Heard their loved ones being murdered over the phone, the state refuses to recognize them as victims of hostilities
The Attorney General determined that the law enacted in 1970 requires physical presence at the scene; about 450 requests for recognition due to real-time digital exposure on October 7 were rejected. Aid organizations demand a legislative change: "The law has been left behind, the trauma is deep and requires treatment."
They were not physically in the Gaza Envelope on the morning of October 7, but for some of them, the atrocities took place in real time right inside their homes. Family members heard their loved ones being attacked over the phone, received messages from them in their final moments, were connected to them while they hid from terrorists, or were exposed to murder and kidnapping through digital means.
Some of them, according to the parties accompanying them, have been left with severe mental trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder ever since.
However, according to the position of the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, the existing law does not allow them to be recognized as victims of hostilities solely due to that "digital presence." In her view, the requests for recognition should be rejected, since the legal framework that has developed over the years is based on the physical presence of the victim at the scene of the event.
The issue, which has reached the Supreme Court, raises a question that the Israeli legislator did not address when enacting the Compensation for Victims of Hostilities Law in 1970: in an era where a person can witness the murder of a family member in real time from a distance of dozens of kilometers, via a phone call or a screen, can we continue to define "presence" only in physical terms?
According to the data presented in the Attorney General's position, in 2023, about 59,000 claims were recognized following the October 7 massacre — a number 131 times higher than in previous years. According to National Insurance Institute data, about 78,000 victims of hostilities were recognized following October 7, with most of the recognized injuries being on a mental health basis.
Alongside these numbers, about 450 requests for recognition due to injury caused by digital exposure were submitted. All of them were rejected.
In her position, Baharav-Miara explained that extending recognition to those who were not physically present at the scene of the event could fundamentally change the boundaries of the Victims of Hostilities Law.
"Physical, direct, real, and tangible presence at the event has served as a cornerstone in the development of case law," she wrote. According to her, to win recognition, the claimant must prove a causal link between the hostile act and the injury caused to them, and in this framework, they must be at the scene of the event at the time of its occurrence, "in a way that places them at the forefront of the event and not in an external or distant circle from it."
One of the main concerns raised by the Attorney General is the creation of a "slippery slope." If exposure via phone or digital means is recognized, the state argues, it will be difficult to determine where the line is drawn: is someone who watched the atrocity videos in real time also entitled to recognition? And what about those exposed to documentation in the media, reruns, or those involved in searches and information gathering after the event?
"Once the criterion moves away from physical presence, it is difficult to draw a clear line between the first, second, and third circles, and the distinction could become arbitrary," wrote Baharav-Miara.
Her position also noted the immense scale of exposure to content from October 7. In a survey mentioned in the document, about 70% of participants answered that they watched atrocity videos that led to severe mental distress. According to the Attorney General, "a very wide public was exposed to digital content, the exposure is not limited to the petitioners."
Beyond the legal difficulty, the state also points to the possible budgetary implications of expanding the circle of those eligible, which may require allocating significant resources to another broad group of victims.
On the other hand, organizations accompanying victims argue that the reality of October 7 demonstrated just how much the distinction between physical and digital presence is no longer sufficient.
Liat Eilam, CEO of the 121 Association, which leads the "Light on the Horizon" partnership, the headquarters for expanding recognition and improving responses for victims of hostilities, says that if the legal interpretation is that the law does not currently allow for the recognition of these victims, the Knesset must change it.
"The Attorney General determines that the existing law does not allow for the recognition of victims who were exposed to murder, kidnapping, and atrocities via phone and screens. If so, the conclusion is clear: the law must change," said Eilam.
According to her, "The law regulating the rights of victims of hostilities was written in 1970, long before the era of smartphones and social networks. Since then, reality has changed, but the law has remained behind. There are people who heard their loved ones being murdered on the phone or were exposed to atrocities through a screen, and the injury to them is real, deep, and requires recognition and treatment."
As part of a proposal developed together with other civil society organizations representing victims, the organizations are asking to set a narrower boundary than the one the state fears: not blanket recognition for every person who saw videos online, but recognition for first-degree relatives who were exposed in real time to the harm of their loved ones via a phone call, messages, or other digital means.
"We believe that first-degree relatives who were exposed to harm to their loved ones via a phone call, messages, or other digital means should be recognized and receive appropriate assistance," said Eilam. "Now the ball is in the government's and the Knesset's court."
"More than a year without support from the state"
Also at the Clinic for Legal Aid in Times of War at the University of Haifa, which represents applicants who were present in real time at the October 7 events digitally, they do not intend to give up the fight.
Advocate and social worker Bar Shoham, director of the clinic, said that some of the applicants waited a long time for the Attorney General's position while they are dealing with severe mental consequences.
"Applicants we represent waited over a year for the Attorney General's position, while they suffer from severe PTSD without any support from the state," she continued. "The position does not rule out the possibility of mental injury as a result of digital exposure, however, it implies that the decision on the matter is up to the legislator."
According to her, the clinic also disagrees with the state's legal interpretation and believes that a different result can be reached even within the framework of existing law. "In our opinion, the interpretation of the existing law does allow for the recognition of this type of injury, and that is also what we argued before the court. As far as we are concerned, the position is not the final word, and the clinic will continue to fight for the rights of victims of digital presence."
The dispute exposes a gap created between a law more than five decades old and the way the October 7 attack was experienced. While the state seeks to maintain a clear legal boundary based on physical presence at the scene of hostilities, the victims and aid organizations argue that technology has completely blurred this boundary.
Now the question is not only whether digital exposure can cause mental injury — a possibility that even the state's position does not negate — but who should recognize the injury, who will bear the responsibility for assistance, and where the line will be drawn between a person exposed to atrocities online and a family member who was connected to their loved one in real time, and heard over the phone the most difficult moments of their life.
