Eye on the Law – Getting it Straight
“Lebanon is exhausted by other people’s wars”, the Security Council heard during a briefing on the country, as Iran and Israel were urged to stop fighting their war in its territory. The Israeli ambassador stated that either the Lebanese Government takes “real action to restrain Hizbullah”, or Israel will use its strength to dismantle it.
Harvey Fuld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 20-cv-02444 (D.D.C., filed 1 Sep 2020).
On September 16, 2018, Ari Fuld left his home for a routine shopping trip at the Gush Etzion Junction, While shopping he was targeted by a Hamas terrorist and stabbed multiple times in the upper back and neck using a 21-centimeter knife. After he was stabbed, he pursued, shot, and wounded the terrorist, who was also attempting to attack a local shop employee. While the shop employee’s life was spared, Fuld, who was transported to the hospital, subsequently died from his fatal injuries. Plaintiffs claimed that the attack by the Hamas terrorist was facilitated through funding, training, and material support by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. This lawsuit involved the same terror attack as in Estate of Ari Fuld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. The two cases were consolidated by the District Court, and after defendants defaulted, the Court awarded plaintiffs $191,250,948 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Estate of Ari Fuld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 20-cv-03492 (D.D.C., filed 12 Dec 2020).
On September 16, 2018, Ari Fuld left his home for a routine shopping trip at the Gush Etzion Junction, While shopping he was targeted by a Hamas terrorist and stabbed multiple times in the upper back and neck using a 21-centimeter knife. After he was stabbed, he pursued, shot, and wounded the terrorist, who was also attempting to attack a local shop employee. While the shop employee’s life was spared, Fuld, who was transported to the hospital, subsequently died from his fatal injuries. Plaintiffs claimed that the attack by the Hamas terrorist was facilitated through funding, training, and material support by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. This lawsuit involved the same terror attack as in Harvey Fuld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. The two cases were consolidated by the District Court, and after defendants defaulted, the Court awarded plaintiffs $191,250,948 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Harvey Fuld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Estate of Ari Fuld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Nathan Pam, et al. v. Arab Bank PLC, 18-cv-04670 (E.D.N.Y., filed 17 Aug 2018).
Aharon Miller, et al. v. Arab Bank PLC, 18-cv-02192 (E.D.N.Y., filed 13 Apr 2018).
Estate of Adrienne Anne Neta, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran. et al., 25-cv-03264 (D.D.C., filed 18 Sep 2025).
This lawsuit was brought by more than 125 plaintiffs alleging that Hamas is responsible for carrying out the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel with material support from state sponsors Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Victims of the onslaught – a terrorist attack of pure and indiscriminate brutality – included Israelis (both Jews and Arabs), dual nationals (including many American citizens), foreign workers, people simply visiting their families for the Jewish holidays of Sukkot and Simchat Torah, and the mostly young people attending a music festival celebrating peace and love. Plaintiffs seek more than 4 billion dollars in damages.
Estate of Yona Betzalel Brief, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran. et al., 25-cv-03264 (D.D.C., filed 18 Sep 2025).
This lawsuit was brought by more than 140 plaintiffs alleging that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups are responsible for carrying out the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel with material support from state sponsors Iran, Syria and North Korea. Victims of the onslaught – a terrorist attack of pure and indiscriminate brutality – included Israelis (both Jews and Arabs), dual nationals (including many American citizens), foreign workers, people simply visiting their families for the Jewish holidays of Sukkot and Simchat Torah, and the mostly young people attending a music festival celebrating peace and love. Plaintiffs seek more than 7 billion dollars in damages.
Yona Betzalel Brief, et al., 25-cv-03264 (D.D.C., filed 18 Sep 2025).
The Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the United States-backed “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict”, welcoming the establishment of the “Board of Peace” and authorizing the Board and Member States working with it to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force in Gaza to operate until the end of 2027. The vote on the resolution was 13 in favor and 2 abstentions (China and Russia).
Almog Meir Jan, et al. v. People Media Project, et al., 24-cv-05553 (W.D.Wash., filed 9 Jul 2024).
In this lawsuit plaintiffs, Israeli citizens, seek damages under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”). The case arises from the kidnapping of plaintiffs Almog Meir Jan, Shlomi Ziv, and Audrey Kozlov by Hamas during the terrorist attack of October 7, 2023. Plaintiffs were kidnapped at the Nova Music Festival and held hostage by Hamas operative Abdallah Aljamal before being rescued after 246 days by the Israel Defense Forces. Plaintiffs allege that defendants employed and compensated Aljamal for work as a journalist before and after the October 7 attack, despite knowing that Aljamal was a Hamas operative; and that through these actions, defendants aided and abetted the kidnapping and imprisonment of the plaintiffs and also aided and abetted terrorism, in violation of the ATS.
Almog Meir Jan, et al. v. People Media Project, et al., 24-cv-05553 (W.D.Wash., filed 9 Jul 2024).
Joelyn Troell, et al. v. Binance Holdings, Ltd. et al., 24-cv-07136 (S.D.N.Y., filed 20 Sep 2024).
Joelyn Troell, et al. v. Binance Holdings, Ltd. et al., 24-cv-07136 (S.D.N.Y., filed 20 Sep 2024).
This civil action arises under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”). The attacks in this case were committed, planned, or authorized by one or more terrorist organizations, including Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”), Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (“PIJ”), Kataib Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”). The attacks occurred from 2017 to 2024, and affected 535 direct and indirect victims, who are the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that defendants aided and abetted these attacks by knowingly facilitating the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency to and from terrorist groups; and that through this conscious, voluntary, and culpable misconduct, have enabled these terrorist organizations to commit terror attacks in Israel and elsewhere, including the attacks that injured plaintiffs.
Yaffa Lev, et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC, 08-cv-03251 (E.D.N.Y., filed 18 Nov 2008).
The acts giving rise to this action were the result of a systematic and widespread campaign of suicide bombings and other murderous attacks authorized, directed and/or committed by the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (“PIJ”), the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade (“AAMB”), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (“PFLP”). The plaintiffs, foreign nationals, filed suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act, alleging that the defendant Arab Bank PLC provided both explicit and tacit support for the goals espoused by these terrorist organizations in their attempt to destroy the State of Israel. However, the case was dismissed because corporations are exempt from being sued under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the court’s ruling.
Eyal Balva, et al. v. Binance Holdings, Ltd. el al., 25-cv-00266 (D.N.Dak., filed 24 Nov 2025).
In this lawsuit, plaintiffs seek damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”). Plaintiffs allege that for years, defendants Binance (the world’s largest cryptocurrency trading platform), Zhao (its founder and former CEO), and Chen (its co-founder and de facto CFO), knowingly, willfully, and systematically assisted Hamas, the IRGC, Hezbollah, PIJ, and other terrorist groups to transfer and conceal the equivalent of hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars through the Binance platform in support of their terrorist activities. They further allege that this assistance directly and materially contributed to the October 7 attacks and to subsequent terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas, Hezbollah, and PIJ.
Noach Newman, et al. v. BAM Trading Services, Inc., et al.
Eyal Balva, et al. v. Binance Holdings, Ltd. el al., 25-cv-00266 (D.N.Dak., filed 24 Nov 2025).
Viktoria Agurenko, et al. v. Arab Bank PLC
Viktoria Agurenko, et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC, 10-cv-00626 (E.D.N.Y., filed 11 Feb 2010).
On 1 Jun 2001, during the second intifada, a Hamas terrorist entered the line for the Dolphinarium dance club in Tel Aviv, positioned himself among several teenage girls, and blew himself up at the entrance to the dance club, killing and injuring numerous teenage girls, many of whom were celebrating their high school graduation. The bomb blast was so intense that it vaporized the bomber and the girl next to him, tore the limbs from the victims’ bodies, and scattered flesh and body parts up to six blocks away. In total, twenty-two people were killed and eighty-three people were injured. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Arab Bank aided and abetted such crimes against humanity by distributing funds to the families of suicide bombers and other perpetrators of murderous attacks against Israeli civilians, including the families of the Hamas terrorists responsible for the bombing of the dance club. The District Court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that the bank could not be sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The case having been consolidated with other lawsuits against the Arab Bank, the ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Chaim Kaplan, et al. v. Al Jazeera
Ester Lelchook, et al. v. De Banque Au Liban SAL
Ester Lelchook, et al. v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, et al.
Ester Lelchook, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Alexander Lelchook, et al. v. Commerzbank AG
Chaim Dov Przewozman, et al. v. Qatar Charity, et al., 20-cv-06088 (E.D.N.Y., filed 15 Dec 2020)
Stuart Steinberg, et al. v. Qatar Charity, et al., 24-cv-4999 (E.D.N.Y., filed 18 Jul 2024)
Shabtai Shatsky, et al. v. The Syrian Arab Republic, et al.
Stanley Boim, et al.. v. American Muslims for Palestine, et al., 17-cv-03591 (N.D.Ill., filed 12 May 2017).
This lawsuit involves the same attack as in Boim I, below. On May 13, 1996, David Boim, a 17-year-old student, was murdered while waiting with other students at a bus stop near Beit El in Samaria. He was shot in the head by bullets fired by terrorists from a passing car and was pronounced dead within an hour of the shooting. Another student was wounded in the chest. Plaintiffs claimed that the terrorist attackers who perpetrated the attack were Hamas operatives, that the organizational defendants directly or indirectly raised and laundered money for Hamas, and that those defendants financed Hamas’ terrorist activities. In Boim I, the plaintiffs were awarded $156 million, after the trebling of damages by the court. However, when seeking payment on the judgment, the defendants in Boim I claimed that they had gone out of business. A short time later, a new “organization” emerged – American Muslims for Palestine – with the same mission, leading the plaintiffs to file this lawsuit, seeking relief against the defendants in this suit.
Stanley Boim, et al.. v. American Muslims for Palestine, et al.
Jenny Rubin, et al. v. Hamas-Islamic Resistance Movement, 02-cv-00975 (D.D.C., filed 17 May 2002).
This case involves the same attack as in Rubin I in the above table. On 4 September 1997, three operatives of Hamas exploded a bomb in the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The bombers packed their powerful bombs with nails, screws, pieces of glass, and chemical poisons to cause maximum pain, suffering, and death. Hundreds of people were there. In addition to the terrorists, five persons were killed and approximately 200 were injured. The attack was directed by a senior terrorist leader, and Hamas claimed responsibility. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking compensatory and treble damages. Defendant defaulted, and the District Court, finding that plaintiffs presented a prima facie case, awarded plaintiffs $214,500,000 in damages.
Jenny Rubin, et al. v. Hamas-Islamic Resistance Movement
Ethan Halley, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al., 24-cv-00571 (E.D.N.Y., filed 28 Feb 2024)
Stuart Force, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.
Stuart Force, et al. v. Qatar Charity, et al.
Sharon Weinstock, et al. v. Republic of Sudan, et al., 20-cv-03021 (D.D.C., filed 20 Oct 2020).
The case involves the same terror attack as described in Weinstock I above. Here, the plaintiffs sued Sudan, claiming that Hamas, the perpetrator of the attack, utilized material support and resources provided by Sudan and its agents. However, shortly after the plaintiffs sued, the U.S. entered an agreement with Sudan under which it agreed to the termination of all claims by U.S. nationals against Sudan related to terrorist acts on foreign soil. The U.S. then rescinded Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, and the U.S. Congress agreed that Sudan’s sovereign immunity would resume. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include U.S. officials as defendants seeking a declaration that the agreement was unconstitutional. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit against the U.S. officials for failure to state a claim. The case as to Sudan remains unresolved, though a dismissal is likely.
Chaim Kaplan, et al. v. Hezbollah and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, et al., 09-cv-00646 (D.D.C., filed 8 Apr 2009).
This action was brought on behalf of Americans citizens harmed as a result of thousands of rockets and missiles fired at civilians in northern Israel by the Hezbollah terrorist organization between July 12 and August 14, 2006, with the aid and support of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and officials, employees, and agents of defendant North Korea. The harm suffered by the plaintiffs in 13 of the thousands of incidents in which rockets landed in civilian areas included physical injuries, emotional and psychological trauma, property damage, and financial losses. Plaintiffs sued both North Korea and Hezbollah. The District Court severed the case against Hezbollah after litigation in the Court of Appeals, and transferred it to the Eastern District of New York (see the Kaplan case in the table below). As for North Korea, it defaulted, and after the requisite factual inquiry, the court awarded the plaintiffs $169,439,132 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Anti-Tank Rocket
Incendiary Balloons
Incendiary Kites
Rockets
Shooting
Stabbing
Stuart Steinberg, et al. v. Republic of the Sudan, 20-cv-02996 (D.D.C., filed 19 Oct 2020).
This case involved the same terror attack as in the Max Steinberg lawsuit against Iran, above. It also involved two murders resulting from a stabbing and a shooting attack, and other terror incidents involving rockets, and incendiary balloons and kites. The plaintiffs alleged that the attacks and incidents were carried out by Hamas, and that Sudan provided Hamas with material support and resources, and facilitated the attacks and other incidents. However, shortly after the plaintiffs sued, the U.S. entered an agreement with Sudan under which it agreed to the termination of all claims by U.S. nationals against Sudan related to terrorist acts on foreign soil. The U.S. then rescinded Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, and the U.S. Congress agreed that Sudan’s sovereign immunity would resume. As a result, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Chava Mark, et al. v. The Republic of the Sudan, 20-cv-03022 (D.D.C., filed 20 Oct 2020).
This case involves the same terror attack as in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Iran, mentioned above. On 1 Jul 2016, on Route 60 near the Otniel community, two Hamas operatives perpetrated a terrorist shooting attack against the Mark family. Rabbi Michael Mark was brutally murdered, and his wife, Chava Mark, and two of his children were severely injured. When driving on the two-lane road, the Hamas terrorists pulled alongside the family’s car. One of the terrorists then opened fire with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, shooting from a distance of approximately 2 meters. In a matter of seconds, the Hamas terrorists fired approximately 25 bullets into the Marks’ car. Five bullets struck Rabbi Mark’s body, and one bullet penetrated his head. He lost control of the car, and it flipped onto its top before coming to a crashing halt. Chava Mark also sustained bullet wounds to her head. When the car stopped moving, she was unconscious, still strapped into her seat, upside-down. Their two children were both injured but remained conscious. The lawsuit alleged that Sudan provided Hamas material support and resources and facilitated the attack. However, shortly after the plaintiffs sued, the U.S. entered an agreement with Sudan under which it agreed to the termination of all claims by U.S. nationals against Sudan related to terrorist acts on foreign soil. The U.S. then rescinded Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, and the U.S. Congress agreed that Sudan’s sovereign immunity would resume. As a result the District Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Chaim Kaplan, et al. v. Hezbollah, et al.
Chaim Kaplan, et al. v. Hezbollah and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, et al.
Stuart Steinberg, et al. v. The Republic of the Sudan
Chava Mark, et al. v. The Republic of the Sudan
Sharon Weinstock, et al. v. Republic of Sudan, et al.
Stuart Force, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Attack on Bus
Car Rammings
Kidnap/Murder
Shootings
Stabbings
Stuart Force, et al. v. Republic of Sudan, et al.
Attack on Bus
Rocket Attacks
Shootings
Stabbings
Arnold Roth, et al.. v. Syrian Arab Republic, et al., 14-cv-01946 (D.D.C., filed 20Nov 2014).
