{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025227043390514632, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035317860746720484, 'mean_word_length': 5.12037037037037, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
EL-ALs Liability for Claims Related to Security Services in the Israeli Context: Between Exclusivity and Domestic Policy

The geopolitical situation of Israel exposes it to security threats related to international air transport. One of the measures employed to deal with such threats is pre-flight security checks, which include 'profiling'. EL-AL, the biggest Israeli air carrier, is therefore exposed to passengers' lawsuits pertaining to discriminatory treatment in security checks, pursuant to the profiling method. In addition, as the former national carrier, EL-AL is the authorized entity to perform pre-flight security checks for all Israeli air carriers' flights into the country. This situation exposes EL-AL to lawsuits originating from its conduct as a security services provider, for its own flights and for flights performed by its Israeli competitors. This article examines three cases brought before Israeli Domestic Courts. In all the cases, the claimants are Arab-Israeli passengers suing for compensations due to the discriminatory nature of the security checks they underwent. EL-AL is the respondent in all cases; however, it is sued for its different functions: once as the carrier, once as the security services provider and, in an additional case, as both. The examination shows that only in one case did the Israeli court make a reference to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention 1929, which does not allow compensations for pure emotional injuries in general, and a sense of discrimination in particular. In the other cases, the Courts did not refer to the Convention and granted compensations pursuant to Israeli domestic law, contradicting the principle of exclusivity under the Convention. Indeed, these cases reflect the possible contradictions between the Warsaw Convention and domestic laws and policies. Finally, it is argued that there is a need to mitigate the said contradiction, for the benefit of all parties involved, in a post-9/11 world.