Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 21 May 2015

Shurat HaDin
Israel Law Center

File:Logo-shurat-final.gif
Company type	non-profit organization
Industry	Civil rights
Founded	2003, Tel Aviv, Israel
Founder	Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Esq.
Headquarters	Bnei Brak
Products	Fighting Global Terror Via the Courts
Website	http://www.israellawcenter.org

Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Center (ILC), founded in 2003, is a Tel Aviv-based organization that describes itself as a civil rights non-governmental organization focused on representing terror victims. The organization uses litigation against groups that they accuse of supporting terrorism.

History

When Shurat Hadin was founded in 2003 its stated purpose was to "combat terrorism and promote civil rights through research, education and litigation."

According to its founder, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, its creation was inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States, which used civil litigation to cripple and bankrupt the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups in the US.

A leaked US Embassy cable from 2007 records the following description of the organisation's links with the Government of Israel (GOI):

Leitner said that in many of her cases she receives evidence from GOI officials, and added that in its early years ILC took direction from the GOI on which cases to pursue. "The National Security Council (NSC) legal office saw the use of civil courts as a way to do things that they are not authorized to do," claimed Leitner. Among her contacts, Leitner listed Udi Levy at the NSC and Uzi Beshaya at the Mossad, both key Embassy contacts on anti-terrorist finance cooperation.

Organization

Shurat HaDin is staffed with activist Israeli attorneys and works with numerous other law offices internationally which serve as co-counsel on cases being litigated in courtrooms in the U.S, Canada, Israel and elsewhere.

Prominent cases

Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center has been involved in a range of legal actions in Israel and abroad on behalf of civil rights cases.

HAN KIM et al. v DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA,1:09-cv-00648-RWR

Plaintiffs proved claims under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act leading to a $330,000,000 judgement against North Korea. This was the first time that a US court concluded that a foreign regime which abducts an individual who is then never heard from again, has the burden of proving that he has not been murdered.

Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 04-cv-00397

On February 24, 2015 a New York District Court jury found the PLO and PA liable for six terror attacks under the US Anti-Terrorism Act. The jury was unanimous in its decision regarding six terror attacks in Jerusalem that killed and wounded US citizens. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $218,500,000, which was trebled under the Anti-Terrorism Act to $655,500,000. The plaintiff's argued the defendants provided weapons, bombs, logistics, safe houses and money for these attacks, and provided payments to those responsible for the attacks while they were in jail.

Gaza flotilla

Shurat Hadin used lawfare to threaten lawsuits against parties associated with the Gaza Flotilla. This was accomplished in three ways: 1) Inform maritime insurance companies that by insuring sea vessels used by terrorists (for delivery of weapons to be used by terrorists) would be liable for future attacks by those terrorists.; 2) A legal warning to Inmarsat, a U.S. based satellite communications provider, that under U.S. law they will be open to charges of aiding and abetting terrorism if they provide services to these Gaza-bound ships.; and 3) Ongoing civil lawsuits against the ships that were to participate in the flotilla.

Judgement against Iran and Syria

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Shurat HaDin Israel won a case in May 2012 in which she was representing the family of Daniel Wultz, a 16 year old American who was killed in a suicide bomber attack in a Tel Aviv restaurant in 2006. The case was tried in a U.S. District Court, and represented the first time that a U.S. court issued a judgement against Syria for terror related activities. The amount of the judgement was $323,000,000. The court explained that Iran and Syria were responsible for supporting "Palestinian militants" in that bombing which killed 11 people.

Sderot

On January 7, 2008, ten families of Sderot (Israel) residents, whose relatives were killed or seriously injured by Palestinian Qassam rockets, filed a lawsuit against the Egyptian government in the Be'er Sheva District Court seeking compensation in the amount of NIS 260,000,000 ($65,000,000 US). The court complaint accuses Egypt of intentionally assisting what it calls Palestinian terror organizations in smuggling explosives and weapons into the Hamas controlled Gaza strip.

The plaintiffs argue that Cairo assists the organizations by authorizing the smuggling of tons of explosives and thousands of weapons into Gaza. They also argued that the Egyptian government allowed what the group called terrorists to cross back and forth from the Egyptian-held Sinai into Gaza, permitting them an open route to and from what Shurat HaDin asserted to be terrorist training bases in states like Iran, Lebanon and Syria.

Alien Torts Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act

On September 10, 2006, Shurat HaDin and New York attorney Robert Tolchin filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the families of 12 missing Iranian Jews against the former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. The complaint alleges that the former president was responsible for the kidnapping and torture of their missing family members in Iran. The families, currently residing in Los Angeles and Israel, claim that Khatami instituted the cruel policy of making Iranian Jewish detainees "disappear" – that is imprisoning Iranian Jews without trials and refusing to provide their families any information concerning their arrests, status or whereabouts.