This case was established by the District Court after the claims against the Syrian defendants were severed from the Roth I case, above. It involves the same facts concerning the suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem which caused the death of Malka Roth. As in Roth I, the plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that the Syrian defendants were liable, having provided material support and assistance to Hamas, the orchestrator of the bombing, and as such, were subject to suit under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $74,764,076 in damages.
Arnold Roth, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 11-cv-01377 (D.D.C., filed 28 Jul 2011).
On August 9, 2001, as Malki Roth, a 16-year-old student, was waiting to be served at the counter of Sbarro, a busy pizzeria at the corner of Jaffa Road and King George Avenue in the center of Jerusalem, a Hamas terror operative carrying an explosive device concealed in a guitar case slung across his back walked into the pizzeria and detonated an explosive device packed with shrapnel and nails. Fifteen people were killed, one of whom was Malki Roth, and more than 130 people were injured. The pizzeria was completely gutted in the massive explosion. Hamas took credit for the bombing. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security were liable, having provided material support and assistance to Hamas, the orchestrator of the bombing, and as such, were subject to suit under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $131,191,019 in damages. Due to difficulties in completing service, the Court severed the plaintiffs’ claims against Syria. Those claims became the basis of the separate lawsuit in Roth II.
Sari Singer, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Stan Salzman, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 17-cv-02475 (D.D.C., filed 16 Nov 2017).
On 4 September 1997, three operatives of Hamas exploded a bomb in the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The bombers packed their powerful bombs with nails, screws, pieces of glass, and chemical poisons to cause maximum pain, suffering, and death. Hundreds of people were there. In addition to the terrorists, five persons were killed and approximately 200 were injured. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that Iran provided material resources and support for the suicide bombing in the form of funding, training and direction to Hamas. Defendants defaulted, and after the required evidentiary inquiry, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $17,500,000 in damages.
Ruth Schwartz, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 18-cv-01349 (D.D.C., filed 6 Jun 2018).
On November 19, 2015, Ezra Schwartz and Plaintiffs Michael Benzakein and Jason Geller were riding in a passenger van on their way to deliver care packages to Israeli soldiers and to beautify a park in honor of three Israeli boys who had been kidnapped and murdered in 2014. The van they were traveling in passed through Gush Etzion Junction, where it encountered traffic and was forced to slow down. A Hamas operative was driving and looking for a place to commit a terror attack near the Junction. As the traffic was moving slowly the terrorist seized the opportunity and opened fire with an Uzi automatic submachine gun, spraying the surrounding vehicles and their passengers with bullets.
He emptied three magazines, constituting 75 bullets, and used his car to ram other vehicles before being apprehended. Three people, including Ezra, were killed, and nine others, including Plaintiffs Benzakein and Geller, were injured. This action was filed against Iran, alleging that it provided material support and resources to Hamas, the terrorist group that carried out the attack. After default by Iran, and the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $118,722,960 in damages.
Chava Mark, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 20-cv-00651 (D.D.C., filed 5 Mar 2020).
On 1 Jul 2016, on Route 60 near the Otniel community, two Hamas operatives perpetrated a terrorist shooting attack against the Mark family. Rabbi Michael Mark was brutally murdered, and his wife Chava Mark and two of his children were severely injured. When driving on the two-lane road, the Hamas terrorists pulled alongside the family’s car. One of the terrorists then opened fire with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, shooting from a distance of approximately 2 meters. In a matter of seconds, the Hamas terrorists fired approximately 25 bullets into the Marks’ car. Five bullets struck Rabbi Mark’s body, and one bullet penetrated his head. He lost control of the car, and it flipped onto its top before coming to a crashing halt. Chava Mark also sustained bullet wounds to her head. When the car stopped moving, she was unconscious, still strapped into her seat, upside-down. Their two children were both injured but remained conscious. The lawsuit alleged that Iran provided Hamas material support and resources and conspired with Hamas to carry out the attack. Iran defaulted and after conducting the required factual inquiry,, the District Court found for the plaintiffs and awarded $141,250,000 in damages.
Yitzhak Ben-Yishai, et al. v. The Syrian Arab Republic and The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 18-cv-03150 (D.D.C., filed 31 Dec 2018).
On November 4, 2001, a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad boarded a public bus armed with an M-16 automatic rifle near the French Hill neighborhood in Jerusalem. The terrorist opened fire on the bus passengers as the vehicle stopped at a traffic light. Shoshana Ben-Yishai, a 16-year-old high school student, was a passenger on the bus returning home from classes that day. As the gunman opened fire, Shoshana was shot in the head and killed along with another student on the bus. Forty-five other passengers were injured in the attack. The murderer, as he fled, was eliminated by a police officer. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants knowingly and willingly conspired, agreed, and acted in concert with one another and with the PIJ, in pursuance of common plan, design, agreement to cause and facilitate the commission of acts of extrajudicial killing and international terrorism, including the French Hill terrorist Attack. Defendants defaulted and after conducting the required factual inquiry, found for the plaintiffs and awarded $111,547,340 in damages.
Estate of Giora Duvdevani, et al., v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 25-cv-00046 (D.D.C., filed 7 Jan 2025)
Estate of Ayelet Arnin, et al., v. The Syrian Arab Republic, 24-cv-02543 (D.D.C., filed 5 Sep 2024)
Estate of Ayelet Arnin, et al., v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 24-cv-02093 (D.D.C., filed 17 Jul 2024)
Maurice Shnaider, et al., v. American Muslims for Palestine, et al., 24-cv-01067 (M.D.Fl., filed 2 May 2025)
Estate of Ayelet Arnin, et al., v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 24-cv-01819 (D.D.C., filed 24 Jun 2024)
Maurice Shnaider, et al., v. Al Jazeera Media Network, et al., 25-cv-00538 (D.D.C., filed 23 Feb 2025)
Yisrael Weiser, et al., v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 24-cv-03244 (D.D.C., filed 17 Nov 2024)
Liat Atzili, et al. v. UNRWA, et al., 25-cv-05677 (S.D.N.Y., filed 9 Jul 2025)
Estate of Tamar Kedem Siman Tov, et al. v. UNRWA, et al., 24-cv-04765 (S.D.N.Y., filed 24 Jun 2024)
Tom Shalom, et al. v. Bashar Masri, 25-cv-01024 (D.D.C.. filed 7 Apr 2025)
Estate of Avraham Sasi, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 24-cv-00284 (D.D.C.. filed 31 Jan 2024)
Judith Raanan, et al. v. Binance Holdings Limited and Changpeng Zhao, 24-cv-00697 (S.D.N.Y., filed 31 Jan 2024)
Maya Parizer, et al. v. AJP Educational Foundation, Inc., et al., 24-cv-00724 (E.D.Vir., filed 1 May 2024)
Noach Newman, et al. v. The Associated Press, 24-cv-20684 (S.D.Fla., filed 21 Feb 2024)
Estate of Adrienne Neta, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 24-cv-01914 (D.D.C., filed 1 Jul 2024)
Estate of Pdaya Mark, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 24-cv-02133 (D.D.C.. filed 21 Jul 2024)
Lishay Lavi, et al. v. UNRWA USA National Committee, Inc., 24-cv-00312 (D.Del., filed 8 Mar 2024)
Iris Haggai, et al. v. Nerdeen Kiswani, et al.,25-cv-02400 (S.D.N.Y., filed 24 Mar 2025)
Estate of Sivan Sha’arabany, et al. v. United Nations Relief and Works Agency, et al., 25-cv-02490 (D.D.C., filed 31 Jul 2025)
Yitzhak Ben-Yishai, et al. v. The Syrian Arab Republic and The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Chava Mark, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran
Arnold Roth, et al. v. Syrian Arab Republic, et al.
Arnold Roth, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, and Syrian Arab Republic, et al.
Shlomo Leibovitch, et al. v. the Syrian Arab Republic, et al.
Shlomo Leibovitch, et al.. v. The Syrian Arab Republic, et al., 08-cv-01939 (N.D.Ill., filed 3 Apr 2008).
On June 17, 2003, when the Leibovitch family was driving on the Trans-Israel Highway, their minivan was shot up by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative who opened unprovoked fire with a Kalashnikov machine-gun and two pistols. Seven-year-old Noam Leibovitch was killed, and her three-year-old sister, Shira Leibovitch (an American citizen), was permanently injured. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, claimed that Syria and Iran provided to the PIJ the material support and resources that caused and facilitated the terrorist attack. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case against the Syrian defendants. Iran defaulted, and after an evidentiary inquiry, the District Court found Iran to be liable for $52,500,000 in damages due to the injuries and trauma suffered by Shira, but dismissed the claims of the non-American plaintiffs’ for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court, whereupon the Court awarded $14,500,000 in damages to the non-American plaintiffs.
Sarri Singer, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 21-cv-02639 (D.D.C., filed 8 Oct 2021).
On June 11, 2003, Sarri Singer was on a city bus in Jerusalem. Around 5:30 p.m., an individual dressed as an ultra-orthodox Jew boarded the bus at the Mahane Yehuda market. A short while later, as the bus drove down Jaffa Road, he detonated a bomb, demolishing the bus and killing 17 passengers. Over 100 people were wounded, including dozens of passersby. After the blast, Sarri’s left eye was swollen shut, and she could see very little out of her right eye. She also could not hear, as the blast ruptured both of her eardrums, causing her ears to bleed for at least a week. Sarri received immediate surgery on her left shoulder because shrapnel from the bomb had completely penetrated and broken her clavicle. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit claimed that the defendant provided material support to Hamas intending that it would commit violent acts of terrorism in Israel. The defendant defaulted and the District Court, having conducted the necessary factual inquiry, found for the plaintiffs and awarded $22,500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Stan Salzman, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Rocket Attacks
Suicide Bombings
Bus Stop
Outdoor Market
Pedestrian Mall
Pizza Parlor
Ruth Rothstein, et al. v. USB AG, 08-cv-04414 (D.D.C., filed 9 May 2008).
Lawsuit on behalf of multiple victims and families seeking damages from six terror attacks committed by Hamas and Hezbollah that caused the deaths of numerous innocent civilians, and injured many more. Plaintiffs allege that the attacks were acts of international terrorism committed by members of Hamas and Hezbollah – both being designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations – and that UBS had knowingly facilitated those attacks. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim due to a lack of a causal link between UBS and the terror organizations supported by Iran. The case was remanded by the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of a subsequent Supreme Court ruling. Upon remand, the District Court again dismissed the case. The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Ruth Schwartz, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Jason Kirschenbaum, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 08-cv-01814 (D.D.C., filed 17 Oct 2008).
This is a follow-up lawsuit to Kirschenbaum I, once again seeking punitive damages, now based on new Federal legislation. Under that legislation, the District Court concluded that punitive damages were warranted and granted judgment in the amount of $300,000,000 against the defendants.
Jason Kirschenbaum, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 03-cv-01708 (D.D.C., filed 11 Aug 2003).
On December 1, 2001, Jason Kirschcnbaum was on his way to meet a friend for dinner at the pedestrian mall on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem when two suicide bombers walked into the mall and detonated explosive devices loaded with shrapnel and nails. One of the bombers was just 20 feet from where Jason stood. The attack killed ten people and injured some 120. Jason was severely injured and twice underwent surgery to remove shrapnel from his leg. Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack. Plaintiffs alleged that the Iranian defendants provided material support and substantial assistance in the attack. Upon default, the District Court awarded $13, 750,000 in compensatory damages but declined to impose punitive damages due to the law in effect at the relevant time (subsequently awarded in Kirshenbaum II).
Jason Kirschenbaum, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Islam, et al.
Jason Kirschenbaum, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Islam, et al.
Batsheva Shoham v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 12-cv-00508 (D.D.C., filed 2 Apr 2012).
On June 5, 2001, Batsheva and Benjamin Shoham were ambushed by two members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), who threw stones and rocks at the couple’s car as they were driving near Shilo, just minutes from their home. Their five-month old child, Yehuda, was also in the car. Rocks crashed through the windscreen and crushed the infant’s skull. Yehuda died of severe brain damage six days later. The plaintiff’ alleged that the death was caused by the willful and deliberate acts of terror by the AAMB acting under the direct and indirect sponsorship and/or direction and/or agency of the defendants, who provided material support to AAMB to enable them to attack the plaintiff and her family. After a two-day evidentiary hearing the District Court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish causation between defendants’ conduct and plaintiff’s damages, thus dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appealed but subsequently voluntarily dismissed the appeal.
Batsheva Shoham v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Estate of Yonadav Hirshfeld, et al. v. Republic of the Sudan
Estate of Yonadav Hirshfeld, et al. v. Republic of the Sudan, 20-cv-03029 (D.D.C., filed 20 Oct 2020).
On March 6, 2008, an operative of Hamas arrived at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem with an AK-47, also known as a Kalashnikov assault rifle. He opened fire on unarmed Yeshiva students killing eight in the attack, including Yonadav Hirshfeld. Many more were injured. Yonadav, while standing outside the building, was one of the first students shot. He fled inside and went down some stairs, but then collapsed. By the time help reached him, he was dead. Plaintiffs alleged that Sudan provided financial and material support to Hamas, and was thus liable for the plaintiff’s death. The case is pending before the District Court.
Estate of Yonadav Hirshfeld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 15-cv-01082 (D.D.C., filed 10 Jul 2015).
On March 6, 2008, an operative of Hamas arrived at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem with an AK-47, also known as a Kalashnikov assault rifle. He opened fire on unarmed Yeshiva students killing eight in the attack, including Yonadav Hirshfeld. Many more were injured. Yonadav, while standing outside the building, was one of the first students shot. He fled inside and went down some stairs, but then collapsed. By the time help reached him, he was dead. Plaintiffs alleged that Iran provided financial and material support to Hamas, and was thus liable for the plaintiff’s death. Upon default, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $191,950,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Estate of Yonadav Hirshfeld, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Sarri Singer, et al. v. Bank of Palestine, 19-cv-00006 (E.D.N.Y., filed 1 Jan 2019).
Lawsuit on behalf of more than 100 victims and families seeking damages from twelve terror attacks that caused the deaths of numerous innocent civilians, and injured many more. Plaintiffs allege that the attacks were acts of international terrorism committed by members of Hamas – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization –and that the Bank of Palestine knowingly – and with awareness of its important role – provided
financial services to HAMAS. The District Court has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the case is pending.
Michal Honickman, et al. v. BLOM bank Sal, 19-cv-00008 (E.D.N.Y., filed 1 Jan 2019).
Lawsuit on behalf of more than 100 victims and families seeking damages from twelve terror attacks that caused the deaths of numerous innocent civilians, and injured many more. Plaintiffs allege that the attacks were acts of international terrorism committed by members of Hamas – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization –and that BLOM Bank knowingly – and with awareness of its important role – provided
financial services to HAMAS. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, ruling that it failed to state a claim against the bank. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
Shooting Attacks
Suicide Bombings
Bar/Nightclub
Buses
Gas Station
Passover Seder
Pedestrian Mall
Social Club
University Cafeteria
Michal Honickman, et al. v. BLOM Bank SAL
Shooting Attacks
Suicide Bombings
Bar/Nightclub
Buses
Gas Station
Passover Seder
Pedestrian Mall
Social Club
University Cafeteria
Sarri Anne Singer, et al. v. Bank of Palestine
Avraham Sisso, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.
Avraham Sisso, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 05-cv-00394 (D.D.C., filed 24 Feb 2005).
