About - Israel Legal Advocacy Project

3 Dec 2023

4 Dec 2023

The Lieber Institute – Articles of War

Israel – Hamas 2023 Symposium

1. Nicholas Tsagourias, Israel’s Right to Self-Defence against Hamas (1 Dec 2023)
2. Tal Mimran, Cyberspace – The Hidden Aspect of the Conflict (30 Nov 2023)
3. Yuval Shany, Amichai Cohen, International Law “Made in Israel” v. International Law “Made for Israel” (22 Nov 2023)
4. Dan Maurer, The Law of Truce (21 Nov 2023)
5. Rob McLaughlin, After the Conflict: A UN Transitional Administration in Gaza? (17 Nov 2023)
6. Jane McAdam, Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Refugee Law (17 Nov 2023)
7. David Wallace, Shane Reeves,Targeting Gaza’s Tunnels (14 Nov 2023)
8. Jeffrey Lovitky, Distinction and Humanitarian Aid in the Gaza Conflict (13 Nov 2023)
9. Luke Moffett, Attacks and Misuse of Ambulances during Armed Conflict (8 Nov 2023)
10. Ori Pomson, The Obligation to Allow and Facilitate Humanitarian Relief (7 Nov 2023)
11. Michael N. Schmitt. What is and is not Human Shielding? (3 Nov 2023)
12. Ioannis Bamnios, Participation in Hostilities during Belligerent Occupation (3 Nov 2023)
13. Marco Sassòli, Assessing the Conduct of Hostilities in Gaza – Difficulties and Possible Solutions (30 Oct 2023)
14. Dan E. Stigall, After the Battlefield: Transnational Criminal Law, Hamas, and Seeking Justice – Part II (30 Oct 2023)
15. Michael N. Schmitt, The IDF, Hamas, and the Duty to Warn (27 Oct 2023)
16. Dan E. Stigall, After the Battlefield: Transnational Criminal Law, Hamas, and Seeking Justice – Part I (26 Oct 2023)
17. Kevin S. Coble, John C. Tramazzo, White Phosphorus and International Law (25 Oct 2023)
  1. Israeli denial of use (French) — Full Fact
18. Amichai Cohen, A Moment of Truth: International Humanitarian Law and the Gaza War (23 Oct 2023)
19. John Merriam, Inside IDF Targeting, (20 Oct 2023)
20. Jennifer Maddocks, Iran’s Responsibility for the Attack on Israel (20 Oct 2023)
21. Aurel Sari, Facts Matter: Assessing the Al-Ahli Hospital Incident (19 Oct 2023)
  1. CNN (YouTube) – Military analyst breaks down the evidence (19 Oct 2023)
  2. WSJ (YouTube) – Video Analysis (22 Oct 2023)
  3. NYTimes – Hamas Fails to Show That Israel Struck Hospital (23 and 24 Oct 2023)
  4. CNN Business – The New York Times walks back flawed Gaza hospital coverage, but other media outlets remain silent (26 Oct 2023)
  5. BBC – Gaza hospital blast: What does new analysis tell us? (27 Oct 2023)
22. Helen Durham, Ben Saul, The Circle of Suffering and the Role of IHL (19 Oct 2023)
23. Ken Watkin, Strategy and Self-Defence: Israel and its War with Iran (18 Oct 2023)
24. Yuval Shany, Amichai Cohen, Tamar Hostovsky Brandes, Beyond the Pale: IHRL and the Hamas Attack on Israel (17 Oct 2023)
25. Ori Pomson, The ICRC’s Statement on the Israel-Hamas Hostilities and Violence: Discerning the Legal Intricacies (16 Oct 2023)
26. Rosa-Lena Lauterbach, A “Complete Siege” of Gaza in Accordance with International Humanitarian Law (16 Oct 2023)
27. Michael N. Schmitt, The Evacuation of Northern Gaza: Practical and Legal Aspects (15 Oct 2023)
28. Geoff Corn, Sean Watts, Siege Law and Military Necessity (13 Oct 2023)
29. John C. Tramazzo, Kevin S. Coble, Michael N. Schmitt, Hostage-Taking and the Law of Armed Conflict (12 Oct 2023)
30. Michael N. Schmitt, The Legal Context of Operations Al-Aqsa Flood and Swords of Iron (10 Oct 2023)

Nov 2023

Louisiana - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Legislative Background
HB 245
Legiscan

Text

10th General Assembly Emergency Session

Reconvened on 26 Oct 2023
Concluded on 2 Nov 2023

Letter reconvening 10th Emergency Session (23 Oct 2023)
Proceedings
Resolution A/ES-10/21 (27 Oct 2023)
UN News

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.

