A Chain of Errors: CC (Jer.) 2347/04 Abu Judah v. the State of Israel (Judgment of August 17, 2008)

The time: Friday, February 22, 2002 at about 2:20 P.M. The place: The village of Beit Umar near Hebron. Murad Abu Judah, 13 at the time, was playing war games with his friends: He was an Israeli soldier and his friends were Palestinians. Murad held a plastic toy rifle which he had bought earlier in the day and “fired” at his friends. While the children were playing, Israeli soldiers entered the area. The toy rifle, which had turned Murad into an Israeli soldier in the game, made him a legitimate Palestinian target in real life. One of the soldiers shot Murad with the intent of killing him.

Purposive Interpretation: AAA 1966/09 'Attoun v. Minister of Interior (Judgment of November 22, 2011)

There is great rule in interpretation that a single term that appears in different statutes may have a different meanings in different statutes, according to the context and purpose of the law. This rule is connected to the principle of interpretation which governs Israeli jurisprudence – the purposive interpretation. The court is bound by the language of the law, but it does not read the text mechanically.

On “Targeted Killings”, Civilian Participation in Hostilities and the Duty to Investigate: HCJ 474/02 Thabet v. Attorney General (Judgment of January 30, 2011)

In December 2000, somewhere in the Tulkarm area, Israeli security forces shot and killed the petitioner’s husband. She wrote to the attorney general, asking him to order a criminal investigation of the incident and those responsible for it, but she was denied. The authorities said her late husband headed the Tanzeem organization in Tulkarm, commanded and armed a terrorist cell, which shot at Israeli civilians and soldiers. It had wounded three soldiers.