On September 19, 2002, a Hamas terrorist operative boarded a public bus in a busy shopping area in downtown Tel Aviv. Upon boarding the bus, the terrorist detonated a bomb, killing six and injuring more than sixty people. The blast blew the roof off the bus, shattered its windows, and lifted it off the ground. The front end of the bus was mangled and blackened. Rozana Sisso, who had just left her store to go to lunch, was standing on the street corner next to the bus when it exploded. The violent force of the explosion killed Ms. Sisso immediately. Her family brought suit alleging that the Iranian defendants provided financial and material support to Hamas, and were thus liable for her death. Upon default and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $20,000,000 in compensatory damages against both the Iranian defendants and Hamas.
Estate of Max Steinberg, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, and Syrian Arab Republic, 17-cv-01910 (D.D.C., filed 18 Sep 2017).
On July 20, 2014, Max Steinberg’s Israeli army unit initiated a mission to discover and destroy underground tunnels used by Hamas. During the mission, Hamas terrorists launched rocket-propelled grenades at an Israeli armored vehicle, killing Max. Shortly after, Hamas took credit for the attack. Plaintiffs claimed that Iran and Syria, through their actions, caused the death of Max Steinberg, by providing Hamas with funding, direction, material support, encouragement, safe haven and/or training for its terrorist activities. After the required inquiry into the facts and law, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded a total of $165,934,000 in damages.
Estate of Max Steinberg, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, and Syrian Arab Republic
Zivie Tamam, et al. v. Fransabank Sal, et al.
Tamam et al. v. Fransabank Sal, el al., 08-cv-06156 (S.D.N.Y., filed 3 Jul 2008).
On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah operatives entered Israel from Lebanon, ambushing an Israeli military patrol. The result was three Israeli soldiers killed, two soldiers wounded, and two kidnapped. This attack led to the 34-day conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, with Hezbollah firing some 3,900 rockets at Israeli civilian population centers – Haifa, Acco, Shetula, Shomra, Zar’it, Nahariya, Rosh Pina, and Safed, as well as other communities. From July 12 through August 14, 2006, the rockets fired by Hezbollah led to 43 Israeli civilians being killed and several hundred injured, many of them, like plaintiffs, seriously. Plaintiffs claimed that the provision of financial services by defendants to parties associated with Hezbollah constituted terrorism financing as well as conspiracy and aiding and abetting Hezbollah to commit war crimes and terrorism. The District Court concluded that there was insufficient connection between the defendant banks and the U.S. under the facts of the case and thus dismissed the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.
Shaul Stern et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran., 00-cv-02602 (D.D.C., filed 27 Oct 2000).
On July 30, 1997, while Leah Stem was shopping at the Mahaneh Yehuda open-air produce market in Jerusalem, terrorists trained by, belonging to, and acting on behalf of the HAMAS terrorist organization, willfully and deliberately detonated a massive explosive charge, shattering the market and killing 14 persons and injuring dozens of others. The bombing first injured Leah, a 69-year-old widow, causing severe pain and suffering, and later her death. Plaintiffs allege that the murder was an act of international terrorism committed by Hamas with the material aid and support of the Iranian defendants. The defendants defaulted, and the District Court, having made the requisite inquiry into the facts, found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $312,000,000 in damages.
Shaul Stern, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Shelley Levine et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al., 21-cv-03043 (D.Colo., filed 11 Nov 2021).
On November 18, 2014, two terrorists burst into a Synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem, wielding a pistol, meat cleavers, and an axe, and began shooting and slashing their way through the sanctuary, filled with worshipers, amidst their morning prayers. They murdered four worshippers and critically wounded a responding Druze Israeli police officer, who later died of his wounds. They also injured seven worshippers, one of whom never woke up from a coma and died 11 months later. The two attackers were shot dead by the police. Plaintiffs allege that the two terrorists were operatives of the PFLP, a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and connected to the Palestinian Authority. and that the attack was an act of international terrorism committed by the PFLP operatives. The case was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, but on appeal has been remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court ruling in the Fuld/Sokolow cases.
Shelly Levine, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Estate of Eitam Henkin, et al. v. Kuveyt Turk Katilimi Bankasi, A.S.
Estate of Eitam Henkin, et al. v. Kuveyt Turk Katilimi Bankasi, A.S., 19-cv-05394 (E.D.N.Y., filed 23 Dec 2019).
This lawsuit involves the same terror attack as in Henkin I and II, in Section II above, and in Henkin III in this Section. On 1 Oct 2015, Eitam Henkin, an American citizen, his wife, Na’ama, and their four children were driving past the town of Beit Furik when terrorist operatives opened fire with an automatic rifle, wounding Eitam. After a struggle, the operatives fired additional bursts, murdering Eitam and his wife. Plaintiffs allege that the murder was an act of international terrorism committed by three members of a Hamas cell – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – with the material aid and support of the defendant bank in facilitating funds transfers through the international and U.S. financial systems on Hamas’s behalf and fully aware of Hamas’s violent activities. The case is currently pending before the District Court, having vacated upon reconsideration its prior decision to dismiss.
Stephen Flatow, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Stephen Flatow, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 97-cv-03961 (D.D.C., filed 26 Feb 1997).
On April 9, 1995, a suicide bomber drove a van loaded with explosives into a bus on which Alisa Michelle Flatow was traveling to a Mediterranean resort in the Gush Katif area of Gaza. Alisa sustained a severe head injury, a piece of shrapnel having pierced her skull and lodged in her brain. She died the next morning. The Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the terror attack. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that the defendants were liable for having provided material support and assistance to the Palestine Islamic Jihad for the terror attack. Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $247,513,220 in damages.
Wachsman, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 06-cv-00351 (D.D.C., filed 28 Feb 2006).
On October 9, 1994, four Hamas terrorists, disguised as Orthodox Jews, abducted Nachshon Wachsman, an Israeli soldier, from a street near Lod. They intended to hold him to be used in an exchange for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists held in Israeli prisons. During his captivity, Wachsman was severely tortured and maltreated both physically and emotionally. On October 14, 1994, an Israeli military commando unit attempted to rescue Wachsman, but he was found dead, his arms and legs shackled, with numerous injuries, including burn sites and bite marks. He had been fatally shot numerous times at close range. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that the Islamic Republic of Iran was liable for having provided material support and assistance to Hamas, the orchestrator of the abduction and murder. Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $46,709,931 in damages.
Wachsman, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Sharon Weinstock, et al. v. Mousa Abu Marzouk, 17-cv-23202 (S.D.Fl, filed 24 Aug 2017).
The case involves the same terror attack as described in Weinstock I in the table above. Here, however, the plaintiffs sued Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, a senior leader of the Hamas terrorist organization who served as the Deputy Chief of the Hamas Political Bureau. In the years prior to the terrorist attack, acting personally from within the United States and through agents located within the United States, Abu Marzook transferred millions of dollars to Hamas, and took other actions which enabled, facilitated, and caused the terrorist attack. The defendant defaulted. After the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded the same amount of damages as in Weinstock1; $78,873,000.
Sharon Weinstock, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Hamas, 17-cv-23272 (S.D.Fl, filed 29 Aug 2017).
On December 1, 1993, Yitzhak Weinstein, a yeshiva student, was traveling north by car on Highway 60 with other passengers. About nine miles north of Jerusalem, the car’s exhaust pipe developed a problem, and the driver stopped the car. Both he and Yitzhak exited the car to fix the problem. While outside the car, a vehicle containing three terrorist operatives of Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades armed with automatic assault rifles approached the disabled car and opened fire. Yitzhak and Shalva Ozana were both hit by the machine-gun fire. Ms. Ozana, a 24-year-old kindergarten teacher, was killed on the spot, and Yitzhak was mortally wounded. He was rushed to the hospital, but despite efforts to save him, he died early the next morning. Hamas declared responsibility for the attack. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that Hamas was liable as well as the Islamic Republic of Iran for having provided material support and assistance to Hamas, the orchestrator of the bombing. Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $78,873,000 in damages.
Weinstein, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Susan Weinstein, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 00-cv-02601 (D.D.C., filed 27 Oct 2000).
On February 25, 1996, a suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus in Jerusalem. The explosion caused the complete destruction of the bus, resulted in debris being hurled in excess of 100 meters, and led to the injury and death of numerous individuals, including Ira Weinstein. Nails were placed in the bomb. Weinstein suffered excruciating and conscious pain for seven weeks before dying. This included fourth degree bums over 40% of his body, severe damage to his lungs, multiple pieces of shrapnel lodged in his body, general systematic failure, renal failure, severe infection, multiple surgeries including the amputation of both of his legs, and abdominal surgery to halt an infection caused by shrapnel. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, and Iranian officials were liable, having provided material support and assistance to Hamas, the orchestrator of the bombing. Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $206,248,164 in damages.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petition
Amicus Briefs in Support of Fuld & Sokolow
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Meir Amit Intelligence Center – Reports
Security Council Meetings
Wilson Center, Timeline of the Conflict with the Houthis (Through July 2024)
Significant Events from July 2024
Goldstein, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 16-cv-02507 (D.D.C., filed 23 Dec 2016).
On 19 Aug 2003, nineteen-year-old Shalom Goldstein was severely injured in the suicide bombing of a crowded Jerusalem city bus. An operative of Hamas perpetrated the attack, the explosion killing 23 people, and wounding over 130 in and around the bus. Shalom was rendered unconscious. When he awoke, he made it off the bus and discovered that his clothes were in shreds, his glasses missing, and that he was covered in the blood and remains of his fellow passengers. The explosion burst Shalom’s eardrums, leaving him largely deaf and with severe ear pain. The explosion also caused severe lacerations and bruises to his body, face, and eyes from flying shards of window glass as well as physical shock from the pressure wave of the bombing. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging that the Iranian defendants provided financial and material support to Hamas, and were thus liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries. Upon default, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $13,062,500 in compensatory damages.
Goldstein, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al
Weinstock, et al v. Mousa Abu Marzook
Weinstock, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al
Wultz, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al, 08-cv-01460 (D.D.C., filed 22 Aug 2008). Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging that they provided material support to the Palestine Islamic Jihad, whose operative exploded a suicide bomb at the Rosh Ha’Ir restaurant in Tel Aviv, killing 11 people and injuring dozens of others. The terror bombing occurred on 17 April 2006. Sixteen-year-old Daniel Wultz was severely injured and died of his wounds on 14 May 2006. Plaintiff Yekutiel Wultz, father of Daniel, was also severely injured but survived. Defendant Iran, and other defendants from Iran defaulted. Motions to dismiss by defendants Syria and the Bank of China were denied. Subsequently, the case against the Bank of China was transferred and ultimately voluntarily dismissed. The District Court found the remaining defendants culpable and awarded plaintiffs $32,068,634 in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitive damages, for a total award of $332,068,634.
Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al
* The case against the Bank of China was voluntarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 11-cv-03706 (E.D.N.Y., filed 1 Aug 2011). Plaintiff, Moti Gill, sued the defendant bank for knowingly providing material support to Hamas, which perpetrated the terrorist attack in which Mr. Gill was injured (being the same attack that underlies Gill I, above). At the time of the attack – the morning of April 4, 2008 – Mr. Gill was employed as an aide to Israel’s Public Security Minister, Avi Dichter. Mr. Gill was accompanying a tour Mr. Dichter was leading for a delegation of the Board of Governors of the Canada-Israel Committee. At an observation point inside Israel’s border overlooking the Gaza Strip, the delegation, including Mr. Gill, came under sniper fire from the Gaza Strip. Mr. Gill was shot in the leg, groin, and surrounding bodily areas. He crawled behind a tour bus out of the line of fire, where he remained until he was evacuated to a hospital in Ashkelon, Israel. Hamas’s paramilitary and terrorist infrastructure, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, issued a statement declaring joint responsibility for the 2008 Attack together with the “Defenders of al-Aqsa Brigade” and boasted specifically about shooting Mr. Gill. Notwithstanding Hamas’s admitted role in the shooting, the Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to tie the bank accounts of individuals who may have been affiliated with Hamas to Hamas itself, and thus dismissed the case.
Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC
Gill v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 15-cv-02272 (D.D.C., filed 31 Dec 2015). Plaintiff, Moti Gill, sued Iran, a designated State Sponsor of Terrorism, for knowingly providing material support to Hamas, which perpetrated the terrorist attack in which Mr. Gill was injured. At the time of the attack – the morning of April 4, 2008 – Mr. Gill was employed as an aide to Israel’s Public Security Minister, Avi Dichter. Mr. Gill was accompanying a tour Mr. Dichter was leading for a delegation of the Board of Governors of the Canada-Israel Committee. At an observation point inside Israel’s border overlooking the Gaza Strip, the delegation, including Mr. Gill, came under sniper fire from the Gaza Strip. Mr. Gill was shot in the leg, groin, and surrounding bodily areas. He crawled behind a tour bus out of the line of fire, where he remained until he was evacuated to a hospital in Ashkelon, Israel. Hamas’s paramilitary and terrorist infrastructure, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, issued a statement declaring joint responsibility for the 2008 Attack together with the “Defenders of al-Aqsa Brigade” and boasted specifically about shooting Mr. Gill. Iran defaulted, after which the District Court accepted the findings of fact submitted by Mr. Gill, and awarded him $7.5 million in compensatory damages and $22.5 million in punitive damages.
Gill v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Fraenkel, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al, 15-cv-01080 (D.D.C., filed 9 Jul 2015). Lawsuit brought by family members of Yaakov Fraenkel, one of three teenage boys kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists using material support and resources provided by the defendants. On the night of June 12, 2014, two trained operatives and employees of Hamas drove a stolen vehicle with Israeli license plates on roads in Gush Etzion, southwest of Jerusalem, looking for one or more Israeli civilians to kidnap. At around 10:15 that night, Naftali, along with Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah, were waiting at a bus stop in Gush Etzion, looking to hitch a ride in the direction of their homes. The kidnappers stopped and picked them up in their stolen vehicle and quickly drew weapons on the three youngsters who were in the back seat. Gilad Shaer managed to place a call to the police stating in a whisper that he had been kidnapped. As a result of the call, Israeli police were able to trace the location of the missing boys to the Hebron area. The kidnappers shot the boys at an unknown time that evening and torched and abandoned the stolen vehicle, which was later found by security personnel with numerous bloodstains. Hamas’s military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades claimed responsibility for the kidnapping and murder. After the defendants defaulted, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it awarded $5.1 million in compensatory damages for pain, suffering, and solatium; and $50 million in punitive damages. On remand from an appeal, the Court increased the solatium damages by $5.4 million.
Fraenkel, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al
Linde, et al v. Arab Bank, PLC,
Linde, et al v. Arab Bank, PLC, 04-cv-02799 (E.D.N.Y., filed 2 Jul 2004).
Plaintiffs brought suit, seeking to hold the Arab Bank liable for deaths and severe injuries resulting from acts of terrorism that Palestinian terrorist groups perpetrated between 2000 and 2004, during the Second Intifada. After 10 years of litigation that included multiple appeals, the case was tried in August and September 2014 before an 11-member jury, The jury unanimously found the bank liable for knowingly providing financial services to Hamas. The parties subsequently reached a settlement on all claims that, however, allowed the Arab Bank an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit upheld the jury verdict but found a reversible error regarding a jury instruction. Nevertheless, the decision rendered the case fully resolved under the settlement, and no further trial was scheduled. Although the settlement was confidential, plaintiffs’ attorneys have stated that plaintiffs received meaningful and very substantial compensation.