CNN (YouTube) – Military analyst breaks down the evidence (19 Oct 2023)
WSJ (YouTube) – Video Analysis (22 Oct 2023)
NYTimes – Hamas Fails to Show That Israel Struck Hospital (23 and 24 Oct 2023)
CNN Business – The New York Times walks back flawed Gaza hospital coverage, but other media outlets remain silent (26 Oct 2023)
BBC – Gaza hospital blast: What does new analysis tell us? (27 Oct 2023)

Moreover, the number of casualties from the incident has not been verified. Many analysts believe the number to be much lower.

A Primer on Hamas

Part 1: What Is Hamas? (20 Oct 2023)
Part 2: Why Does Hamas Think It Will Win? (21 Oct 2023)
Part 3: Who Supports Hamas? (23 Oct 2023)
Part 4: Who Are the Palestinians? (24 Oct 2023)
Part 5: What Is the Occupation? (25 Oct 2023)
Part 6: Is Antisemitism Part of the Problem? (26 Oct 2023)
Part 7: What Are the Rules of War? (Oct 27 2023)

Current and Recent Developments

The war in Gaza – Operation Swords of Iron — Timeline
Israel Knesset passes Judicial Reform measure on the reasonableness standard, 26 Jul 2023
British House of Commons advances a bill that would bar public bodies from supporting the BDS movement. JNS Article
U.S. Supreme Court denies Petition for Certiorari which challenged the en banc 9-1 ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Arkansas Anti-BDS statute. JNS Article
The Israel Supreme Court has ruled that the Interior Minister may revoke a terrorist’s citizenship. Court’s Opinion (Heb.) | Court’s Summary (Heb.) (Eng. Micro. Word Trans.) | Arutz Sheva | N12 (Heb.)
Ben and Jerry’s and BDSThe Israeli manufacturer and distributor for Ben & Jerry’s sued the ice cream maker and its parent company, Unilever, in New Jersey Federal District Court. The lawsuit alleges that defendants unlawfully terminated their relationship. Unilever has agreed to a settlement. However, Ben & Jerry’s has challenged the settlement in a new lawsuit, but its motion for a preliminary injunction has been denied.
Iowa in March 2022 amends its anti-BDS legislation, and Tennessee in April 2022 enacts new anti-BDS legislation
United Nations
1. General Assembly resolution (A/RES/76/250) condemns Holocaust denial, 20 Jan 2022
2. General Assembly resolutions against Israel – 2021
New terror designations by Israel – six PFLP affiliates
Gaza Conflicts – 2021, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, Hamas & PIJ
Abraham Accords – normalization agreements with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco
International Criminal Court
1. Prosecutor’s Announcement of 3 Mar 2021, opening a full investigation concerning the “Palestine” Situation
2. Pre-Trial Chamber’s 5 Feb 2021 ruling on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction over Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and “East” Jerusalem
3. Formal complaint filed by Shurat HaDin against the ICC Prosecutor
4. Amicus submissions filed with the International Criminal Court concerning the Court’s jurisdiction to investigate the “Palestine situation”. A synopsis of pro-Israel submissions has been prepared by the International Legal Forum. Other materials on the matter are on the ICC page.
5. U.S. Executive Order imposing sanctions on ICC. The Order was revoked on 1 Apr 2021. For more on this see information about the Afghan case on the ICC page.

Gaza

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.

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.

Fuld, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.

