From a legal perspective, real story here is that the US District Court (trial court) made a mistake in considering where the victim lived, and that the higher court, the Court of Appeals, recognized that mistake and reversed the decision, instructing the trial judge to get it right and eliminate her prior reasoning from the damages analysis. How about promoting that in the story? Bashing the trial court is not particularly honest journalism in this case. (Deepest condolences to the family).

but we are free to criticize their lawyers.
In this matter the lawyers are attempting to use the murder of the young man Naftali Frankel (Fraenkel) as a way to get the US Courts to recognize land over the Green Line as a legal part of Israel. This goes against:
1. Israeli law
2. USA law and
3. International law.
If besides securing a judgment for the murder of Naftali Frankel (Fraenkel) the lawyers are looking for recognition of land over the Green Line as a legal part of Israel...they need to work in the Knesset of Israel and in the USA Congress in order to get a change in the legal definition of the land over the Green Line.

It is a very honored saying in our family to say "A parent who losses their child, remains hollow forever!"
We do not judge or criticize we respect all bereaved families...it saddens us that currently it has become the fashion among several Likud Members of Knesset as well as the Likud government to criticize and yell at bereaved families. This is unacceptable.

I was in her court room in a patent case a few years ago. She is a judge that does not allow herself to be confused by facts, or precedents.

willingly accepting a significant chance of getting gunned down by some avid supporter if second Amandment , so NO EFFING SOUP FOR YOU AMERICANS!

She should be impeached for both racism and her violation of US laws

You wrote: "... to recognize land over the Green Line as legal part of Israel" is against Israeli law. Indeed, Israel is still reluctant to proclaim its rights in International Law, because the catastrophic behavior of the Left majority of the, Zionist Movement since the early twenties, by refusing the creation of an independent Jewish state at that time. Against USA law: on the contrary! POTUS Calvin Coolidge signed together with Britain a Convention to guarantee the "Mandate for Palestine", voted unanimously by ALL the 51 members of the League of Nations. Being ratified by both nations, this convention got the value of a treaty. And Article VI of the U.S. Constitution labels treaties as the "Supreme Law of the Land". REMEMBER: the "Mandate for Palestine" voted by the League in 1922, gave the Jewish people the IRREVOCABLE RIGHT to settle anywhere on the territory between the Med. Sea and the Jordan River, including the Golan Heights, and of course the whole city of Jerusalem, to build their independent state in formation. A right that became International Law, valid to this day, a right that can't be rescinded and is reaffirmed by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter! Against International Law? If you make a mockery of International Law! But the Mandate for Palestine remains protected by the Principle of RES JUDICATA and Article 80 of the UN CHARTER!

and the court shrugs it off with 'he was in the wrong side of town, he should have known these blacks are violent and will probably kill him'

The tragedy of the loss can never be undermined, but as a strong defender of my country, but not of the current settlement policy, I am daring to say that the judge has based his decision on solid legal grounds. If you elect to live in a thatched house and light fires, you've taken a very high risk of being burned, sometimes to death - and for that insurance companies determine liability and compensation.

From a purely legal - and non partisan perspect - the dangers in the settlements within the green line are more than well known, and acknowledged. Many - of most - have gone there for ideological purposes. They know they may die but that it's for the cause of a greater Israel.

What you decide for yourself is your responsibility and your risk. When you take that risk for your own children, and your chidren so horribly become the victims rather than you, who, then must bear at least some of the responsibility? Yes, the murder itself is ugly, illegal, immoral - you name it. But we go back to liability. If you knowingly put yourself in danger, or someone else in danger, and the consequence is a risk you already knew was a possibility, you cannot absolve yourself of having played a part.

I doubt very much whether these parents aren't, deep within themselves, aware that their decision put their children's lives at risk. That's the problem with ideology trumping parental responsibility.

That a terrorist should pay a price for his deeds is unquestioned, but a judge is not paid to understand the Jewish cause, but the matter of whether the victim knowingly put himself in the line of fire (in this case, the victim's parents knew the risk of their children walking around in an area surrounded by sworn and dangerous enemies, and it is that which determines the extent of the compensation.

Like it or not this is how it works.

When you live next to terrorists that are protected by the Palestinian Authority all the Israeli territory becomes a trap for innocent civilians. Terrorists are the landmines, no matter where you are.

kidnapped and murdered. Conclusion, probably just propaganda, an excuse to battle Arabs.

Israel has been carrying put a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinian people

... as are Palestinians.

Any actual examinable evidence? Obviously not, nobody died.

1. the green line is not a border, but an armistice line.
2. under international law, the territories referred to as the west bank,
are not an arab muslim sovereign.
3 there is no law which forbids jews from living in the west bank.
4 the place where an individual is murdered has no bearing over
the crime of murder.
5 iran is a terror state which engages in the murder of civilians
in foreign countries. there is no way to predict where an individual
might be murdered by irgc or al quds iranian terror groups.
6 this judge should not sit on the fisa court. she is incompetent.