The families of the missing Jews, who are not U.S. citizens, brought the suit under special laws – the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 – which permit foreigners to sue their tormentors for torture and kidnapping in American courts. The plaintiffs are seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages against Khatami for what they assert to be his role in the ongoing disappearance of their relatives. Khatami has refused to answer the complaint and has defaulted the case.

Israeli collaborators

On May 1, 2008, Shurat HaDin along with former Soviet refusenik, Ida Nudel launched a public campaign to save the life of a Palestinian police officer accused of having assisted the Israeli intelligence services in hunting down fugitive terrorists. The policeman, Imad Sa'ad has been sentenced to death by a Palestinian military tribunal in Hebron. Sa'ad, it is alleged, provided the Israel Defense Forces with the whereabouts of four suspected bomb makers whom the Palestinian Authority was unwilling to hand over to the Israelis.

Shurat HaDin accused the Palestinians of having engaged in a show trial that did not permit the defendant, a father of four, the right to counsel nor the right to call witnesses in his defense. Darshan-Leitner and Nudel wrote to then-president George W. Bush, the European Union and the Vatican to ask for their support.

UBS bank

On May 13, 2008, Shurat HaDin was co-counsel in filing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Swiss bank, UBS which is accused by the plaintiffs of financing terror.

The plaintiffs in the case, all of whom had family members injured or killed in Israel, allege that UBS's unlawful eight-year-long provision of financial services to the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time that the group allege that Tehran was providing material support to terrorist organizations renders the Swiss bank liable for the harm that has been inflicted upon them and their families. This was the first civil action brought by what the group allege to be American victims of Katyusha rocket attacks by Hezbollah.

The group alleges that the Swiss bank was involved in transferring dollars to regimes such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. The UBS operation was uncovered by American soldiers in Iraq in 2003 who discovered brand new dollars, still wrapped in Federal Reserve casings behind a wall in Saddam Hussein's palace. A Federal Reserve investigation of the currency determined that UBS was responsible for illegally transferring between $4 to $5 billion to states designated by the U.S. as sponsors of terrorism between 1996 and 2004. At first UBS sought to deny the extent of the money transfers it had provided to Iran and others, but eventually was compelled to admit the scope of its criminal activities. UBS, one of world's wealthiest banks, was fined $100 millions by the Federal Reserve for its conduct. The lawsuit charges UBS, which has a branch in New York, with aiding and abetting what the group allege to be Iran's support of terrorism, by illegally providing Tehran the dollars it needed to pass along to the terrorist groups for their purchases and attacks.

Iranian families and diplomats

On June 30, 2008, Shurat HaDin filed a petition in the Israeli High Court of Justice on behalf of the families of 12 missing Iranian Jews seeking to block the Israeli government from releasing information on the fate of four disappeared Iranian diplomats as part of a prisoner exchange deal with Hezbollah. The petition was heard on Wednesday, July 2, 2008. The Jews were arrested in the 1990s as they sought to escape from Iran across the border with Pakistan and they are believed to still be in Iranian prisons. The Iranian diplomats disappeared in South Lebanon in 1982. The petition demands that the Prime Minister not authorize the transfer of information regarding the diplomats until such time as reliable and detailed information is received about the missing Jews' fate.

Shurat Hadin claims it has reliable information that at least one of the Jews is still alive and being held as a prisoner in Tehran. The families contend that the government must honor the obligations imposed upon it by the Israeli High Court approximately two years ago, in a prior High Court proceeding, that "...push forward diligently without sparing any effort in order to gain information about the Jews of Iran." The families are insisting that there be a "quid pro quo" on information about their family members in exchange for the release of the details on the fate of the missing Iranians.

Shurat HaDin emphasized that, the families' are not appealing against the deal to bring back the Hizbollah captives itself but rather are demanding that the fate of the 12 missing Jews be included as a "quid pro quo" before any information about the diplomats is released.

American Express Bank and Lebanese-Canadian Bank

On July 14, 2008, Shurat HaDin and Attorney Robert Tolchin of New York filed suit against American Express Bank accusing it of a role in transferring money for Hizbollah. The action was filed in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Representing some 85 victims and their family members, the Shurat HaDin lawsuit alleges that the American Express Bank, Ltd. and the Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB) unlawfully executed millions of dollars in wire transfers for Hizbollah between 2004 and 2006. The plaintiffs assert that Hizbollah used the funds transferred by Amex Bank and LCB to prepare and carry out the rocket attacks which the terrorist organization rained on Israeli cities between July 12 and August 14, 2006.