Spetner, et al v. Palestine Investment Bank
Spetner, et al v. Palestine Investment Bank, 19-cv-00005 (D.D.C., filed 1 Jan 2019).
This lawsuit, brought by more than 20 families who were victims of terrorist attacks committed by Palestinian terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (AAMB), alleges that the defendant, a Palestinian bank headquartered in Ramallah, knowingly aided and abetted the Government of Iraq from 2001 through 2003 (led at the time by Saddam Hussein) in providing reward payments of up top $25,000 to families of Palestinian terrorists who died in the course of terrorist attacks that killed and injured hundreds of civilians, including American citizens. The District Court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The case is currently pending with plaintiffs having filed a third amended complaint.
Estate of Judah Henkin, et al. v. Bank Saderat Iran, et al.
Anna Henkin, et al. v. Qatar Charity, et. al, 21-cv-05716 (D.D.C., filed 13 Oct 2021).
This lawsuit, brought by the estates and families of deceased terror victims alleges that the defendant charity and banks conspired in conjunction with and spearheaded by the government and Royal Family of Qatar to provide material support and resources to Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, allowing it to carry out attacks that killed or injured members of plaintiffs’ families and countless other civilians in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Defendants seek compensatory and treble damages. The case has been dismissed against Qatar National Bank and is currently being litigated with respect to Qatar Charity and Masraf al Rayans.
Estate of Judah Henkin et al. v. Bank Saderat Iran, et al, 21-cv-02345 (D.D.C., filed 3 Sep 2021).
This lawsuit involves the same terror attack as in Henkin I and II in the table in Section II above, and Henkin IV below. On 1 Oct 2015, Eitam Henkin, an American citizen, his wife, Na’ama, and their four children were driving past the town of Beit Furik when terrorist operatives opened fire with an automatic rifle, wounding Eitam. After a struggle, the operatives fired additional bursts, murdering Eitam and his wife. Plaintiffs allege that the murder was an act of international terrorism committed by three members of a Hamas cell – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – with the material aid and support of Defendant banks. Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages from the banks. The case is pending.
Anna Henkin, et al. v. Qatar Charity, et al.
Gaza, Judea, Samaria
Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria
Iran
Houthis
Syria
Summary of Terrorist Events
Gaza, Judea, Samaria
Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria
[See the Syria popup for reports on Syria from December 2024]
Iran
Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs
Australia
Austria
Canada
Estonia
European Union
Finland
France
Germany
France
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zealand
Romania
Sweden
Switzerland
Scotland
United Kingdom
United States
10th General Assembly Emergency Session
Reconvened on 12 Dec 2023
45-47th Plenary Meetings
Israel Falsely Accused of Bombing Hospital
In the early evening of 17 Oct 2023, reports emerged of an explosion at the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza City. Within a short time, Hamas claimed that the hospital had been bombed by Israel, resulting in the death of at least 500 people. World media immediately parroted the Hamas story with blaring headlines of a massacre. Later in the evening, the IDF denied the accusation, expressing the view that a failed Islamic Jihad rocket caused the explosion when it landed in the parking lot adjoining the hospital. Nonetheless, the New York Times initially had a banner headline with a photo under it falsely suggesting that the destroyed building depicted in the photo was that of the hospital.
What has emerged is that the incident was far from a massacre. Photos and videos of damage that appeared the following day show damage from shrapnel and blown-out windows but otherwise intact buildings.
There have been many analyses and assessments of the incident, the most credible ones leaving it highly doubtful that an Israel projectile either deliberately or accidentally fell in the hospital parking lot.
Moreover, the number of casualties from the incident has not been verified. Many analysts believe the number to be much lower.
10th General Assembly Emergency Session
Reconvened on 26 Oct 2023
Concluded on 2 Nov 2023
The Lieber Institute – Articles of War
Israel – Hamas – Hezbollah 2023-26
Plenary Meetings
29 Jan to 5 Feb 1982
29 Jan – A/ES-9/PV.1
29 Jan – A/ES-9/PV.2
1 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.3
1 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.4
2 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.5
2 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.6
3 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.7
3 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.8
4 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.9
4 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.10
5 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.11
5 Feb – A/ES-9/PV.12
Provisional Records of Meetings
22 Jul 1980 t0 24 Sep 1982
22 Jul 1980 – A/ES-7/PV.1
23 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.2
23 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.3
24 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.4
25 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.5
26 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.6
26 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.7
27 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.8
28 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.9
29 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.10
30 Jul – A/ES-7/PV.11
21 Apr 1982 – A/ES-7/PV.12
22 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.13
22 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.14
23 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.15
26 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.16
27 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.17
27 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.18
28 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.19
29 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.20
30 Apr – A/ES-7/PV.21
28 Jun – A/ES-7/PV.22
29 Jun – A/ES-7/PV.23
29 Jun – A/ES-7/PV.24
18 Aug – A/ES-7/PV.25
19 Aug – A/ES-7/PV.26
21 Aug – A/ES-7/PV.27
21 Aug – A/ES-7/PV.28
23 Aug – A/ES-7/PV.29
24 Aug – A/ES-7/PV.30
24 Aug – A/ES-7/PV.31
24 Sep – A/ES-7/PV.32
Plenary Meetings
17 Jun to 18 Sep 1967
17 Jun – A/PV.1525
19 Jun – A/PV.1526
20 Jun – A/PV.1527
20 Jun – A/PV.1528
21 Jun – A/PV.1529
21 Jun – A/PV.1530
22 Jun – A/PV.1531
22 Jun – A/PV.1532
23 Jun – A/PV.1533
23 Jun – A/PV.1534
26 Jun – A/PV.1535
26 Jun – A/PV.1536
27 Jun – A/PV.1537
27 Jun – A/PV.1538
28 Jun – A/PV.1539
28 Jun – A/PV.1540
29 Jun – A/PV.1541
29 Jun – A/PV.1542
30 Jun – A/PV.1543
30 Jun – A/PV.1544
3 Jul – A/PV.1545
3 Jul – A/PV.1546
4 Jul – A/PV.1547
4 Jul – A/PV.1548
5 Jul – A/PV.1549
12 Jul – A/PV.1550
13 Jul – A/PV.1551
13 Jul – A/PV.1552
14 Jul – A/PV.1553
14 Jul – A/PV.1554
17 Jul – A/PV.1555
17 Jul – A/PV.1556
20 Jul – A/PV.1557
21 Jul – A/PV.1558
18 Sep – A/PV.1559
Plenary Meetings
8 -21 Aug 1958
8 Aug – A/PV.732
13 Aug – A/PV.733
14 Aug – A/PV.734
14 Aug – A/PV.735
15 Aug – A/PV.736
15 Aug – A/PV.737
18 Aug – A/PV.738
18 Aug – A/PV.739
19 Aug – A/PV.740
19 Aug – A/PV.741
20 Aug – A/PV.742
20 Aug – A/PV.743
20 Aug – A/PV.744
21 Aug – A/PV.745
21 Aug – A/PV.746
Plenary Meetings*
1-10 Nov 1956
1 Nov – A/PV.561
1 Nov – A/PV.562
3 Nov – A/PV.563
4 Nov – A/PV.565
7 Nov – A/PV.566
7 Nov – A/PV.567
10 Nov – A/PV.572
* The gaps in numbering are due to the 2nd Emergency Special Session, concerning the Soviet invasion of Hungary, having taken place during the same period.
UNIFIL – Semi-Annual Renewals
(Exceptions noted below)
That one paragraph opined: “96. Still less do the Committee desire to offer suggestions about the future destiny of Palestine, but since that territory has been included within the geographical limits assigned to the British sphere in the two schemes, of partition, and of zones of interest, they desire to repeat that they see no reason why the sacred places of Palestine should not be dealt with as a separate question. They have felt free to deliberate on the assumption that the French claim will be rejected, since they are convinced that the forces opposed are too great for France ever to make that claim good, but for the same reason they consider that, it will be idle for His Majesty’s Government to claim the retention of Palestine in their sphere. Palestine must be recognised as a country whose destiny must be the subject of special negotiations, in which both belligerents and neutrals are alike interested.”
Among other parts of the report which addressed the Palestine question, paragraph 23 suggested in respect to the “partition” option: “Moreover, if Alexandretta were acquired by Great Britain, France could not be refused the southern part of Syria, which would bring her frontier into Arabia, a situation which we could scarcely tolerate. In these circumstances, it appears desirable to exclude Alexandretta from the limits of British interests and to replace it by Haifa, which, though not such a good natural harbour as Alexandretta, is capable of development into a sufficiently good port, and of connection by railway with Mesopotamia.”
Annual Renewals
One-Month Extension
Section II.c.2. PLO CharterThe Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Central Council will reaffirm the letter of 22 January 1998 from PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat to President Clinton concerning the nullification of the Palestinian National Charter provisions that are inconsistent with the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel on 9/10 September 1993. PLO Chairman Arafat, the Speaker of the Palestine National Council, and the Speaker of the Palestinian Council will invite the members of the PNC, as well as the members of the Central Council, the Council, and the Palestinian Heads of Ministries to a meeting to be addressed by President Clinton to reaffirm their support for the peace process and the aforementioned decisions of the Executive Committee and the Central Council.
That the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing co-operation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security; and that it is their intention to work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace to this end.
Prohibits executive branch agencies from adopting an investment policy that would have the effect of requiring or inducing any person to boycott Israel, from investing in companies found to be engaged in a boycott of Israel, and from contracting with a company that has been determined to be boycotting Israel. “Boyc0tt Israel” is defined as “engaging in refusals to deal, terminating business activities, or other similar commercial actions intended to limit commercial
relations with persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories when the actions are taken … [i]n compliance or adherence to calls for a boycott of Israel … or [i]n a manner that discriminates on the basis of nationality, national origin, or religion.”
Prohibits public entities from entering into a contract with a company unless it includes a written certification that the company is not engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract not to engage in, a boycott of Israel or Israeli controlled territories. The law exempts contracts of less than one hundred thousand dollars or companies with less than 10 full-time employees. The law also prohibits the state investment board from adopting any investment policy that would have the effect of requiring or inducing any person to boycott Israel.
Legislative Background
House Bill HB 1368
Legiscan
| Title | Location | Dates |
|---|---|---|
| First Assembly | Geneva | Nov.15- Dec. 18, 1920 |
| Second Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 5 - Oct. 5, 1921 |
| Third Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 4 - Sept. 30, 1922 |
| Fourth Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 3 - Sept. 29, 1923 |
| Fifth Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 1 - Oct. 2, 1924 |
| Sixth Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 7 - Sept. 26, 1925 |
| Special Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Mar. 8 - Mar.17, 1926 |
| Seventh Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 6 - Sept. 25, 1926 |
| Eighth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 5 - Sept.27, 1927 |
| Ninth Ordinary Session of Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 3 - Sept. 26, 1928 |
| Tenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 2 - Sept. 25, 1929 |
| Eleventh Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 10 - Oct. 4, 1930 |
| Twelfth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 7 - Sept. 29, 1931 |
| Special Session of the Assembly Convened in Virtue of Article 15 of the Covenant at the Request of the Chinese Government | Geneva | March 3 - Dec. 9, 1932 |
| Thirteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 26 - Oct. 17, 1932 |
| Fourteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 23 - Oct. 11, 1933 |
| Fifteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 10 - Sept. 27, 1934 |
| Special Session of the Assembly Convened in Virtue of Article 15 of the Covenant and in Accordance with the Assembly of September 27th, 1934 | Geneva | Nov. 20 - Nov. 24, 1934 |
| Sixteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 9 - Oct. 11, 1935 |
| Sixteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly Part Two | Geneva | June 30 - July 4, 1936 |
| Seventeenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 21 - Oct. 10, 1936 |
| Special Session of the Assembly Convened for the Purpose of Considering the Request of the Kingdom of Egypt for Admission to the League of Nations | Geneva | May 26 - May 27, 1937 |
| Eighteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 13 - Oct. 6, 1937 |
| Nineteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Sept. 12 - Sept. 30, 1938 |
| Twentieth Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | Dec. 11 - Dec. 14, 1939 |
| Twentieth (Conclusion) and Twenty-first Ordinary Session of the Assembly | Geneva | April 8 - April 18, 1946 |
* First enacted in 2018, as part of the annual appropriations legislation, it has been re-enacted in the annual appropriations bill, at least through 2023.
CAM Information Hub Database of IHRA Antisemitism Definition Adoptions by US States
Prohibits state and local governments from entering into certain contracts with a company unless the contract includes a written certification that the company is not engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract, not to engage in, a boycott of Israel. Requires the State Treasurer to identify companies engaging in a boycott of Israel in which a public fund administered by the Treasurer has either direct or indirect holdings; to disinvest direct holdings, and consider whether or not to disinvest indirect holdings. The Public Employee’s Retirement System is similarly required to identify companies boycotting Israel, but is not required to disinvest. Both the Treasurer and the Retirement System are required to prepare an annual report on their investments in identified companies.
Scrutinized Companies – Annual Reports
2022
Legislative Background
Senate Bill 26
Legiscan
Requires the creation of a list of restricted companies that boycott Israel or territories controlled by Israel, and prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from investing in or entering into contracts worth over $1,000 with those companies. Any contract entered into with a company that is identified as a restricted company at the time of contract is void.
Divestment and Do-Not-Contract Lists
Legislative Background
House Bill 161
Legiscan
Prohibits the Department of General Services from contracting with a company to acquire or dispose of supplies, services, or construction, unless the company certifies (1) that it is not engaged in a boycott of persons or entities based in or doing business with a jurisdiction which Pennsylvania is not prohibited by congressional statute from engaging in free trade or commerce, and (2) it will not engage in such a boycott for the duration of the contract. The law excludes from coverage contracts that do not exceed the applicable small purchase threshold.
Legislative Background
House Bill 2107
Legiscan
Requires the executive director of the Department of Finance and Administration to develop and publish a list of scrutinized companies that boycott Israel; to prohibit the public employees’ retirement system and the state treasurer from investing with companies on the list; and to divest from any investments that the state has in businesses boycotting Israel.
Scrutinized Companies List (not found)
Legislative Background
House Bill 761
Legiscan
Prohibits public entities from entering into contracts with a company unless the contract includes written certification that the company is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract not to engage in, a boycott of goods or services from the State of Israel or any company, or person or entity, doing business with or in the State of Israel. The law excludes contracts with a potential value of less than $100,000, or contractors with fewer than 10 employees.
Legislative Background
Senate Bill 739
Legiscan
Requires the Illinois Investment Policy Board to compile a list of companies that boycott Israel and territories controlled by Israel, and directs the state’s pension fund to divest from and prohibit investment in those companies.
Legislative Background
Senate Bill 1761
Legiscan
Prohibits public entities from entering into a contract with a company to acquire or dispose of services, supplies, information technology, or construction unless the contract includes a written certification that the company is not currently engaged in, and will not for the duration of the contract engage in, a boycott of goods or services from Israel or territories under its control. The law excludes contracts with a total potential value of less than $100,000, and companies with fewer than 10 employees.
Original: Prohibits state agencies from entering into or renewing a contract with a company for goods or services, unless the contract declares that the company is not boycotting Israel or other jurisdictions with whom Ohio can enjoy open trade.
Amendment: Extends the prohibition to state institutions of higher education as defined in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code.