Annual Renewals

2023 – S/Res/2695
2022 – S/Res/2650
2021 – S/Res/2591
2020 – S/Res/2539
2019 – S/Res/2485
2018 – S/Res/2433
2017 – S/Res/2373
2016 – S/Res/2305
2015 – S/Res/2236
2014 – S/Res/2172
2013 – S/Res/2115
2012 – S/Res/2064
2011 – S/Res/2004
2010 – S/Res/1937
2009 – S/Res/1884
2008 – S/Res/1832
2007 – S/Res/1773
2006 – S/Res/1701

One-Month Extension

2006 – S/Res/1697

IHRA Definition Adopted by US States

- Alabama (January 2022)
- Alaska (April 2022)
- Arizona (April 2022)
- Arkansas (February 2023)
- Connecticut (November 2021)
- Florida (May 2019)
- Idaho (January 2022)
- Iowa (March 2022)
- Kansas (March 2022)
- Kentucky (February 2021)
- Louisiana (June 2022)
- Maine (January 2020)
- Massachusetts (February 2022)
- Missouri (September 2023)
- Montana (November 2021)
- Nebraska (May 2022)
- Nevada (January 2022)
- New Hampshire (January 2020)
- New Mexico (August 2022)
- New York (June 2022)
- Ohio (April 2022)
- Oklahoma (January 2022)
- Rhode Island (January 2020)
- South Carolina (July 2018)*
- South Dakota (November 2021)
- Tennessee (May 2022)
- Texas (June 2021)
- Utah (January 2022)
- Vermont (January 2020)
- Virginia (March 2023)
- West Virginia (January 2022)
- Wyoming (January 2022)

* 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.

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

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
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
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

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)

Palestine

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.”

Accounts of the Palestine Campaign

M.G.E. Bowman-Manifold, An Outline of the Egyptian and Palestine Campaign, 1914 to 1918 (2nd ed., 1923)
Anthony Bruce, The Last Crusade: The Palestine Campaign in the First World War (2002)
Edward J. Erickson, Palestine: The Ottoman Campaigns of, 1914–1918 (2016)
Capt. Cyril Falls, G.M. Bayliss, Military Operations in Egypt and Palestine: From June 1917 to the End of the War: Vol. I (1928)
Capt. Cyril Falls, G.M. Bayliss, Military Operations in Egypt and Palestine: From June 1917 to the End of the War: Vol. II (1928)
John D. Grainger, The Battle for Palestine 1917 (2006)
Rob Johnson, The Great War and the Middle East (2016)
Lt.-Gen. George MacMunn, Capt. Cyril Falls, G.M. Bayliss, Military Operations in Egypt and Palestine: From the Outbreak of War with Germany to June 1917 (1928)
Lt. Gen Archibald P. Wavell, The Palestine Campaigns (rev. ed. 1931)
David R. Woodward, Hell in the Holy Land: World War I in the Middle East (2006)

Wye River Memorandum

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.

Article 3 of the Declaration

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.

Han Kelson, The Old and the New League: The Covenant and the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals
Manley O. Hudson, An Approach to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals
Edwin Borchard, The Dumbarton Oaks Conference
Herbert W. Briggs, Membership in the Proposed General International Organization
P.B.P., The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals Viewed Against Recent Experience in International Organization

New Hampshire - Anti-BDS Law

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.”

Executive Order 2023-05

South Carolina - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

North Dakota - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Assembly Sessions

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

Covenant of the League of Nations

Covenant Text

Commentary on the League of Nations Covenant, A.J.I.L., Vol. 14, No. 3 (July 1920)
Notes on the Covenant of the League of Nations, Foreign Relations, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Vol. XIII, pp. 69-122

Amos 4:3

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.

Isaiah 2:4

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.

Isaiah 11:6-7

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.

Security Council Resolutions Concerning Libya

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:

S/Res/731 (1992)
S/Res/748 (1992)
S/Res/883 (1993)
S/Res/1192 (1998)

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.

Security Council Resolutions Concerning Sudan

These resolutions imposed sanctions against Sudan concerning the attempted assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak:

S/Res/1044 (1992)
S/Res/1054 (1992)
S/Res/1070 (1993)

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.

Security Council Resolution Concerning the Taliban

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.