The plaintiffs rested their claims in part on written findings issued by the New York State Banking Department in 2007, which determined that Amex Bank had failed to establish adequate procedures to prevent terrorism financing as demanded by state and federal law. This was the first lawsuit brought by victims of terrorism against a U.S. financial institution, alleging that they served as a correspondent for a bank in Lebanon.

Jimmy Carter

On February 1, 2011, Shurat HaDin and US attorney David Schoen, Esq. of Montgomery, Alabama filed suit against former president Jimmy Carter and publisher Simon and Schuster for the publication of Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. According to the Center's own information page, the book violated New York's consumer protection law.

The plaintiffs, who hope to have the case certified as a class action, are members of the reading public who purchased Carter’s book expecting that they were buying an accurate and factual record of historic events concerning Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The lawsuit contends that Carter, who holds himself out as a Middle-East expert, and his publisher, intentionally presented untrue and inaccurate information and sought to capitalize on the author’s status as a former President to mislead unsuspecting members of the public. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ misrepresentations, all highly critical of Israel, violate New York consumer protection laws, specifically New York General Business Law § 349, which makes it unlawful to engage in deceptive acts in the course of conducting business. While acknowledging Carter’s right to publish his personal views, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated the law and, thus, harmed those who purchased the book.

The plaintiffs dropped the suit on May 3, 2011 with no money changing hands.

World Vision Australia

In February 2012, based on information provided by the Shurat HaDin, World Vision Australia, a Christian relief, development and advocacy organisation, allegedly provided "financial aid to a Gaza-based terrorist group," the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), which they also alleged is a "front for terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine." WV had "suspended its dealings" with UAWC until the outcome of the investigation. WV resumed working with UAWC after AusAID and World Vision found the allegations were unfounded. A spokesperson said "UAWC is a nonprofit company that is registered with the Israeli Justice Ministry". According to The Australian newspaper, 'AusAID has written to Shurat HaDin to confirm that a detailed investigation has been conducted into the claims and no evidence has been found to substantiate them'. In March 2012, Shurat HaDin provided what it described as "conclusive evidence" that Gaza-based UAWC was linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

On 31 May 2012, the Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr issued a statement that "An AusAID examination has concluded there is no evidence to support claims by the Israel Law Center (Shurat HaDin) that funding through World Vision Australia to a Palestinian NGO, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) was in violation of section 21 of the Charter of the United Nations Act, 1945.". He also added, "I understand the material provided by the Israel Law Center has been carefully examined by AusAID in consultation with other agencies including the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation".

On 6 October 2012, World Vision issued a detailed, 5-page letter to Shurat ha-Din, in which it was stated that the claims were "unsubstantiated, and in some circumstances, defamatory".

Case against Palestinian Authority

Shurat HaDin is preparing to take the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the event that the Palestinian Authority is accepted into the ICC, it will enable the PA to become susceptible to lawsuits. Shuat HaDin is preparing in advance by collecting thousands of testimonies from Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks. Shuat HaDin Chairwoman Nitsana Darshan-Leitner explained, "we've received dozens of terror victims' testimonies, from relatively 'light' stories to truly shocking ones." Shurat HaDin filed a complaint against Mahmoud Abbas before filing complaints against other PLO officials.

On January 6, 2015, days after PA appealed to join the ICC, Shurat HaDin filed complaint against three PLO officials, Jibril Rajoub, Majid Faraj and prime minister Rami Hamdallah. A complaint was also filed against Hamas leader Khaled Mashal

Criticism

Philip Giraldi expressed the view that Shurat haDin abuses Lawfare litigation in U.S. courts, and that "Many of the charges are frivolous and only intended to advance foreign political interests through exploitation of the U.S. judiciary system. The suits frequently accomplish little beyond tying up American courtrooms. Those who are sued have to waste time and resources defending themselves, which is precisely what is intended ... Despite describing itself as an NGO, the organization works closely with the Israeli government, and received marching orders to stop the Gaza flotilla at all costs, as well as an offer of full support, directly from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ... Depending on one’s viewpoint, it is possible to perceive Shurat HaDin as either a nuisance or as a necessary resource for fighting terror. But either way, there are potential real world consequences that could result from its desire to punish anyone and everyone in any way linked to activity hostile to Israel ... It would also mean that the specious Israeli claim that they have no one to talk to among the Palestinians would become a reality."

