This
morning nine human rights organizations in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPTs) filed a petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice
demanding that the Court declare void the amendments to the Civil Wrongs
(Liability of the State) Law, which prevents Palestinians from seeking
compensation from the State of Israel for damages inflicted by the Israeli
security forces, even those inflicted outside of the context of a military
operation.

The
petition was submitted by HaMoked, Adalah, ACRI, Al-Haq (West Bank), The
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (Gaza Strip), B’Tselem, Physicians
for Human Rights, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Rabbis for
Human Rights, by Adalah Attorneys Hassan Jabareen and Orna Kohn, Hamoked
Attorney Gil Gan-Mor, and ACRI Attorney Dan Yakir.

These
latest amendments to the Civil Wrongs Law, which were passed by the Knesset at
the end of July, deny residents of the OPTs, citizens of “Enemy States,” and
activists or members of “a Terrorist Organization,” the right to compensation
for damages caused to them by the security forces, including those damages
caused to them outside of the context of a military operation (with some minor
exceptions).

The
amended law grants the Minister of Defense the authority to proclaim any area
outside of the state of Israel a “Conflict Zone,” even if no war-related
activity has taken place there. This proclamation denies those who sustain
injury within the area the right to seek compensation from Israeli courts. The
Law operates retroactively in cases of damages sustained since 29 September
2000, the date of the outbreak of the Second Intifada, and for claims already
pending before the courts.

In the
petition, the organizations emphasized that the Law grossly violates the
fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and international
human rights law, which apply in the OPTs. It also breaches basic rights in
contravention of Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and is
therefore unconstitutional. The petitioners further argued that the Law sends
out a dangerous and extreme message that the lives and rights of those injured
in a “Conflict Zone” have no value, as the courts will not come to their aid,
and those who caused their injuries will face no punishment. As a result, the
Law is both immoral and racist. The petitioners also argued that the articles
of the Law de facto terminate monitoring of the Israeli military’s activities
in the OPTs, discourage investigations and bringing those responsible for cases
of death or injury before the courts, including in cases in which damages were
caused by the random or deliberate opening of fire, torture and abuse, and
looting and theft of civilian property. The Law thus violates the fundamental
rights to life, bodily integrity, equality, dignity and property, as well as
the constitutional right of access to the courts.

The
petition stressed that the violations entailed by the law are gross, as they
deny in a sweeping manner the awarding of any remedy for the breach of
fundamental rights, and that this denial is tantamount to a denial of the
rights themselves.

The
petitioners asked the High Court of Justice to establish that the Basic Law:
Human Dignity and Liberty applies to all residents of the area under effective
Israeli control. The Court has recently established, in its decision regarding
the Israeli government’s “Disengagement Plan” from the Gaza Strip that the
Basic Law applies to Israeli settlers living in the OPTs. Therefore, a decision
that the Basic Law does not apply to Palestinians in the OPTs would create a
constitutional regime of apartheid.

The
petitioning organizations also dealt with one of the central claims put forward
by the initiators of the Law, that each party must bear the costs for its own
damages: the State of Israel bears the costs of damages sustained by its
citizens, and the Palestinians will carry the burden for damages incurred by
Palestinians. The petitioners contended that this sweeping principle not only
has no basis in international law, but also relies on the assumption of
equivalence in power between the Israelis and Palestinians, as two independent
states, or at least two political entities, with no relationship of domination
and subordination. This logic, however, ignores the clear and obvious reality
that the relationship between the two sides is that of an occupying power and a
protected population under occupation, and that the occupying power is obliged
to apply the norms of international humanitarian law and international human
rights law, and afford protection to the civilians in the occupied territory.