Directors' Meetings - Aug. 1919 to Jan. 1920

Secretaries-General

7 May 1919 – 3 Jul 1933 Sir James Eric Drummond (U.K.) (acting to 10 Jan 1920)
3 Jul 1933 – 31 Aug 1940 Joseph Louis Anne Avenol (France)
31 Aug 1940 – 19 Apr 1946 Seán Lester (Ireland) (acting to 18 Apr 1946)

Main Areas of the League Activities

Administration of Territory
- Mandates
- Saar
- Free City of Danzig
Disarmament
Legal:
- Registration of Treaties and International Agreements
- Codification of International Law
Political Questions
Intellectual Cooperation
Health
Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs
Social and Humanitarian Problems:
- Protection of Minorities
- Slavery
- Refugees
- Women and Child Trafficking
- Child Welfare
- Obscene Publications
- Penal Administration
- Indigent Foreigners
Economic and Financial Matters
Communications and Transit

Article 4

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

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.

- Press Release, 30th anniversary of the terror attack on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (17 Mar 2022)
- Mitchell Bard, Terrorism: Bombings in Argentina, Jewish Virtual Library
- Carlos Escudé and Beatriz Gurevich, Limits to Governability, Corruption and Transnational Terrorism: The Case of the 1992 and 1994 Attacks in Buenos Aires, EIAL, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2003)

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.

- Alberto Nisman, Report on the Investigation by the Argentine Office of the Attorney General into the AMIA bombing (2015)
  - Original Spanish Version
  - AlbertoNisman.org
- Richard Horowitz, What Nisman Said About Iran (18 Mar 2015)
- Gustavno D. Perednik, Iranian Terror and Argentinian Justice: The Case of Alberto Nisman, the Prosecutor Who Knew Too Much (Fall 2016)
- Hearing: Terrorism in Latin America/AMIA Bombing in Argentina, U.S. House of Representatives (28 Sep 1995)
- H.Res. 441 — 116th Congress: A resolution condemning the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center (15 Jul 2019)
  - Consideration on the Floor of the House – approved by two-thirds vote – 165 Cong. Rec. No. 118, H5787-5789 (15 Jul 2019)
    - A motion to reconsider was tabled, precluding subsequent reconsideration. See, House Practice §2.

Litigation Against Iran

Ben Rafael, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. [1992 Embassy attack – Iran ordered to pay $13.5 million in damages] Plaintiffs commenced two lawsuits concerning the attack, the second based on the first but following an amendment in the law which allowed for additional relief. (Proposed Findings of Fact – 1st case; Memorandum Opinion – 1st case; Amended Complaint – 2nd case; Memorandum Opinion – 2nd case)

Ben & Jerry's and BDS

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:

Israel’s Justice Minister approves the sanctioning of Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever for the decision to sever its licensing agreement with Ben & Jerry’s Israel.
State pension funds in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas divest from Unilever, Ben and Jerry’s parent company, because it was found to violate those states’ anti-BDS laws.
Palestinian files discrimination complaint in New York
Shurat HaDin moves to seize trademark

Correspondence and Analysis:

State Divestment Lists

Arizona
- April 2022 Report
Arkansas (not found)
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
- 2021 Retirement System Update
Iowa
Mississippi (not found)
Nevada
- 2022 Reports
New Jersey
- 2021 Annual Report
- 2021 Report to Legislature
New York
North Carolina
Texas

Nevada - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

North Carolina - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Maryland - Anti-BDS Law

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

Court Challenge

Text

Pennsylvania - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Mississippi - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Missouri - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Illinois - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Prohibited Divestment List

Legislative Background
Senate Bill 1761
Legiscan

Text

Arkansas - Anti-BDS Law

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

Legislative Background
SB 513
Legiscan

Court Challenge

Text

Iowa - Anti-BDS Law

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.”