In two interviews on The Real News Network, Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights and president of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, expressed the view that Shurat HaDin is a "propaganda arm for Zionism, and particularly for Israel, and brings these cases all over the place, without necessarily expectations of winning." Ratner added that in his view the US Court's ruling against the Palestinian Authority in February 2015 impeded justice for Palestinian victims of Israel while holding the Palestinian people collectively responsible for the acts of a few. Ratner said few are praising the verdict as a victory for human rights because "... the United States ... Palestinians never get justice. U.S. courts are close to their efforts at justice, despite the murders and killings by Israel, on a scale much more massive than those at issue in this trial ... Just think about Gaza — 500 children killed in the last attacks this summer, three attacks killing ... thousands of civilians. No accountability for that. So when it comes to Palestine, our courts are closed for accountability against Israel. But our courts are wide open to Israel and its supporters when it's them going after Palestine and Palestinians. ... Congress will ... pass laws and statutes ... that allow people in the United States, citizens, to sue Palestinians. But those laws will exempt Israel ... this trial should not have occurred at all. Briefly, Palestine should have been treated as a state and immune from suit just like Israel is. There was no jurisdiction over Palestine. It hardly has enough contacts in the United States to let a court rule. There's no link between those carrying out the killings and the Palestine Authority. And in the context of the United States, a fair trial was impossible. There was no way a fair jury could be impaneled in the United States. The propaganda against Palestinians is incredible. Against Muslims it's incredible. Against Hamas, which has been listed by the United States as a terrorist organization, it's incredible. Against the PA. So there's no way a jury could really sit on this without having tremendous bias in favor of Israel. The rule in the U.S. is: okay for Israel to sue Palestine, it's okay for the oppressor to sue the oppressed, but never for the oppressed ... I want to step back for second and tell about my experiences with the Center for Constitutional Rights and our efforts to hold Israel legally accountable. I want to share three cases so that we can put what happened in this trial against the Palestinian Authority into context ..."

Ratner added that, in his view, the judge has made some "bad" rulings: "The first bad ruling is pretty remarkable. One of the claims of the plaintiffs is that the Palestinian Authority, through some entities, is giving money or has given money to the families of people who've been imprisoned convicted of various acts in Israel against ... U.S. citizens. And the giving of money to those families implicates somehow the Palestinian Authority in the acts of killing. Well, the first thing the lawyers for the defendants said for the Palestinian Authority is these people were convicted by the Israeli defense forces courts, by military courts, in an occupied territory. How can you give validity to those convictions? The ... U.S. court said, we're giving validity to those convictions ... can be taken into consideration by the jury in seeing the Palestinian authority is responsible ... So, of course, is ... terrible. But should it be tried in basically what I consider ... the court that's behind the colonial occupation court in Palestine? I don't think so. So it's not going to be a very fair jury, a very fair verdict in this case. The defense that there was no policy by the PA, the Palestinian state, no standard operating procedure to do this, these were done by independent people outside of , and therefore the Palestinian state is not liable. I would still be surprised if the U.S. court doesn't find the Palestinian Authority guilty in this case, or at least liable for these damages. ... the evidence doesn't seem to be there ... let's put this into context, not just the context of the occupation, of the West Bank occupation, of the moving of people there, of the three Gaza wars in the last decade, but the context of what's happened in legal cases over the last decade against Palestine and in favor of Israel ... this week on The Real News you reported on the Rachel Corrie case, bulldozing, a killing of a young woman who was trying to stop a house demolition—clearly a case that should have gone to trial ... the Israeli Supreme Court says no, that essentially the laws of war don't apply to these cases. They're immune from going to trial on those, essentially giving the Israeli Defense Forces a blank check to do whatever they want, which they've been doing pretty well right along, but here's the highest court in Israel making that blank check even blanker. What we should end on is this context. We've had three Gaza wars ... We have the transfer of half a million people illegally under the Geneva Conventions to occupied territories ... And then what we have in the face of that is the refusal to ... have a trial for the killing of Rachel Corrie. And now we see this charade in the United States court of so-called terrorism trial against the state of Palestine. As I said, imagine if this case were going on against the African National Congress in South Africa during apartheid, a case in Paris against the Algerian liberation fighters in Paris during that war. Imagine the fairness of those systems. That's what you have in terms of this case going on in the United States. And in general there's no justice for Palestinians within Israel, and there's no justice for Palestinians in the United States courts.