Legislative Background
Original
Amendment
Legiscan -Original
Legiscan -Amendment
Requires the board of the Indiana Public Retirement System (INPRS) to compile a list of all businesses that engage in boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel activities, to provide written notice to those businesses that holdings in the business may become subject to divestment by the system if the activity does not cease. The retirement system must divest if the business does not cease such activity.
Restricted Business List
2021 Ret. System Update
Requires the State Board of Administration (SBA) to identify and assemble a list of all companies that boycott Israel, and prohibits the SBA from acquiring securities, as direct holdings, of companies that appear on the list. The law also prohibits a state agency or local governmental entity from contracting for goods and services of $1 million or more with a company that has been placed on the list.
Legislation: Prohibits the state from entering into a contract of more than $100,000 with a company unless the company certifies that it is not currently engaged in a boycott of goods or services from Israel that is part of its business with the state. The law also prohibits the state from adopting a procurement, investment, or other policy that induces or requires a person to boycott Israel.
House Resolution: It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the state should divest itself of all Unilever securities, as the refusal to conduct business with Israel is inconsistent with Oklahoma law.
Legislative Background
House Bill 3967
House Resolution 1063
Legiscan – HB 3967
Legiscan – HR 1063
Requires the Public Employees’ Retirement Association to compile a list of companies that have economic prohibitions against Israel, and to notify those companies of their status and that they may be subject to divestment. If, after 180 days, the company has not ceased its anti-Israel activities, the Public Employees’ Retirement Association is required to divest from that company.
Legislative Background
House Bill 16-1284
Legiscan
Prohibits state contracts with entities that apply political boycotts in a discriminatory manner. Contractors bidding on or renewing contracts of $100,000 or more must provide written certification that they are in compliance with California anti-discrimination laws and that any policy they have against a sovereign nation or peoples, “including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel,” is not used to discriminate in violation of those anti-discrimination laws.
Legislative Background
Assembly Bill 2844
Legiscan
Prohibits public entities from entering into a contract with a business to acquire or dispose of supplies, services, information technology, or construction, unless the contract includes a representation that the business is not currently engaged in, and an agreement that the business will not engage in, the boycott of a person or an entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with whom South Carolina can enjoy open trade. The law excludes contracts of less than $100,000 and contractors with fewer than 10 employees. The law excludes from coverage offers to provide goods or services for at least twenty percent less than the lowest certifying business. It also excludes contracts with a total potential value of less than $10,000.
Legislative Background
House Resolution 4339 (2011)
House Bill 3583
Legiscan
Prohibits executive branch agencies from entering a procurement contract with a vendor if that vendor is engaging in a boycott of Israel. A vendor must certify in writing, when a bid is submitted or when a procurement contract is awarded, that it is not engaging in a boycott of Israel, and that it will, for the duration of its contractual obligations, refrain from a boycott of Israel. The law does not apply to contracts under $100,000 or to vendors with fewer than 5 employees. The law supersedes a prior executive order.
Executive Order 2020-01, issued by Governor Kristi Noem. It prohibits contracts with executive branch agencies unless contractors provide written certification that they have not engaged in boycotts of Israel related to the subject matter of the contract. The order provides excludes companies with less than five employees and contracts under $100,000.
Prohibits public entities from contracting with companies that boycott Israel, persons or companies doing business in Israel, or territories it controls. Contractors must provide a written certification that they are not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in boycotts of Israel. The law excludes contracts of less than $100,000 and contractors with fewer than 10 employees.
Legislative Background
House Bill 2933
Legiscan
Original: Prohibits the state legislature and state agencies from contracting with vendors that discriminate against Israel or persons or entities doing business in Israel. Vendors are required to provide written certification of their compliance for contracts valued at $1,000 or more.
Amendment: Raises the contractual threshold to $50,000 or more. (included in omnibus appropriations bill)
Legislative Background
Original – HF 400
Amendment – SF1
Legiscan – Original
Original: Requires public entities to create a list of entities that boycott Israel. The law prohibits public entities from investing in or contracting with listed entities for contracts of $1,000 or more.
Amendment: Expands the definition of companies subject to the law to include a “wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of such business or business.”
Legislative Background
Original – HF 2331
Amendment – HF2373
Legiscan – Original
Legiscan – Amendment
Prohibits governmental bodies from contracting with a contractor who engages in boycotting a person or entity with which Kentucky can enjoy open trade. The law supersedes a prior executive order.
Prohibits a public entity from entering into a contract with a company to acquire or dispose of services, supplies, information technology, or construction unless the contract includes a written certification that the company is not currently engaged in, and will not for the duration of the contract engage in, a boycott of Israel. The law does not apply to transactions of less than $250,000, nor to a contractor with less than 10 employees. Previously, the state legislature had adopted an anti-BDS joint resolution. However, it is of no legal effect.
Prohibits investment of pension and annuity funds by the state in companies that boycott Israel or Israeli businesses. It further requires the State Investment Council and the Director of the Division of Investment to take appropriate action to identify companies that violate the prohibition and to divest any investment held in violation of the prohibition.
State Investment Council
2021 Annual Report
2021 Report to Legislature
Legislative Background
Bill S1923
Legislative Statements
Legiscan
Prohibits a state or local government entity from entering into a contract of more than $100,000 with a company for the purchase of materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services unless the contract includes a provision that the company is not currently participating in, or will not for the duration of the contract participate in a boycott against Israel or a person doing business in Israel or in a territory under Israeli jurisdiction. The law supersedes a prior executive order.
Legislative Background
Assembly Bill 553
Legislative Memo
Legiscan
Prohibits public entities from contracting with private companies unless the contract includes a certification that the company “is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract not to engage in, a boycott of Israel. The law exempts contracts if a company provides goods or services for at least 20% less than the lowest certifying business, or if the contract has a total potential value of less than $1,000. It also prohibits direct investments by public entities in companies that boycott Israel.
Company Divestment List Not Found
Original: Prohibits the state from entering into a contract with a company for construction, goods, or services, unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it does not boycott Israel, and will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.
Amendment: Excludes from coverage individuals, sole proprietorships, and companies with fewer than 5 employees, and establishes a contractual threshold of $100,000 for coverage.
Legislative Background
Original
Amendment
Legiscan – Original
Legiscan – Amendment
Original: Prohibits a state agency or political subdivision from entering into a contract with a company for goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it does not boycott Israel, and will not boycott Israel during the contract term. The law also requires the comptroller of public accounts to prepare and maintain a list of all companies that boycott Israel and provides for divestment of certain assets that the permanent school fund or any such retirement system holds in a company that does not cease boycotting Israel within a specified timeframe.
Amendment: Excludes from coverage sole proprietorships and companies with fewer than 10 full-time employees, and establishes a contractual threshold of $100,000 for coverage.
Legislative Background
Original
Amendment
Legiscan – Original
Legiscan – Amendment
Executive Order. Prohibits discriminatory boycotts of Israel in state procurement. Executive agencies may not execute a procurement contract with a business entity unless it certifies: (1) that it is not engaging in a boycott of Israel; and
(2) that it will, for the duration of its contractual obligations, refrain from a boycott of Israel.
Background
Governor’s Press Release
Md. Code Regs.
Brandeis Center
Original: Prohibits a public entity from entering into a contract with a company unless the contract includes written certification that the company is not engaged in a boycott of Israel, and provides for disinvestment by public funds from companies involved in boycotting Israel.
Amendment (1): Excludes from coverage sole proprietorships and companies with fewer than 10 full-time employees, and establishes a contractual threshold of $100,000 for coverage.
Amendment (2): Expands divestment provisions beyond public funds to public entities. Modifies the definition of public entity to include universities under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents and community college districts.
Restricted Investment List
April 2022 Report
Legislative Background
Original
Amendment (1)
Amendment (2)
Legiscan – Original
Legiscan – Amendment (1)
Legiscan – Amendment (2)
Legis. Summaries
Original: Prohibits the State from entering into a contract with any individual or company engaged in a boycott of Israel, and requires written certification from all individuals and companies with which it enters into contracts for services, supplies, information technology, or construction that the individual or company is not engaged in a boycott of Israel.
Amendment: Excludes from coverage individuals and sole proprietorships, and establishes a contractual threshold of $100,000 for coverage.
Legislative Background
Original
Amendment
Legiscan – Original
Legiscan – Amendment
Prohibits all State agencies from contracting with a person or entity to acquire or dispose of supplies, services, or information technology, unless the person or entity represents that it is not currently engaged in, and agrees to not engage in the boycott of a person based in or doing business with a strategic partner.
Legislative Background
House Bill 5821
House Bill 5822
Legislative Analyses
Legiscan HB 5821
Legiscan HB 5822
Executive Order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo. It directs state agencies and authorities to divest public funds from companies that support the BDS campaign against Israel. The Commissioner of General Services is required to develop a list of institutions and companies that the Commissioner determines is participating in boycott, divestment, or sanctions activity targeting Israel. The list is to be posted on the website of the Office of General Services. The Executive Order continues to be in force under Governor Hochul.
Background
Signing Ceremony
NYCRR
Prohibits state contracts with companies that boycott Israel. Contractors must certify that they do not and will not for the duration of the contract engage in a boycott of Israel. The law excludes contracts when the total value is less than $100,000, and contractors that have fewer than 10 full-time employees.
Prohibits state contracts with businesses engaged in discriminatory boycotts based on “race, color, religion, gender, or nationality of the targeted person, firm, entity or public entity of a foreign state.” Businesses must provide a written certification that they are not and will not engage in a boycott of persons or entities based in or doing business with agencies of “a jurisdiction with whom the state can enjoy open trade.” The bill provides exceptions for bids at least 20% less than other bids and excludes contracts worth less than $10,000.
Background
Legislature – Press Release
Legislature – Explanation
Legiscan
Prohibits state governmental bodies from entering into contracts with commercial entities that participate in boycotts against nations or business organizations that Alabama citizens can otherwise trade with (members of the World Trade Organization or other countries with which the United States has free-trade agreements). However, if the business is unwilling to certify that it is not participating in a boycott but is willing to sell its goods or services at a 20% discount, the governmental entities may contract with the commercial entity. The law doesn’t apply to transactions of less than $15,000. Previously, the state legislature had adopted an anti-BDS joint resolution. However, it is of no legal effect.
Legislative Background
Senate Bill 81
Ala. Secr. of State
Legiscan
Eli Borochov, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 19-cv-02855 (D.D.C., filed 24 Sep 2019).
Initially, the lead plaintiff in this lawsuit was Natanel Mark. However, Eli Borochov was substituted after voluntary dismissal by plaintiffs whose claims were based on a terror attack against the Mark family. The lawsuit, at first, involved 3 separate incidents, one being the attack on the Mark family, removed by the voluntary dismissal. The terrorist shooting attack against the Mark family was perpetrated by Hamas operatives on 1 Jul 2016, on Route 60 near the Otniel community. Rabbi Michael Mark, a U.S. citizen, was brutally murdered, and his wife Chava Mark, and two of his children were severely injured. Of the two other attacks, one occurred on 6 Nov 2015. Hamas terror operatives, nesting a rifle in a window overlooking the courtyard of the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, fired multiple shots, hitting Eli Borochov in the groin and testicles as he walked to the Cave and causing severe injury. A month later, on 14 Dec 2016, another Hamas terror operative drove from Hebron to Jerusalem, where he raced his car into a bus stop, ramming 14 people. Among the injured were Yoav Golan, a U.S. citizen living in Israel, and his wife, Rotem. The car’s impact hurled them into the bus stop’s glass wall. Plaintiffs sued Iran and Syria, alleging that they provide material support for terror attacks by Hamas. The District Court awarded a total of $55 million in compensatory and punitive damages to some of the plaintiffs, but dismissed the claims of certain Israeli plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals remanded for dismissal due to a lack of jurisdiction regarding those appellants. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Eli Borochov, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.
Shooting Attack – Holy Site
Drive-by Shooting Attack
Car Ramming – Bus Stop
Stanley Boim, et al.. v. Quranic Literacy Institute, Holy Land Foundation, et al.
Stanley Boim, et al.. v. Quranic Literacy Institute, Holy Land Foundation, et al., 00-cv-02905 (N.D.Ill., filed 12 Dec 2000).
On May 13, 1996, David Boim, a 17-year-old student, was murdered while waiting with other students at a bus stop near Beit El in Samaria. He was shot in the head by bullets fired by terrorists from a passing car and was pronounced dead within an hour of the shooting. Another student was wounded in the chest. Plaintiffs claimed that the terrorist attackers who perpetrated the attack were Hamas operatives, that the organizational defendants directly or
indirectly raised and laundered money for Hamas, and that those defendants financed Hamas’ terrorist activities. The litigation went through lengthy proceedings including summary judgment motions, a jury trial, three 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings, and denial of a Petition for Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, the plaintiffss were awarded $156 million, after the trebling of damages by the court. However, when seeking payment on the judgment, the defendants claimed that they had gone out of business. A short time later, a new “organization” emerged – American Muslims for Palestine – with the same mission, leading the plaintiffs to file a new action, Boim II, above, seeking relief against that and related organizations.
Baruch Tratner, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 18-cv-02971 (D.D.C., filed 17 Dec 2018).
This lawsuit, brought by the families of the immediate victims, involves two separate terror attacks. (1) On September 24, 2004, Tiferet Tratner, a 24-year-old American citizen who worked with the elderly and disabled, was murdered in her home in Neve Dekalim by a terrorist mortar attack, launched from the Gaza Strip, as she sat on her couch. (2) On June 11, 2003, 16-year-old Rivka Reena Pam was on city bus in Jerusalem. Around 5:30 p.m., a terrorist dressed as an ultra-orthodox Jew boarded the bus at the Mahane Yehuda market. A short while later, as the bus drove down Jaffa Road, he detonated a bomb, demolishing the bus and killing 16 passengers. Over 100 people were wounded, including dozens of passersby. Rivka suffered burns, lung damage, eye injury, scarring, and severe hearing loss. Hamas claimed responsibility for both attacks. Plaintiffs claim that the acts of Hamas were facilitated through
funding, training and material support by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. Defendants, having defaulted, the matter was referred to a Special Master to determine the quantum of damages. It has been consolidated with the Baxter I and Baxter II cases.
Baruch Tratner, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.
Jeffrey Bodoff, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 08-cv-00547 (D.D.C., filed 28 Mar 2008).
On 25 Feb 1996, Yonothan Barnea, an American citizen, was murdered in the suicide bombing of a crowded Jerusalem city bus. The case involves the same incident and facts as in Bodoff I. Plaintiffs brought this follow-up lawsuit to after the amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which allows plaintiffs to seek treble damages from foreign countries. Upon default, the District Court extended the award of compensatory damages to include the Iranian defendants in addition to the Ayatollah Khamenei, and otherwise confirmed the damages awarded in Bodoff I.
Jeffrey Bodoff, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 02-cv-01991 (D.D.C., filed 8 Oct 2002).
On 25 Feb 1996, Yonothan Barnea, an American citizen, was murdered in the suicide bombing of a crowded Jerusalem city bus. At approximately 6:45 A.M., as the Number 18 Egged passenger bus reached the intersection of Jaffa and Sarei Yisrael Streets in Jerusalem, a terrorist trained by, belonging to, and acting as an operative of Hamas, boarded the bus disguised as a passenger and detonated a massive explosive charge. The bus was destroyed, 23 persons were killed and 49 others injured. Yonathan Bamea was severely injured in the terrorist bombing and died as a result of his injuries. Hamas immediately claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing. Plaintiffs, which included Mr. Bodoff’s estate and family members, brought suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), alleging that defendants, Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”), and the Ayatollah Khamenei provided financial and material support to Hamas, and were thus liable for the death of Mr. Bodoff. Upon default, the District Court awarded compensatory damages against all defendants. It awarded punitive damages against Khameni but declined to impose punitive damages against Iran. Punitive damages were subsequently awarded against the Iran defendants in Bodoff II, following amendment of FSIA.
