On October 7, 2023, Hamas initiated a surprise attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip, including the Supernova Sukkot Gathering, an open-air music festival during the Simchat Torah holiday near kibbutz Re’im. 364 civilians were killed and many more wounded by Hamas, and 40 were taken hostage. This was the largest mass killing during the October 7 attack.
On January 3, 2024, forty-two survivors of the Nova party sued the state security agencies for NIS 200 million ($54 million) in Tel Aviv District Court for their negligence and failures in responding to the Nova massacre. The number of plaintiffs, as well as the amount, have reportedly increased as more survivors have joined the lawsuit.
On Sunday, the state attorney’s office requested the court to delete outright both the class action and civil action party against the state over the state’s failure to protect them.
According to the state, the October 7 failures can’t be revealed for the first time as part of a tort lawsuit as opposed to a commission of inquiry.
The state further argued that the relevant parties are busy defending the homeland and maintaining the state’s security. For that reason, the state is unable to submit a statement of defense and a statement of reply to the class action and the civil action.
In light of this, the state asked to delete the proceedings outright or at the very least delay their investigation until the security situation calms down.
In other words, we can’t be tried for failing to defend you because we’re too busy defending you.
The lawsuit details how the IDF, the Shin Bet, and the police were negligent in everything related to the incident. The plaintiffs’ representatives, attorneys Anat and Gilad Ginzburg argued that “the catastrophe could have been avoided at so many points in time.”
“One phone call separated the plaintiffs’ lives and the integrity of their bodies and souls from the destruction of their lives,” wrote the Ginzburgs in the first tort lawsuit of its kind.
Attached to the lawsuit is an expert opinion of a retired deputy superintendent detailing the defendants’ failures. The expert witness was responsible for years for issuing event permits. Attached to the claim are the plaintiffs’ medical reviews proving their claims.