Prohibited Companies List

Legislative Background
Original – HF 2331
Amendment – HF2373
Legiscan – Original
Legiscan – Amendment

Text

New York - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Company Divestment List

Background
Signing Ceremony
NYCRR

Text

Colorado - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Divestment List

Legislative Background
House Bill 16-1284
Legiscan

Text

Texas - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Divestment Statute List

Legislative Background
Original
Amendment
Legiscan – Original
Legiscan – Amendment

Court Challenges

Text

Arizona - Anti-BDS Law

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

Court Challenges

Text

Idaho - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Background
SB 1086
Legiscan

Text

Indiana - Anti-BDS Law

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

Legislative Background
HB 1378
Legiscan

Text

New Jersey - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Ohio - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Oklahoma - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text – Law
Text – House Resolution

Florida - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Scrutinized Companies List

Legislative Background
SB 86
Legiscan

Text

Alabama - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Rhode Island - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Utah - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Background
SB 186
Legiscan

Text

Michgan - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Kansas - Anti-BDS Law

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

Court Challenge

Text

Georgia - Anti-BDS Law

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

Court Challenge

Text

Wisconsin - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Tennessee - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Legislative Background
SB1993
Legiscan

Text

Kentucky - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Legislative Background
SB 143
Legiscan

Text

Minnesota - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

West Virginia - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

Soluth Dakota - Anti-BDS Law

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.

Secr. of State Search

Text

California - Anti-BDS Law

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

Text

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. After default by Iran and Syria, the court awarded plaintiffs $55 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Eli Borochov, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.

Types of Incidents

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., 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 defendants were awarded $156 million, after trebling of damages by the court.

Stanley Boim, et al.. v. Quranic Literacy Institute, Holy Land Foundation, et al.

Baruch Tratner, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.

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., an individual dressed as an ultra-orthodox Jew boarded a city bus at the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem. 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 are seeking over a billion dollars in damages. Defendants having defaulted, the matter has been referred to a Special Master to determine the quantum of damages.

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, 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.

William Jack Baxter, et al. v. Syrian Arab Republic, 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.

District Court Docket
Complaint – Unavailable
Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Judgment Awarding Damages
Court’s Memorandum Opinion Denying Further Relief

Estate of Yael Botvin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al.

Goldberg-Botvin, et al. v. Islamic of Republic of Iran

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—

“(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.”

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).

Shatsky, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.

18 USC 3334(e) [subsequently amended]

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.’’

18 USC 3334(e) [as amended]

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.

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.

Amanda Ferguson, The attack against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (2003)
The East African, Iran, Sudan liable for 1998 embassy bombings (17 Dec 2011)
Jeffry William Lewis, The 1998 East African Embassy Bombings (August 2018)
Foreign Service Journal, Reflections on the U.S. Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (July/August 2018)
Prudence Bushnell, The U.S. Embassy Nairobi Bombings (2012)
Vella G. Mbenna, The Bombing of U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (2016)
Dante Paradiso, An Embassy Bombing: Dar es Salaam, August 7, 1998 (2016)

Selected Litigation Against Iran, Sudan, and Operatives

Federal Indictment on Terrorism Charges
- Press Release, U.S. Attorney, SDNY – 1998
- Sentencing Transcript – 2001
- FBI Press Release – Guilty Verdict – 2010
- FBI Report – Status of Criminal Prosecutions – undated
Republic of Sudan, et al. v. Owens, et al., Petition for Cert. Denied (26 May 2020). The appellate litigation in this case did not raise issues about Iran’s complicity and liability for damages. However, the many lower court rulings and award of damages stemming from the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam are included the the Appendix to Sudan’s Petition for Certiorari. In those lower court decisions, Iran’s role and complicity in the preparation and carrying out of the attacks are detailed.

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.

Robert S. Dillon, The Bombing of U.S. Embassy Beirut — April 18, 1983 (2013)
Diane Dillard, The Embassy Beirut Bombing — A Consular Officer’s Perspective (2013)
Anne Damarell, PTSD in the Foreign Service — The Embassy Beirut Bombing (2013)
Benis M. Frank, U.S. Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984 (1987)

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.