Jeffrey Bodoff, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.
Jeffrey Bodoff, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.
Litigation settlement between the Israeli manufacturer of the ice cream and Unilever Announced, 29 Jun 2022 – Unilever Press Release | Jerusalem Post | Reuters | World Israel NewsRelated actions:
Correspondence and Analysis:
References in TextThe date of the enactment of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (“PSJVTA”), referred to in subsec. (e)(1)(A), (B), is the date of enactment of section 903 of div. J of Pub. L. 116–94 (“PSJVTA”), which was approved Dec. 20, 2019.Amendments2019—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 116–94, §903(c)(1)(A) (“PSJVTA”), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1). Prior to amendment the text read as follows:“Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of any civil action under section 2333 of this title, a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in such civil action if, regardless of the date of the occurrence of the act of international terrorism upon which such civil action was filed, the defendant—“(A) after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, accepts—
“(B) in the case of a defendant benefiting from a waiver or suspension of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (22 U.S.C. 5202) after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection—
Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 116–94, §903(c)(1)(B) (“PSJVTA”), inserted at end “Except with respect to payments described in paragraph (1)(A), no court may consider the receipt of any assistance by a nongovernmental organization, whether direct or indirect, as a basis for consent to jurisdiction by a defendant.”Subsec. (e)(3) to (5). Pub. L. 116–94, §903(c)(1)(C) (“PSJVTA”), added pars. (3) to (5).2018—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 115–253 (“ACTA”) added subsec. (e).
CONSENT OF CERTAIN PARTIES TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of any civil action under section 2333 of this title, a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in such civil action if, regardless of the date of the occurrence of the act of international terrorism upon which such civil action was filed, the defendant—(A) after the date that is 120 days after the date of the enactment of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019, makes any payment, directly or indirectly-(i) to any payee designated by any individual who, after being fairly tried or pleading guilty, has been imprisoned for committing any act of terrorism that injured or killed a national of the United States, if such payment is made by reason of such imprisonment; or(ii) to any family member of any individual, following such individual’s death while committing an act of terrorism that injured or killed a national of the United States, if such payment is made by reason of the death of such individual; or(B) after 15 days after the date of enactment of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019-(i) continues to maintain any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments in the United States;(ii) establishes or procures any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments in the United States; or(iii) conducts any activity while physically present in the United States on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority.(2) APPLICABILITY.-Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any defendant who ceases to engage in the conduct described in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) for 5 consecutive calendar years. Except with respect to payments described in paragraph (1)(A), no court may consider the receipt of any assistance by a nongovernmental organization, whether direct or indirect, as a basis for consent to jurisdiction by a defendant.(3) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AND LOCATIONS.—In determining whether a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction under paragraph (1)(B), no court may consider—(A) any office, headquarters, premises, or other facility or establishment used exclusively for the purpose of conducting official business of the United Nations;(B) any activity undertaken exclusively for the pur-pose of conducting official business of the United Nations;(C) any activity involving officials of the United States that the Secretary of State determines is in the national interest of the United States if the Secretary reports to the appropriate congressional committees annually on the use of the authority under this subparagraph;(D) any activity undertaken exclusively for the pur-pose of meetings with officials of the United States or other foreign governments, or participation in training and related activities funded or arranged by the United States Government;(E) any activity related to legal representation—(i) for matters related to activities described in this paragraph;(ii) for the purpose of adjudicating or resolving claims filed in courts of the United States; or(iii) to comply with this subsection; or(F) any personal or official activities conducted ancillary to activities listed under this paragraph.(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Notwithstanding any other law (including any treaty), any office, headquarters, premises, or other facility or establishment within the territory of the United States that is not specifically exempted by paragraph (3)(A) shall be considered to be in the United States for purposes of paragraph (1)(B).(5) DEFINED TERM.—In this subsection, the term “defendant” means—(A) the Palestinian Authority;(B) the Palestine Liberation Organization;(C) any organization or other entity that is a successor to or affiliated with the Palestinian Authority or the Palestine Liberation Organization; or(D) any organization or other entity that—(i) is identified in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C); and(ii) self identifies as, holds itself out to be, or carries out conduct in the name of, the “State of Palestine” or “Palestine” in connection with official business of the United Nations.
CONSENT OF CERTAIN PARTIES TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of any civil action under section 2333 of this title, a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in such civil action if, regardless of the date of the occurrence of the act of international terrorism upon which such civil action was filed, the defendant—(A) after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, accepts—(i) any form of assistance, however provided, under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.);(ii) any form of assistance, however provided, under section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291) for international narcotics control and law enforcement; or(iii) any form of assistance, however provided, under chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2349bb et seq.); or(B) in the case of a defendant benefiting from a waiver or suspension of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (22 U.S.C. 5202) after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection—(i) continues to maintain any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States; or(ii) establishes or procures any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States.‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any defendant who ceases to engage in the conduct described in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) for 5 consecutive calendar years.’’
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is ‘a nontraditional instrumentality of Iran’ that acts as the military arm of a kind of shadow government answering directly to the Ayatollah and the mullahs who hold power. It has its own separate ministry, is one of the most powerful organizations within Iran, and functions as an intelligence organization. See, Akins v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2018); Counter-Extremism Project, Report.
Kenya and Tanzania: The 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
Nairobi
(AP/Wide World Photos)
Dar es Salaam
On 7 Aug 1998, nearly simultaneous bombs blew up in front of the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in Africa. Two hundred and twenty-four people died in the blasts, including 12 Americans. More than 4,500 people were wounded. Suicide bombers drove their pick-up trucks loaded with explosives to the American Embassies in two East African cities. At 10:30 am (local time) the first truck, loaded with 2,000 pounds of TNT, forced its way to the back entrance of the embassy in the busy downtown of Nairobi, Kenya. The deadly cargo would have exploded in the U.S. Embassy basement had it not been for the Kenyan security guards. Despite a grenade and firearms attack, the Kenyan guards and the U.S. Marines prevented access to the building. The terrorist then detonated the bomb at the open gate to the embassy. The explosion reduced much of the interior of the embassy to rubble. The secondary fragmentation from flying glass, internal concrete block walls, furniture, and fixtures caused most of the embassy casualties. The majority of the Kenyan casualties resulted from the collapse of adjacent buildings located within a two to three block radius. The explosion was heard throughout the city center and the reverberations were felt in most parts of Nairobi.
Minutes later, a second truck bomb exploded outside of the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, causing extensive damage to the building.
In total, the two bombings killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. Many thousands more were injured, most of whom were local citizens of the two African countries. The attacks had been planned years in advance. Although the operatives who prepared and carried out the bombings were part of Osama Bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization, it was soon determined that Iran and Sudan provided material support for the attacks. The complicity of both countries was established in civil lawsuits brought by victims and families of victims; and both were the subject of substantial damage awards in those cases.
Selected Litigation Against Iran, Sudan, and Operatives
Saudi Arabia: The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran
On the night of 25 June 1996, a bomb was detonated near the Khobar Tower housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. airmen and injuring more than 400 U.S. and international military members and civilians. The towers housed coalition forces supporting Operation Southern Watch, a no-fly zone operation in Southern Iraq. Evidence presented in lawsuits brought by U.S. citizens against Iran clearly shows Iran’s complicity in planning and supporting the attack. The attack was “approved” by the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and by the Minister of Intelligence and Security. The truck bomb used was “assembled” at a base in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, operated by the IRGC and Hezbollah. Investigation estimated the force of the explosion at 20,000 pounds of TNT, with the U.S. Defense Department stating that it was the largest non-nuclear explosion up to that time.
Selected Litigation Against Iran and Operatives
Lebanon – 1983: U.S. Embassy and Marine Barracks Bombings
I. Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut
The terror bombing of the American Embassy took place on 18 April 1983. A car bomb was detonated by a suicide bomber driving a van packed with nearly 2,000 pounds (910 kg.) of explosives at approximately 1:00 p.m. According to one account, the driver had driven past a lone sleeping Lebanese guard and came to a halt parked under the portico at the front of the building, at which point the vehicle exploded. In another account, the van broke through an outbuilding, crashed through the lobby door and exploded there. The blast collapsed the entire central façade of the horseshoe-shaped building, leaving a wreckage of balconies and offices in heaped tiers of rubble, and spewing masonry, metal and glass fragments in a wide swath. A total of 63 people were killed in the bombing: 32 Lebanese employees, 17 Americans, and 14 visitors and passers-by. Some 120 other individuals were wounded by the blast.
A pro-Iranian group calling itself the Islamic Jihad Organization took responsibility for the bombing in a telephone call to a news office immediately after the blast. The anonymous caller said, “This is part of the Iranian Revolution’s campaign against imperialist targets throughout the world. We shall keep striking at any crusader presence in Lebanon, including the international forces.”
Following the attack, the embassy was moved to a supposedly more secure location in East Beirut. However, on September 20, 1984, another car bomb exploded at this embassy annex, killing 20 Lebanese and 2 American soldiers.
II. Bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut
Just six months after the Embassy bombing, on 23 Oct 1983, a second more devastating attack took place. At around 06:22, a suicide bomber, an Iranian national named Ismail Ascari, drove his 19-ton truck onto an access road leading to the Marine barracks compound. He turned into and circled the parking lot, and then accelerated to crash through a 5 feet (1.5 m)-high wire barrier separating the parking lot from the building serving as barracks. Driving between two sentry posts and through an open vehicle gate in the perimeter chain-link fence, the driver crashed through a guard shack in front of the building and smashed into the lobby. He then detonated his explosives, later estimated to be equivalent to approximately 9,525 kilograms (21,000 lbs.) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story building into rubble, crushing to death more than 240 American servicemen.
Minutes later, a second suicide bomber struck the nine-story Drakkar building, a few kilometers away, where a French peacekeeping contingent was stationed. In this attack, 58 French paratroopers were killed and 15 injured. A group called Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for both bombings, saying that the aim was to push the multi-national force out of Lebanon.
Iran was listed by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terror in 1984 after determining that it was involved in the bombings. Iran’s complicity was also established in the many lawsuits brought by victims and families of victims.
III. Selected Litigation Against Iran
I. The Israeli Embassy bombing in 1992 — Buenos Aires
In the afternoon of 17 Mar 1992, a pick-up truck driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, and detonated. The embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building were destroyed. Four Israelis died, but most of the victims were Argentine civilians, many of them children. The blast killed 29 and wounded 242, among them three Israeli embassy personnel, six local embassy employees, and scores of innocent Argentineans, including elderly residents of a nearby nursing home, and schoolchildren on a passing bus. Islamic Jihad–a cover name for Hizballah–publicly claimed responsibility for the bombing, releasing a videotape of the Embassy taken before the bombing to authenticate its claim.
II. The AMIA bombing in 1994 — Buenos Aires
On 18 Jul 1994, the Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah, in coordination with senior Iranian officials, carried out an attack on the headquarters of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. A suicide bomber drove a van carrying about 275 kilograms (600 lbs.) of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and a fuel oil explosive mixture into the the 6-story building, demolishing it. The terror attack took the lives of 85 individuals and left injured more than 300. Investigations and legal proceedings concerning the attack have been mired in controversy and corruption. Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman spent years investigating the bombing and completed a massive report in early 2015. However, the day before he was scheduled to testify about his findings, he was murdered in his apartment. To date, controversy continues and no one has been brought to justice.
Litigation Against Iran
Ilana Cohen, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 17-cv-01214 (D.D.C., filed 20 Jun 2017).
On 4 Nov 2001, a terrorist operative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) opened fire with an M-16 automatic rifle on a local Egged bus carrying mostly schoolchildren through the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem. The shooter emptied an entire rifle magazine into the bus, which had stopped at a red light. Two schoolchildren aboard the bus were murdered and more than 40, mostly children, injured. Ilana Schertzman Cohen, age 15 at the time of the attack, suffered severe physical and emotional injuries. Myriam Miller and her two children, Chana Aidel and Tova, then age 2, suffered physical injury and severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging that the defendants provided financial and material support to the PIJ, and were thus liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries. Upon default the District Court awarded plaintiffs $10,050,000 in compensatory damages, but denied punitive damages because of a binding appeals court ruling. Though that ruling was subsequently reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S.Ct. 1601 (2020), the reversal would not have been grounds to reopen the claim for punitive damages. See, Akins v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 549 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.D.C. 2021).
Ilana Schertzman Cohen, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Leonard Eisenfeld, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Leonard Eisenfeld, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 98-cv-01945 (D.D.C., filed 10 Aug 1998).
On 25 Feb 1996, Matthew Eisenfeld and Sara Rachel Duker boarded the No. 18 Egged bus in Jerusalem to go to an archeological dig in Petra, Jordan. While the bus was still in Jerusalem a Hamas operative detonated explosives which he had concealed in a travel bag. The bus was demolished and debris hurled more than 100 meters, with Matthew and Sara having been murdered by the explosion. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging that the defendants provided financial and material support to Hamas, and were thus liable for the murders. Upon default by the defendants, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $27,161,002 in compensatory damages, and $300,000,000 in punitive damages. The default judgment granted by the District Court in 2000 was renewed in 2011 for an additional 12 years.
Ora Cohen, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Ora Cohen, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 12-cv-01496 (D.D.C., filed 10 Sep 2012).
On 19 Aug 2003, several members of the Cohen family were severely injured in the suicide bombing of a crowded Jerusalem city bus. The attack was perpetrated by an operative of Hamas, the explosion killing 23 people, and wounding over 130 in and around the bus. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging that the Iranian and Syrian defendants provided financial and material support to Hamas, and were thus liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Syrian defendants were severed from the case, as plaintiffs could not effectuate service due to the civil war in Syria. Upon default by the Iranian defendants, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $69,650,000 in compensatory damages, and $139,300,000 in punitive damages.
| Country or Territory | 1948 Jewish Poplulation | 1972 Jewish Population | Recent Estimates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morocco | 250,000–265,000 | 31,000 | 2,500–2,700 (2006) | 2,100 (2019) |
| Algeria | 140,000 | 1,000 | ≈0 | <50 (2014) |
| Tunisia | 50,000–105,000 | 8,000 | 900–1,000 (2008) | 1,000 (2019) |
| Libya | 35,000–38,000 | 50 | 0 | 0 (2014) |
| North Africa - Total | 475,000–548,000 | ≈40,000 | 3,400–3,700 | 3,550 |
| Iraq | 135,000–140,000 | 500 | 5 (2013) | 5-7 (2014) |
| Egypt | 75,000–80,000 | 500 | 100 (2006) | 100 (2019) |
| Yemen and Aden | 53,000–63,000 | 500 | 320 (2008) | 90 (2014)-50 (2016) |
| Syria | 15,000–30,000 | 4,000 | 100 (2006) | 17 (2014)-100 (2019) |
| Lebanon | 5,000[76]–20,000 | 2,000 | 20–40 (2006) | 100 (2012) |
| Bahrain | 550–600 | 50 (2008) | 36 (2007) | |
| Sudan | 350 | ≈0 | ≈0 | |
| North Africa & Arab Countries - Total | 758,350–881,350 | <45,800 | <3,795-4,345 | <3,802-3,762 |
| Afghanistan | 5000 | 500 | 2 (2001) | 0 (2021) |
| Bangladesh | Unknown | 175–3,500 (2009) | 75-100 (2012) | |
| Iran | 65,232 (1956) | 62,258 (1976) - 80,000 | 9,252 (2006) | 8,300 (2019) |
| Pakistan | 2,000–2,500 | 250 | 200 (2009) | >900 (2017) |
| Turkey | 80,000 | 30,000 | 17,800 (2006) | 14,800 (2019) |
| Non-Arab Muslim Countries - Total | 202,000–282,500 | 110,750 | 32,100 | ≈24,000 |
Amicus Briefs in Support of Zivotofsky
Amicus Briefs in Support of Government
Amicus Briefs in Support of Zivotofsky
Amicus Brief in Support of Government
Ester Lelchook, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Jenny Rubin, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 01-cv-01655 (D.D.C., filed 31 Jul 2001).
