opinion that, according to Israeli and international law, the Palestinian Authority does not automatically qualify for sovereign immunity.

"The question of whether to grant sovereign immunity is a political one - whether Israel acknowledges a foreign entity that is not a state," he explained. He stated his opinion that such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Advocate Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, who represents a number of the suing families, told Ynet: "The Palestinian Authority, led by Hamas, is nothing more than a lethal terror organization. And just as no western nation acknowledges them as a sovereign entity, neither should Israel."

According to the attorney, who is also representing Sderot residents suing for damages from Qassams attacks, "as long as the Foreign Ministry does not recognize the PA government and as long as the PA government doesn't accept Quartet preconditions, it does not qualify for immunity and must pay for damages."

It should be noted that, in 2004, a US court disregarded PLO claims of immunity when it ruled that the organization must pay $116 million to the estate of a Jewish couple slain in Israel.

The ruling held the organizations responsible for the drive-by shooting of Yaron Ungar, an American citizen, and his Israeli wife, Efrat, in June 1996.