i24NEWS – Relatives of Palestinian family killed in arson attack to … – i24NEWS (press release) (registration)

The family says that Israel bears the full responsibility for the act of terror that left three dead

The family of a Palestinian boy, Ahmed Dawabsha, the sole survivor of an arson attack carried out by Jewish extremists in 2015 that killed his parents and baby brother and left him wounded, is planning to sue the State of Israel for millions of shekels as compensation for the act of terror, claiming Israel bears the responsibility.

Relatives are set to present a complaint to the Nazareth District Court on Monday, which will demands for the compensation from the state, reported Israels Channel 2 News, according to the Times of Israel.

Tawfiq Muhammed Al Mezens center for human rights told the TV channel that the decision to file was made by the family after believing that Israel is responsible for the attack that left Ahmed in the hospital for nearly a year for treatment of severe burns.

The Dawabsha family lays all the responsibility on the State of Israel for the act of terror in which members of the Dawabsha family were murdered including the father, mother and son Ali and also for Ahmeds injuries, said Muhammed, according to the Times of Israel.

Therefore, we will present a complaint against the state, because we view it as responsible for this act of murder whether in accordance with international law or the law of the State of Israel, he said, adding that he believes Israels policies towards the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Banks are also to blame.

The occupation neglected these areas for years [successive] governments supported the illegal establishment of settlements and ignored the unprecedented incitement of Jewish terrorist organizations, he said, reported Times of Israel. These governments did not work to apply the law in these areas from which the terrorists set out and burned to death the Dawabsha family. Therefore, the state is primarily responsible for what happened.

Last month, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Israel would not pay the lawful compensation given to victims of terror by the state who are not citizens or residents of Israel, meaning the law doesnt apply to Palestinians.

The July 31 firebombing attack on the family’s home in the village killed 18-month-old Ali Saad Dawabsha and fatally injured his parents. Graffiti in Hebrew reading “revenge” was scrawled on the wall outside, police and witnesses said.

Ahmed was hospitalized with severe burns on 60 percent of his body and has spent nearly a year recovering from his injuries at the Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer in Ramat Gan, close to Tel Aviv.

The attack drew renewed attention to Jewish extremism, sparked international condemnation and worsened tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.

It was the worst attack by Israeli extremists since 2014, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly condemned stating, “This is a terrorist attack. Israel takes firm action against terrorism, no matter who its perpetrators are.” He added in a statement that “all means” would be used to bring the assailants to justice.

A 21-year-old, Israeli Jewish man, Amiram Ben-Uliel was indicted for murder. Another sixteen year-old who was unnamed because he is a minor was also indicted as an accomplice, but was alleged not to have directly participated.

The request for compensation by Ahmeds family was rejected several times. However, a Defense Ministry official told the Times of Israel last month that the family had been offered the opportunity to submit a request for compensation to an inter-ministerial committee, but instead opted to sue.

Read the rest here:

i24NEWS – Relatives of Palestinian family killed in arson attack to … – i24NEWS (press release) (registration)

Related Post

May 7, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Extremism |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."