This case involves the same attack as in Rubin II in the table below. On 4 September 1997, three operatives of Hamas exploded a bomb in the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The bombers packed their powerful bombs with nails, screws, pieces of glass, and chemical poisons to cause maximum pain, suffering, and death. Hundreds of people were there. In addition to the terrorists, five persons were killed and approximately 200 were injured. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages claiming that Iran provided material resources and support for the suicide bombing in the form of funding, training and direction to Hamas. Defendants defaulted, and after the required evidentiary inquiry, the District Court awarded plaintiffs $71.5 million in compensatory damages and $187.5 million in punitive damages. The Court consolidated this case with the Diana Campuzano action, as they involved the same terror incident. The evidentiary hearing and final ruling covered both proceedings. The judgments in both cases were renewed in 2015 for an additional 12 years.
Rubin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Diana Campuzano, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 00-cv-02328 (D.D.C., filed 29 Sep 2000).
On 4 September 1997, three operatives of Hamas exploded a bomb in the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The bombers packed their powerful bombs with nails, screws, pieces of glass, and chemical poisons to cause maximum pain, suffering, and death. Hundreds of people were there. In addition to the terrorists, four persons were killed and 192 were injured. Plaintiffs Diana Campuzano, Avi Elishis, Gregg Salzman and Sherri Wise were all among those injured by the bombing. Claiming that Iran provided material resources and support, in the form of funding, training and direction, to Hamas, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages. After defendants defaulted, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it awarded almost $41 million in compensatory damages and $112.5 million in punitive damages. The Court consolidated this case with the Jenny Rubin action, as they involved the same terror incident. The hearing and final ruling covered both proceedings. The judgment in both cases were renewed in 2015 for an additional 12 years.
Campuzano, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Ruth Calderón-Cardona, et al. v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, et al., 08-cv-01367 (D.P.R.., filed 5 Jul 2008).
On 30 May 1972, 3 members of the Japanese Red Army disembarked at Israel’s Lod (now Ben-Gurion) Airport, removed automatic weapons and grenades from their luggage, and began firing indiscriminately and lobbing grenades. More than 26 passengers were murdered by the terrorists and more than 80 others wounded. The murdered victims included 17 Puerto Rican religious pilgrims, including Carmelo Calderón-Molina. Plaintiff Pablo Tirado-Ayala was among the injured. Claiming that North Korea and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine provided material support for the terror operatives, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit in Puerto Rico seeking compensatory and punitive damages. After defendants defaulted, the District Court held a 2-day evidentiary hearing, after which it awarded $78 million in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitive damages. An identical lawsuit had been previously filed in the District of Columbia but was voluntarily withdrawn shortly after commencement of the action in Puerto Rico.
Calderón-Cardona, et al. v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, et al.
Shmuel Braun, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Shmuel Braun, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 15-cv-01136 (D.D.C., filed 5 Jul 2015).
On 22 October 2014, a Hamas terrorist operative drove his car at high speed onto the light rail tracks at the Ammunition Hill station in Jerusalem, and rammed his vehicle into a crowd of pedestrians. The vehicle hit the stroller of 3-month old Chaya Braun throwing her some 10 feet into the air. She landed on her head on the pavement while her mother, plaintiff Chana Braun, screamed in horror. Plaintiff Shmuel Braun was knocked over and badly injured by the car. Chaya was resuscitated and transported to nearby Hadassah Hospital, but was pronounced dead about 2 hours later. Claiming that Iran and Syria supports Hamas and trains its agents, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages. After defendants defaulted, the District Court awarded $28.5 million in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages.
Nethaniel Bluth, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 12-cv-00250 (D.D.C., filed 13 Feb 2012).
On 7 March 2002, Nethaniel Bluth, a 19-year old student, while in a classroom with about 40 students studying Torah at a Yeshiva in Gaza, was severely injured from a terrorist attack on the yeshiva. The terrorist, a Hamas operative, cut through a fence and began firing shots and throwing grenades. A grenade thrown into the classroom landed about 3 meters from Nethaniel, causing shrapnel to be lodged in his body and resulting in the loss of hearing in both ears. During the attack 5 people were murdered, including 2 friends of Nethaniel, and over 23 injured. Claiming that Iran supports Hamas and trains its agents, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking $110 million plus punitive damages. After defendants defaulted, the District Court awarded $18.5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. Syria had been added as a defendant, but the Court subsequently severed the case against Syria. However, it awarded Bluth $22,200,000 in damages against Syria in the Baxter litigation
Michael Bennett, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 03-cv-01486 (D.D.C., filed 2 Jul 2003).
On 31 July 2003, Marla Ann Bennett, a 24-year old graduate student, was murdered by the detonation of a nail-studded bomb while having lunch at the cafeteria of Hebrew University. The explosion killed six other people and wounded over eighty individuals, mostly students. The bomb was placed by a Hamas agent in a bag in the cafeteria and activated from a cell phone. Claiming that Iran supports Hamas and trains its agents, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking $300 million plus punitive damages. The District Court awarded compensatory but not punitive damages. The default judgment was renewed in 2019 for an additional 12 years.
Bennett, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Seth Ben Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 02-cv-01811 (D.D.C., filed 12 Sep 2002).
On April 9, 1995, plaintiff Seth Ben Haim was traveling on an Egged bus from Ashkelon to a Mediterranean resort in the Gush Katif community in Gaza. A suicide bomber belonging to and acting on behalf of Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIF) drove a van loaded with explosives into the bus, causing an explosion that destroyed the bus, murdering eight persons and injuring many others. Plaintiff Ben Haim suffered severe and permanent physical injuries and emotional harm in the terrorist bombing. Claiming that Iran supported the PIJ, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking $300 million plus punitive damages. The District Court awarded compensatory but not punitive damages. The default judgment was renewed in 2018 for an additional 12 years.
Ben Haim, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Lawrence Belkin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Lawrence Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 06-cv-00711 (D.D.C., filed 20 Apr 2006).
On 4 Mar 1996, a suicide bomber detonated a forty-pound bomb comprised of TNT and nails in the Dizengoff Center Shopping Mall in Tel Aviv. Thirteen individuals, mostly women and children, including Plaintiff Lawrence Belkin’s wife, Gail, and his mother-in-law, were murdered as a result of the bombing. 125 other individuals were injured. The perpetrator was an operative of the Palestine Islamic Jihad and Hamas, funded and supported by Iran. Plaintiff brought suit seeking over $30 million in compensatory damages and over $1 billion in punitive damages. The default judgment granted by the District Court in 2009 was renewed in 2020 for an additional 12 years.
Harry Beer, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 08-cv-01807 (D.D.C., filed 17 Oct 2008).
This is a follow-up lawsuit to Beer I seeking additional compensatory damages and, once again, punitive damages, based on new Federal legislation. The District Court concluded that it would be improper to award additional compensatory damages, but did impose substantial punitive damages against defendants.
Harry Beer, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Harry Beer, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Estate of Esther Kleiman, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al., 04-cv-01173 (D.D.C., filed 13 Jul 2004)
On 24 Mar 2002, terrorist operatives under the control of defendants, and using a Kalashnikov automatic rifle, opened fire on an Egged bus near Neve Tzuf, Israel. Esther Klieman, 23, traveling to work in the reinforced bus, was struck in the heart and killed. Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages because of the murder. The parties have litigated the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of new legislation passed by Congress. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court.
Sokolow, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Greenbaum, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Steven Greenbaum, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 02-cv-02148 (D.D.C., filed 23 Oct 2002).
On August 9, 2001, Judith Greenbaum, pregnant and visiting Israel on a study-program, was at the Sbarro pizzeria at the corner of Jaffa Road and King George Avenue in the center of Jerusalem. While there, a Hamas terror operative carrying an explosive device, concealed in a guitar case slung across his back, walked into the pizzeria and detonated an explosive device packed with shrapnel and nails. Fifteen people were killed, one of whom was Judith Greenbaum, and more than 130 people were injured. Judith was taken to a hospital emergency room, having suffered severe entry wounds from penetrating bullets. At the hospital, she was pronounced dead on arrival. The pizzeria was completely gutted in the massive explosion. Hamas took credit for the bombing. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security were liable, having provided material support and assistance to Hamas, the orchestrator of the bombing, and as such, were subject to suit under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $19,879,023 in damages.
Estate of Mark Parsons, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al.
Estate of Mark Parsons, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al., 07-cv-01847 (D.D.C., filed 12 Oct 2007).
While providing security for a U.S. State Department convoy in the Gaza Strip on 15 Oct 2003, Mark Parsons was killed by a roadside bomb. Parsons’s estate and his family sued the Palestinian Authority under the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, alleging that the Authority had provided material support for and conspired with the terrorist or terrorists who detonated the bomb. The District Court granted summary judgment dismissing the case. However, while the Court of Appeals court agreed that the family’s conspiracy theories were too speculative, a reasonable juror could conclude that defendants provided material support to the bomber. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the conspiracy claim but remanded as to material support. A renewed motion for summary judgment was denied by the District Court, after which the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the case.
Moshe Saperstein, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al., 04-cv-20225 (S.D.Fl., filed 9 Jan 2004).
Lawsuit seeking in excess of $60,000,000 in damages brought by one of the victims and families of the victims. On 18 Feb 2002 a terror operative opened fire with an AK-47 on a road near Kisufim, murdering Ahuva Amergi, who was in one vehicle, and wounding Moshe Saperstein in another. Two Israeli soldiers were killed while coming to aid the victims. Saperstein lost his arm as a result of the wound. The complex procedural history of the case is detailed in the 11th Circuit’s 2010 opinion concerning Amergi. In short, after default by defendants, the district court scheduled the Saperstein case for trial on damages, and granted the Amergis leave to file a third amended complaint. The trial resulted in an award to the Sapersteins of $48 million after a jury trial, but was found not to be final and vacated by the 11th Circuit. The case went back to the District Court. In September 2008, the Court severed the Amergi case from the Saperstein case. Ultimately both cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after further proceedings in the District Court and 11th Circuit.
Saperstein et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al.
Shatsky, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Shatsky, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Shabtai Shatsky, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al., 18-cv-12355 (S.D.N.Y., filed 31 Dec 2018).
This Lawsuit involves the same terror attack which forms the basis for the Shatsky I litigation – the murder of two individuals in a suicide bombing in a pizza parlor. However, here there are several additional plaintiffs who were injured in the attack, and additional allegation. Plaintiffs are also seeking an increased amount of damages – $350 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages The case was filed after the District Court in Shatsky I had granted defendants’ summary judgment motion, but before the Court of Appeals ruling finding a lack of personal jurisdiction. This case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in Shatsky I. After the jurisdictional ruling by the Court of Appeals in Shatsky I, the parties resumed active litigation in this case. The District Court has now dismissed it, also on jurisdictional grounds. Plaintiffs have appealed.
Shabtai Shatsky, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al., 02-cv-02280 (D.D.C., filed 18 Nov 2002).
Lawsuit seeking $300,000,000 in damages. On February 16, 2002, a suicide bomber attacked a pizzeria at an outdoor shopping mall in Karnei Shomron. Two teenagers, Keren Shatsky and Rachel Thaler, were murdered in the bombing and several others wounded. The plaintiffs alleged that the Popular Front planned and carried out the bombing, facilitated by the Palestinian defendants through financial support to the Front. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case against the Syrian defendants, bringing a separate lawsuit against those defendants – Shatsky III in the table below. After 15 years of protracted litigation against the remaining defendants, the District Court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion, dismissing the lawsuit on the merits. On appeal, the appellate court found that the lower court had erred in ruling on the merits, because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants. It therefore vacated the District Court’s judgment and ordered the case dismissed, without prejudice. Prior to the appellate ruling, plaintiffs commenced a new lawsuit (Shatsky II) in the Southern District of New York, based on the same claims as in this action. The jurisdictional issues are being further litigated in that case.
Leslye Knox, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al., 03-cv-04466 (S.D.N.Y., filed 19 Jun 2003).
Lawsuit seeking damages, brought by the family of the murder victim, Aharon Ellis, a professional singer. On 17 Jan 2002, while singing at a bar mitzvah at a banquet hall in Hadera, Israel, at approximately 10:45 p.m., an operative of the PLO and PA arrived at the banquet hall with an M-16 assault rifle, three clips of bullets, and a hand grenade. The terrolrist shot a security guard at the entrance to the hall, and then entered the hall and opened fire on the crowd. There were approximately 180 people present. Six people were killed and approximately thirty were injured. After various proceedings, the court found the defendants to be in default and issued a judgment awarding $192,740,660 in damages to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the default was vacated, after which the parties settled for an undisclosed amount.
Knox, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Gilmore, et al. v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, et al.
Reuven Gilmore, et al. v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, et al., 01-cv-00853 (D.D.C., filed 18 Apr 2001).
Lawsuit seeking damages, brought by the family of the murder victim, Esh Kodesh Gilmore. Gilmore was a private security guard at an East Jerusalem branch office of the National Insurance Institute of Israel. On October 30, 2000, he was shot and killed while on duty. After lengthy litigation, the District Court granted a motion for summary judgment, dismissed the case in its entirety. The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals and Petition for Certiorari denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yitzhak Safra, et al. v. Palestinian Authority
Rivka Livnat, et al. v. Palestinian Authority
Yitzhak Safra, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, 14-cv-00669 (D.D.C., filed 21 Apr 2014).
Lawsuit seeking compensatory, punitive, and treble damages brought by two brothers suffering physical injuries from a machine-gun attack on 24 Apr 2011, and by their father. The perpetrators, serving as security guards for the Palestinian Authority at Joseph’s tomb, opened fire at a group of Jewish worshippers at the holy site, wounding Yitzhak and Natan Safra, among other victims. A parallel case, Livnat v. Palestinian Authority (Consolidated with this case on appeal), involves the same incident. The district court dismissed both cases on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ Petition for Certiorari. It is to be noted that the rulings of the courts were handed down before the effective date of new legislation which would have conferred jurisdiction. The validity of that legislation is currently being litigated in the Fuld, Klieman, Shatzky, and Sokolow cases.
Rivka Livnat, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, 14-cv-00668 (D.D.C., filed 21 Apr 2014).
