Pay-for-slay: Could the Palestinian Authority be held legally liable for October 7?

A significant legal battle is unfolding in the Jerusalem District Court, where over 8,000 plaintiffs are seeking to hold the Palestinian Authority (PA) civilly responsible for the October 7 massacre and the ensuing war. The core of the litigation revolves around whether the PA can be legally liable for the deaths, injuries, and harm caused, even if plaintiffs cannot produce direct evidence of payments made by the PA to the specific Hamas terrorists involved.

Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch, a former director of the IDF Military Prosecution in the West Bank, who has studied the PA and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) prisoner-payment system, expressed skepticism about uncovering a direct paper trail linking individual Hamas operatives to PA payments. "I don’t think we’re going to see individual links to the PA," Hirsch told The Jerusalem Post, adding that "it’s going to be very, very difficult to find that type of evidence."

“

I don’t think we’re going to see individual links to the PA. I think it’s going to be very, very difficult to find that type of evidence.

This potential evidentiary gap is central to the cases. Hirsch argues that the legal question extends beyond whether a specific terrorist received a payment. Instead, it probes whether the PA's established system of supporting and employing prisoners and former prisoners can itself create a sufficient connection to individuals who later engaged in terrorism. The argument hinges on whether the judge will accept the claim of "prima facie" responsibility based on the PA's salary payment practices.

The court is currently in the early stages of processing these thousands of lawsuits. In a July 1 decision, Jerusalem District Court Judge Eran Shilo established a common procedure, separating the overarching question of the PA's potential responsibility from the individual claims of damages and circumstances. Plaintiffs' law firms were initially required to submit concise written arguments, with the PA expected to file a single response by October 18. Written questions were due to be sent to the PA by August 11, with responses and relevant documents anticipated by October 29. Expert reports are also expected to weigh in on the connection between the PA's conduct and the massacre.

“

What will most likely happen is that most of the discussion will be about the prima facie [initial] responsibility of the PA, if that can even be shown. It will very much depend on whether the judge accepts this argument that the PA is responsible because of the payment of the salaries.