- Marine Corps University, The Beirut Bombing: Thirty Years Later (2013)
  - Map of Route Taken by Terrorist Bomber
- Benis M. Frank, U.S. Marines in Lebanon: 1982-1984 (1987)
- Al Arabiya, Secrets of the 1983 Beirut Bombings: The role of Iran’s IRGC (20 May 2020)

III. Selected Litigation Against Iran

Estate of Doe, et al. v Republic of Iran, et al. [Embassy attacks, 1983 & 1984 – Iran ordered to pay $8.4 billion in damages] (Amended Complaint – 2010; Memorandum Opinion – 2011; Memorandum Opinion – 2013)
Dammarell, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. [Embassy, 1983 – Iran ordered to pay $317 million in damages] (Memorandum Opinion – 2003; Amended Complaint – 2005; Memorandum Opinion – 2005; Final Judgment Order – 2006)
Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. [Marine barracks – Iran ordered to pay more than $2 billion in damages] (Trial Transcript – 2003; Memorandum Opinion – 2003; Amended Complaint – 2007; Memorandum Opinion – 2007)

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.

Arab News, US court orders Iran to pay $879m to 1996 Khobar bombing survivors (11 Jul 2020)
Perry D. Jamieson, Khobar Towers Tragedy and Response (2008)
Bruce Reidel, Remembering the Khobar Towers Bombing, Brookings (21 Jun 2021)
House National Security Affairs Committee, Staff Report, The Khobar Towers Bombing Incident (14 Aug 1996)

Selected Litigation Against Iran and Operatives

Federal Grand Jury Indictment on Terrorism Charges
- FBI Press Release
- New York Times, A Break in the Khobar Towers Case, 28 Aug 2015
Christie, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. [Iran ordered to pay $879 million in damages] (Complaint, Memorandum Opinion)
Heiser, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. [Iran ordered to pay $254.4 million in damages] (Complaint, Memorandum Opinion)
- Court Increases Judgment by $336 million, including punitive damages (Memorandum Opinion)
Akins, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. [Iran ordered to pay $104.7 million in damages] (Complaint, Memorandum Opinion)

IRGC

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.

Country Reports on Terrorism – U.S. Department of State

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.

- District Court Docket
- Complaint – Not Found
- District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
- Order and Judgment
- Order Granting Motion for Revival of Judgment

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. 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.

Ora Cohen, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

Jewish Refugees

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

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.

2006 – Hezbollah rocket attacks.
2008 – Shooting attack on a group of hikers in Wadi Zarka northeast of Modi’in. Three of the hikers were wounded.
2014 – Shooting attack at point blank range in a parking lot in Jerusalem.
2015 – Knife and gun attack on a Jerusalem bus. Two Israelis killed instantly and at least 16 others wounded.

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.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Zivotofsky

Amicus Briefs in Support of Government

Amicus Briefs in Support of Zivotofsky

Amicus Brief in Support of Government

Americans for Peace Now

Judah Henkin et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, 18-cv-01273 (D.D.C., filed 31 May 2018).

This lawsuit involves the same terror attack as in Henkin II, just 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. Damages of more than a billion dollars are being sought. The District Court entered a default judgment against both defendants in this case and in Henkin II on 12 July 2021. Further action on the quantum of damages is pending.

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. 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’s consideration and findings on the default judgment are common to this case and Henkin I. Further action on the quantum of damages is pending.

Estate of Eitam Henkin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, et. al,

Judah Henkin, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, et al.

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.

Ester Lelchook, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

District Court Docket, E.D.N.Y.
District Court Docket, D.Mass.
Complaint
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Default Judgment as to Liability
District Court’s Memorandum Opinion Granting in Part Motion for Default Judgment
Order Awarding Damages

Ester Lelchook v. Syrian Arab Republic

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.

Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, et al. v. Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East

- District Court Docket
- Click for documents

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, a suicide bomber blew himself up at Sbarro’s pizzeria in Jerusalem. Judith Greenbaum, pregnant and visiting from the United States, was among the many victims murdered in the bombing. Plaintiffs, seeking damages, alleged that the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security were liable, having provided material support and assistance to Hamas, the orchestrator of the bombing. As such, they were subject to suit under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Defendants defaulted, and after the required factual inquiry, the District Court awarded $19,879,023 in damages.