Lawsuit seeking compensatory, punitive, and treble damages brought by the family of a murder victim and others suffering physical injuries from a machine-gun attack on 24 Apr 2011. The perpetrators, serving as security guards for the Palestinian Authority at Joseph’s tomb, opened fire at a group of Jewish worshippers at the holy site, murdering Ben-Yosef Livnat and wounding others. A parallel case, Safra v. Palestinian Authority (Consolidated with this case on appeal), involves the same incident. The district court dismissed both cases on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ Petition for Certiorari. It is to be noted that the rulings of the courts were handed down before the effective date of new legislation which would have conferred jurisdiction. The validity of that legislation is currently being litigated in the Fuld, Klieman, Shatzky, and Sokolow cases.
Estates of Yaron Ungar and Efrat Ungar, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Estates of Yaron Ungar and Efrat Ungar, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al., 00-cv-00105 (D.R.I., filed 13 Mar 2000).
Lawsuit seeking $250 million in damages brought by the family of two murder victims of a machine-gun attack on 9 Jun 1996. While going home from a wedding two Palestinian gunmen killed Yaron and Efrat Ungar as they drove on a road between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, near Beit Shemesh. The Palestinian gunmen fired twenty bullets from their van into the couple’s car. Although the bullets missed the couple’s one-year-old son, who was in a car seat in the back, both Yaron and Efrat were killed. The case involved intensive litigation in the U.S. District Court, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, including defendants’ efforts to reopen a $116,409,123 default judgment. Ultimately, the case was settled for an undisclosed sum.
Biton, et al. v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, et al., 01-cv-00382 (D.D.C., filed 20 Feb 2001).
Lawsuit seeking $250 million in damages, brought by the wife of her murdered husband, and by a severely injured victim. The victims were on a school bus carrying 30 children and teachers on 20 November 2000, when a roadside explosive device was detonated nearby, killing 2 and wounding 9 of the bus passengers. Among the wounded were a large number of children who lost their arms and legs in the explosion. The complaint alleges that the terrorist attack was carried out by operatives of the defendants. The case was being actively litigated as of October, 2008. However, plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal in December, 2008. No reason is stated in the notice of dismissal. As suggested at the end of an article on Politico, it may have been quietly settled in a manner similar to the Knox case.
Biton, et al. v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, et al.
Fuld, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Fuld, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al., 20-cv-03374 (S.D.N.Y, filed 30 Apr 2020).
Lawsuit seeking $200 million in damages, trebled, brought by the family of the murdered victim. The victim was stabbed in the back at a mall on 16 Dep 2018, with a 21-centimeter knife, perforating his main artery and right lung. At the time of the stabbing, the terrorist yelled in Arabic, “Basem Allah,” (“in the name of the lord”), and, “Allah Akhbar.” The complaint alleges that the terrorist was incentivized and encouraged by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds, On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Sokolow, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al., 04-CV-00397 (S.D.N.Y, filed 16 Jan 2004).
Lawsuit seeking up to $3 billion in damages by victims and their families for death and injury resulting from suicide bombings and shooting attacks perpetrated by operatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), between January 2001 and February 2004. The case, first filed in 2004, has been up and down the federal courts, including twice in the U.S. Supreme Court. A jury, after trial in 2015, awarded $218.5 million in damages, trebled by the Court in accordance with the law. However, the Second Circuit reversed on jurisdictional grounds. Subsequently, the Supreme Court remanded for further consideration in light of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019. Most recently, the District Court ruled that the statute applies to the case but that it is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sought review in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Court declined to further consider the case.
Estate of Esther Kleiman, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al.
Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, et al. v. Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East
Background
The Palestinian Authority and the ICC
The Two ICC Proceedings of Direct Concern to Israel: 1. Gaza Flotilla Incident 2. “Palestine” Situation
15 Mar 1946
Photo Credit [Tower of David]: Free Israel Photos (freeisraelphotos.com) / CC BY 3.0
Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael-Jewish National Fund, et al. v. Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East d/b/a US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, 19-cv-03425 (D.D.C., filed 13 Nov 2019).
From April 2018 until commencement of this lawsuit, over 4800 acres of Israeli land, including land and forests owned and/or held by plaintiff KKL-JNF, had been burned by the thousands of rockets, incendiary terror balloons and kites launched from Gaza by Hamas and/or other terror groups. Child-friendly balloons and kites are converted into terror weapons, using gasoline, helium, and other products designed for humanitarian purposes. The attacks have deprived the plaintiffs and the public of the use and enjoyment of these lands. The lawsuit claims that the defendant has violated the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2331, by funneling online donations to the Boycott National Committee, knowing that in doing so they are supporting and sponsoring known designated foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Dismissal of the case by the District Court is currently on appeal.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
The Assembly may from time to time advise the reconsideration by Members of the League of treaties which have become inapplicable and the consideration of international conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world.
Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not.
It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the Members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League.
The Members of the League agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article, in order to minimise the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League.
Any Member of the League which has violated any covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member of the League by a vote of the Council concurred in by the Representatives of all the other Members of the League represented thereon.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council. It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
Harry Beer, et al.. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 06-cv-00473 (D.D.C., filed 14 Mar 2006).
On 11 Jun 2003, Alan Beer, an American citizen, was murdered in the suicide bombing of a crowded Jerusalem city bus. Seventeen individuals were killed and over 100 individuals, including bystanders, were injured. The attack was perpetrated by an operative of Hamas, which claimed credit for the bombing. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, alleging that defendants, Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”), provided financial and material support to Hamas, and were thus liable for the death of Mr. Beer. Upon default, the District Court awarded $13,000,000 in compensatory damages but declined to impose punitive damages due to the law in effect at the relevant time (subsequently awarded in Beer II).
26 Mar 1946
25 Mar 1946
23 Mar 1946
21 Mar 1946
18 Mar 1946
14 Mar 1946
13 Mar 1946
12 Mar 1946
11 Mar 1946
8 Mar 1946
5 Mar 1946
2 Mar 1946
1. The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization.
2. The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.
3. The General Assembly shall consider and approve any financial and budgetary arrangements with specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 and shall examine the administrative budgets of such specialized agencies with a view to making recommendations to the agencies concerned.
The General Assembly shall meet in regular annual sessions and in such special sessions as occasion may require. Special sessions shall be convoked by the Secretary-General at the request of the Security Council or of a majority of the Members of the United Nations.
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Knife Attack
Rocket Attacks
Shooting Attacks (3)
Akiva Jakubowicz, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Akiva Jakubowicz, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 18-cv-01450 (D.D.C., filed 19 Jun 2018).
Lawsuit seeking damages for wrongful death, physical injury, and other related torts, resulting from several terror attacks.
Plaintiffs claim that the terror attacks were carried out by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestine Islamic Jihad operatives, with the material aid and support of Iran and Syria. The Clerk of the Court entered a default on 28 Jan 2020. Further action is pending.
Nathaniel Felber, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Nathaniel Felber, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 19-cv-01027 (D.D.C., filed 12 Apr 2019).
On 13 December 2018, a Hamas terrorist drove his car up to the bus stop at a highway junction near the Israeli town of Givat Assaf, stopped, got out with his AK-47 automatic assault rifle, and opened fire. Two Israeli soldiers, Yosef Cohen and Yovel Mor Yosef, were murdered, and Plaintiff Nathaniel Felber was shot in the head. A civilian standing at the bus stop was also injured. Plaintiffs allege that the attack was an act of international terrorism committed by a member of Hamas – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – with the material aid and support of Defendant Iran. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. The Clerk of the Court entered a default against the Defendant on 24 Jan 2020. Proposed findings of fact were filed with the Court in August and October 2020. Further action is pending.
William Jack Baxter, et al. v. Syrian Arab Republic, et al.
William Jack Baxter, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, et al.
William Jack Baxter, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, et. al, 11-cv-02133 (D.D.C., filed 30 Nov 2011) (Baxter I).
Lawsuit on behalf of more than 100 victims and families seeking damages from ten terror attacks that caused the deaths of numerous innocent civilians, and injured many more. Plaintiffs allege that the attacks were acts of international terrorism committed by members of Hamas – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – with the material aid and support of Defendants Iran and Syria. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. The Court granted default judgment against the Iran defendants on 27 Sep 2019, and appointed a Special Master to consider the measure of damages. Further action is pending. As for the claims against Syria, the Court severed plaintiffs’ claims against the Syrian defendants due to technical legal issues. Those claims form the basis of Baxter II – Baxter v. Syrian Arab Republic, 18-cv-01078.
Mortar Attack
Shooting
Suicide Bombings
Bar/Nightclub
Buses
Cafe
Passover Seder
Pedestrian Mall
William Jack Baxter, et al. v. Syrian Arab Republic, et al., 18-cv-01078 (D.D.C.) (Baxter II).
This is a companion case to Baxter I, above, based on the same claims as in that lawsuit, and will ultimately be considered on the same grounds as those in Baxter I. Plaintiffs seek several billion dollars in compensatory and punitive damages for the death and injury of numerous individuals caused by multiple terror attacks in Israel. The Court severed plaintiffs’ claims against the Syrian defendants due to technical legal issues and ordered the establishment of this new case. The Court has granted a default judgment and referred the case to a special master to determine the measure of damages.
Goldberg-Botvin, et al. v. Islamic of Republic of Iran
Estate of Yael Botvin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.
Estate of Eitam Henkin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, et. al,
Estate of Eitam Henkin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, et. al, 19-cv-01184 (D.D.C., filed 4 May 2019).
This lawsuit, brought by the estates of the deceased terror victims, involves the same attack as described in Henkin I, just above, and in Henkin III and IV in Section III. On 1 Oct 2015, Eitam Henkin, an American citizen, his wife, Na’ama, and their four children were driving past the town of Beit Furik when terrorist operatives opened fire with an automatic rifle, wounding Eitam. After a struggle, the operatives fired additional bursts, murdering Eitam and his wife. Plaintiffs allege that the murder was an act of international terrorism committed by three members of a Hamas cell – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – with the material aid and support of Defendants Iran and Syria. The District Court entered a default judgment of liability against defendants in this case and in Henkin I on 12 July 2021; and on 18 Jun 2024, in this case, awarded $52 million+ in compensatory damages and $179 million+ in punitive damages, for a total $231,097,560.
Goldberg-Botvin, et al. v. Islamic of Republic of Iran, 12-cv-01292 (D.D.C., filed ) (Botvin II).
Action seeking compensation for the injuries and death of Yael Botvin that resulted from the September 4, 1997, triple suicide bombing at Jerusalem’s Ben Yehuda Street pedestrian mall. This lawsuit followed on Botvin, above, in which the court declined to grant certain damages due to statutory limitations. In light of the amendment of 28 U.S.C. 1605A, this case was commenced, resulting in a default judgment for additional damages of $40,890,000.
Estate of Yael Botvin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., 05-cv-00220 (D.D.C., filed 31 Jan 2005) (Botvin I).
Lawsuit arising out of the September 4, 1997, suicide bombing at Jerusalem’s Ben Yehuda Street pedestrian mall, which injured and killed Yael Botvin, a 14 year-old American citizen. On the afternoon of September 4, 1997, three Hamas operatives entered the crowded pedestrian mall at Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem, Israel. The operatives carried cases containing explosive bombs, which they packed with nails, screws, pieces of glass, and chemical poisons to cause maximum pain, suffering, and death. The three suicide bombers, surrounded by hundreds of pedestrians, detonated the bombs within 30 seconds of each other, killing five people and injuring approximately 200. Plaintiff Yael was among those murdered in the terrorist attack. This action was filed against the Islamic Republic of Iran and others, alleging that Iran provided material support and resources to Hamas, the terrorist group that carried out the attack. After default by defendant, the court awarded damages in the amount of $1,704,457.
Estate of Judah Henkin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Estate of Judah Henkin et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 18-cv-01273 (D.D.C., filed 31 May 2018).
This lawsuit involves the same terror attack as in Henkin II, just below, and in Henkin III, and IV, in Section III below. On 1 Oct 2015, Eitam Henkin, an American citizen, his wife, Na’ama, and their four children were driving past the town of Beit Furik when terrorist operatives opened fire with an automatic rifle, wounding Eitam. After a struggle, the operatives fired additional bursts, murdering Eitam and his wife. Plaintiffs allege that the murder was an act of international terrorism committed by three members of a Hamas cell – Hamas being a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – with the material aid and support of Defendants Iran and Syria. The District Court entered a default judgment of liability against defendants in this case and in Henkin II on 12 July 2021; and on 8 May 2023, in this case, awarded $22.5 million in compensatory damages and $67.5 million in punitive damages, for a total $90,000,000.00.
Ester Lelchook v. Syrian Arab Republic, 16-cv-01550 (D.D.C., filed 1 Aug 2016).
On 2 August 2006 David Lelchook, a 52-year old American citizen, was riding a bike in Israeli Kibbutz Sa-ar, heading toward a safe room, when a rocket launched by the terrorist group Hezbollah struck and killed him. His next-of-kin filed this lawsuit, claiming that Syria provided material support and resources to Hezbollah. After default by defendant Syria, the District Court awarded damages in the amount of $20,535,665. Parallel lawsuits concerning the same attack were commenced by the Lelchook family against a number of banks, with plaintiffs alleging that they knowingly provided support to Hezbollah. Those cases are in the table concerning litigation against banks.
On 15 Oct 1999, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1267 (S/Res/1267) under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The Resolution demanded that the Taliban turn over Osama bin Laden to appropriate authorities in a country where he would be brought to justice. It further declared that, as of 14 Nov 1999, all States would be required to freeze funds and prohibit the take-off and landing of Taliban-owned aircraft unless or until the Taliban complied with the demand. The Council designated Osama bin Laden and associates as terrorists and established a sanctions regime to cover individuals and entities associated with Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and/or the Taliban. This sanctions regime was reaffirmed and modified by a series of subsequent UN Security Council Resolutions.
These resolutions imposed sanctions against Sudan concerning the attempted assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak:
The sanctions were terminated by the Security Council in 2001 by Resolution 1372 (S/Res/1372), the Council having been satisfied with the measures taken by Sudan.
These resolutions imposed sanctions against Libya concerning the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and Union de transports aenens flight 772, and the resultant loss of hundreds of lives:
The sanctions were lifted in 2003 by the Security Council in Resolution 1506 (S/Res/1506), after Libya accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials, renounced terrorism and arranged for payment of appropriate compensation for the families of the victims.
This website contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material, as provided for in section 107 of the United States Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair use notwithstanding, we will respond to any copyright owner who wants their material removed or modified, or wants us to link to their website.
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the kid; the calf, the beast of prey, and the fatling together, with a little boy to herd them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw.
He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide disputes for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
1. The present Charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.2. The ratifications shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America, which shall notify all the signatory states of each deposit as well as the Secretary-General of the Organization when he has been appointed.3. The present Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and by a majority of the other signatory states. A protocol of the ratifications deposited shall thereupon be drawn up by the Government of the United States of America which shall communicate copies thereof to all the signatory states.4. The states signatory to the present Charter which ratify it after it has come into force will become original Members of the United Nations on the date of the deposit of their respective ratifications.
The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.
The Secretary-General shall act in that capacity in all meetings of the General Assembly, of the Security Council, of the Economic and Social Council, and of the Trusteeship Council, and shall perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by these organs. The Secretary-General shall make an annual report to the General Assembly on the work of the Organization.
The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.
1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.
The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
1. The General Assembly may consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both.2. The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.3. The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.4. The powers of the General Assembly set forth in this Article shall not limit the general scope of Article 10.
The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.