Five of the bereaved Israeli Arab families whose loved ones were killed by police during the October 2000 riots in the Galilee reached a new agreement with the state earlier this week, their lawyer, Waed Raby, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
According to media reports, each of the families is due to receive more than NIS 1 million in compensation.
Two other families, who were also represented by Raby, declined to accept the settlement. The other six families have already received compensation in accordance with an agreement with the state signed in 2006.
At the same time, all 13 families said they would continue their criminal actions against the state and hoped to have their case heard by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Raby explained that in 2006, 11 of the 13 families signed an agreement with the state according to which they were to be awarded damages for the loss and pain caused them.
The agreement was prepared by their lawyer at the time, Adi Michlin.
A few days later, Raby continued, the families allegedly learned that Michlin had presented an agreement to the Nazareth District Court that differed from the one they had been shown.
He said that according to the waiver in the agreement approved by the court, the families expressed their regret over the violence that had led to the deaths of the victims and the state did not accept responsibility for the killings, declaring that it was paying compensation even though it was not obliged to do so.
The five families, including the parents or siblings of Masslah Abu Jarad, Wissam Yazbek, Muhammad Hameisi and Amad Genayem, joined by the families of Asil Assala and Omar Akawi, petitioned the court to annul its 2006 decision on the grounds that they had been misled by their lawyer.
During the past year, Raby negotiated with the state on behalf of the five families. They reached a new agreement that was approved earlier this week by the same court.
According to Raby, the waiver in the new agreement does not include an expression of regret by the families. Furthermore, unlike the earlier agreement, the state does not declare that it is paying compensation to the families even though it is not obliged. This, said Raby, was an indication that the state recognized its responsibility for the deaths of the victims.