Greenbaum, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

- District Court Docket
- Complaint – not found
- District Court’s Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law
- Judgment

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.

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 (Table). 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.

Jenny Rubin, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 01-cv-01655 (D.D.C., filed 31 Jul 2001).

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 —- 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 $71.5 million in compensatory damages and $187.5 million in punitive damages (Table). The Court consolidated this case with the Diana Campuzano action, as they involved the same terror incident. The 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.

Campuzano, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

Calderón-Cardona, et al. v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, et al.

- District Court Docket (D.P.R)
- District Court Docket (D.D.C.)
- Complaint (D.P.R.)
- Default Trial – Transcript – Day 1
- District Court’s Opinion and Order
- Amended Judgment Awarding Damages

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.

William Jack Baxter, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Syrian Arab Republic, et al.

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. In a subsequent order authorizing enforcement of the judgment against the Iran, the Court noted that Syria had not been notified of the default judgment in the required manner.

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. During the litigation Syria was added as a defendant. The District Court severed the case against Syrian and it was ultimately voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

Bluth, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

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. 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.

Shatsky, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.

Lawrence Belkin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

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. The attack was perpetrated by an operative of Hamas, which claimed credit for the bombing. Seventeen individuals were killed and over 100 individuals, including bystanders, were injured. Plaintiffs, who included Mr. Beer’s estate, his mother and his siblings, 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 are thus liable for the death of Mr. Beer. Upon default, the District Court awarded compensatory damages but declined to impose punitive damages (subsequently awarded in Beer II).

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.

- District Court Docket
- Complaint
- District Court’s Memorandum Opinion (2010)
- District Court’s Memorandum Opinion (2011)

Harry Beer, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

Estate of Mark Parsons, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, 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.

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.

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.

Gilmore, et al. v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, et al.

- Complaint – not found
- District Court’s Dismissal Against Individual Defendants
- District Court Vacates Default Judgment
- District Court Grant’s Summary Judgment Dismissing Case Entirely
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmance
- Petition for Certiorari – not found
- Docket, U.S Supreme Court
- Petition for Certiorari Denied

Sokolow, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.

- Timeline and Documents

Estate of Esther Kleiman, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al.

- Timeline and Documents

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. After 15 years of protracted litigation, 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.

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.

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.

Knox, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.

Rivka Livnat, et al. v. Palestinian Authority

- Complaint
- District Court’s Memorandum Opinion Dismissing Case
- D.C. Circuit Affirmance
- Petition for Certiorari – not found
- Brief in Opposition to Petition
- Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief
- Supplemental Brief in Opposition
- Petitioners’ Letter to Supreme Court
- Petition for Certiorari denied

Yitzhak Safra, et al. v. Palestinian Authority

- Complaint
- District Court’s Memorandum Opinion Dismissing Case
- D.C. Circuit Affirmance
- Petition for Certiorari – not found
- Brief in Opposition to Petition
- Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief
- Supplemental Brief in Opposition
- Petitioners’ Letter to Supreme Court
- Petition for Certiorari denied

Saperstein et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background • How the Court Works
• Basic Texts
• Legal Tools Database

Israel and the ICC

The Palestinian Authority and the ICC

The Two ICC Proceedings of Direct Concern to Israel: 1. Gaza Flotilla Incident – 2. “Palestine” Situation – • Background
• Preliminary Examination
• Ruling on Jurisdiction
• Amicus Submissions
• Investigation

Formal Complaint Against the ICC Prosecutor

The ICC and Genocide

BDS Legislation

BDS Litigation

Terror Designations

Anti-Terror Legislation

Hearing Witnesses

23 Mar 1946

The Right Reverend Dr. Weston H. Stewart
Dr. F.J. Bloodgood
The Rev. H.R.A. Jones
Archbishop George Hakim
The Rev. Nicola El Khouri
Henry Cattan
Sheikh Dia-ed-Dine Al Khatib
Sheikh Sabri Abdine
Sheihk Taqi-Ud-Dine Nabahaim
Abdullah Judeh Khalaf
Weizmann Clarification