References

1. "Legal threat over alleged terror links". Jewishnews.net.au. 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
2. Miller, Judith (August 2, 2000). "Syria Is Sued by Family of Man Killed by '96 Bomb in Jerusalem". NYTimes. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
3. Phillips, Melanie (March 21, 2008). "Conservative Using law to fight a war". Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-03-28.
4. Israeli Ngo Sues Terrorists, Ties Up Pa Money, US Embassy Tel Aviv, 30 August 2007.
5. ^ News, Fox (March 17, 2008). "Israeli Town Demands Anti-Missile Laser". FoxNews. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help) Cite error: The named reference "FoxNews" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
6. Pittok, Todd (February 22, 2005). "On the trail of terrorists". Jewsweek. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
7. http://ilcblog.org/2015/04/13/historic-330-million-judgement-against-north-korea-on-behalf-of-family-of-kidnapped-korean-priest/
8. https://israellawcenter.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/district-court-judgment.pdf
9. http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202718658496/Jury-Finds-PLO-Authority-Liable-for-Terror-Acts
10. "George Jonas: Using lawfare to anchor the Gaza flotilla". National Post. July 2011. Retrieved 2015-03-03.
11. The second action was Shurat HaDin’s legal warning to Inmarsat, a U.S. based satellite communications provider, that under U.S. law they will be open to charges of aiding and abetting terrorism if they provide services to these Gaza-bound ships.
12. AP (May 15, 2012). "Israeli group wins $323 million terror suit against Syria, Iran". nydailynews.com. Retrieved 2014-05-05.
13. Deitch, Ian (May 15, 2012). "Israeli group wins terror suit against Syria, Iran". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-05-05.
14. Israeli group wins $323 million suit in US court against Iran and Syria for restaurant bombing
15. Suissa, David (2012-02-08). "Opinion: Rebels with a cause". Jewishjournal.com. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
16. Lake, Eli (May 5, 2008). "Appeal Is Made to Bush To Save Arab Accused of Helping Israel". The New York Sun. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
17. Jacoby, Jeff (May 7, 2008). "Who will save Imad Saad". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
18. ^ Finance. "UBS help for Iran 'broke US sanctions'". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
19. "Soldiers set to be returned to Israel in 10 days". Jpost.com. 2006-07-12. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
20. Maull, Samuel (July 14, 2008). "Hezbollah attack victims' relatives sue 2 banks". USA Today. Retrieved 31 Dec 2011.
21. Carter, Jimmy (Feb 2, 2011). "Class Action Suit Filed Against Jimmy Carter Book". New York Times. Retrieved 25 Jan 2013.
22. "Class Action Suit Filed Against Jimmy Carter for Deliberate Misrepresentations in Anti-Israel Book" (Press release). Shurat HaDin. Retrieved 25 Jan 2013.
23. Carter, Jimmy (May 5, 2011). "Plaintiffs Drop Suit Over Jimmy Carter Book". New York Times. Retrieved 25 Jan 2013.
24. Paraszczuk, Joanna (2012-02-17). "Australian groups accused of aiding PFLP-linked group". Jpost.com. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
25. "World Vision to investigate terror link". Theaustralian.com.au. 2012-02-17. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
26. ^ Paraszczuk, Joanna (2012-03-20). "'Aussie nonprofit funding PFLP-linked Ga... JPost - National News". Jpost.com. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
27. "Vision back as AusAID dismisses 'terror' link". The Australian. March 2, 2012.
28. "Union of Agricultural Work Committees". DFAT Media Release. May 31, 2012.
29. "World Vision answers Shurat HaDin". Jwire. October 6, 2012.
30. ^ NGO to sue PA for terrorism
31. http://israellawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ICC-Complaint-Mahmoud-Abbas.pdf
32. http://israellawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ICC-communication-Rajoub.pdf
33. http://israellawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ICC-Communication-Faraj.pdf
34. http://israellawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ICC-Communication-Rami-Hamdallah.pdf
35. "Israeli group files war crimes suit against Palestinian officials". Israel Hayom. 6 January 2015.
36. http://israellawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ICC-Khaled-Mashal.pdf
37. Giraldi, Philip (February 2015). U.S. legislation abused by foreign entities, The Hill
38. ^ Ratner, Michael (February 2015). Why the $655 Million Verdict Against the PA is Not A Victory for Human Rights. The Real News
39. ^ Ratner, Michael (February 2015). Prejudicial Trial, Prejudicial Verdict: $218 Million. The Real News

External links

• Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center Official Website
• Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center Official Blog

• Anti-racist organizations
• Human rights organizations based in Israel
• Israeli law
• Legal advocacy organizations
• Civil liberties advocacy groups
• Counter-terrorism
• Organizations established in 2003