Hearing Witnesses

15 Mar 1946

S.M. Kuper
Bernard Gering
Major M. Comay

Hearing Witnesses

26 Mar 1946

Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog
Chief Rabbi Bentzion Meir Uziel
David Ben Gurion
E. Kaplan
Dr. E. Schmorak
Moshe Shertok, Jewish Agency

Hearing Witnesses

13 Mar 1946

- Yitzchak Ben Zvi, President, Jewish National Council
- Dr. Mordecai Eliash, Jewish National Council
- David Remez, Secretary-General, Jewish National Council
- Dr. Isaac Breuer, Agudas Israel
- Rabbi Moshe Blau, Agudas Israel
- David Aboulafia
- Itzhak Abbadi
- Mr. Laniado
- Dr. A. Katznelson
- Ben Zion Meir Hai-Uziel
- Senator Asher Mallach

Photo Credit [Tower of David]: Free Israel Photos (freeisraelphotos.com) / CC BY 3.0

Votes on the Resolution

Article 16

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.

Article 20

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.

Article 19

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.

Article 11

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.

Article 10

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.

Hearing Witnesses

25 Mar 1946

Sami Effendi Taha
Emile Ghory
Major Wellesley Aron, H.B.E.
Dr. Ben Ze’ev
Omar Dhany
Alex Aaronsohn
Dr. Danziger
Meir Wilner
Ester Wilenska
Dr. W.Ehrlich
Golda Myerson, Histadrut
Ahmed Shykayri, Arab Office
Albert Hourani, Arab Office

Hearing Witnesses

21 Mar 1946

M. Jaffee, representing the Paslestine Corporation, Ltd.
H.L. Wolfson, representing Pica
Doctor T. Canaan, President, Palestine Arab Medical Association

Hearing Witnesses

18 Mar 1946

David Totah
Sabri Kignado
Dr. David Pinto
George Asfar
Yubrau Chamieh
Sheikh Mutapha Zarka, professor of Moslem law, Syria University

Hearing Witnesses

14 Mar 1946

Dr. Judah Magnes, President, Hebrew University
Martin Buber
Moshe Smilansky

Hearing Witnesses

11 Mar 1946

David Ben Gurion
Sigfried Hoofien (cont.)
D. Horowitz, Director, Economic Department, Jewish Agency

Hearing Witnesses

12 Mar 1946

Jamal Effendi Husseini, representing Arabs of Palestine
Auni Bey Abdul Hadi, Arab Higher Committee

Hearing Witnesses

5 Mar 1946

Dr. Fadlel Jemali, Director-General, Iraq Foreign Office
Sheikh el Bakri, representing the Moslem Brotherhood
Abdul Maguid Ibrahaim Saleh Pasha, former Egyptian foreign Minister
Saleh Harb Pasha, Chairman of the Moslem Youth Organization
Sheikh el Banna, leader of the Moslem Brotherhood
Manur Fahm Pasha, Dean of Cairo University
Dr. Abdu Ruqaybah of Tunisia

Hearing Witnesses

8 Mar 1946

Chaim Weizmann
Sigfried Hoofien, head of the Anglo-Palestine Bank

Hearing Witnesses

2 Mar 1946

Abdul Rahman Azzam Rey, Secretary, Arab League

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 different terror attacks that caused the deaths of numerous innocent civilians, including the deceased victims; 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.

Types of Incidents

Mortar Attack
Shooting
Suicide Bombings
Bar/Nightclub
Buses
Cafe
Passover Seder
Pedestrian Mall

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. 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.

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 I in which the court declined to grant certain of the damages claimed because of 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 in the amount of $40,890,000.

Types of Incidents

Knife Attack
Rocket Attacks
Shooting Attacks (3)

Article 34

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.

Article 29

The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.

Article 36

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.

Article 22

The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.

Article 37

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.

Article 38

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.

Article 39

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.

Article 14

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.

Article 42

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.

Article 43

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.

Article 97

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.

Article 98

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.

Article 99

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.

Article 11

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.

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.

Article 110

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.

Article 40

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.

Article 20

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.

Article 17

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.

Fair Use Notice:

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.