Palestinian groups face $218m Israel terror fine in US

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31582463

A US court in New York has found the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority liable for attacks in Israel over 10 years ago.

Six attacks in and around Jerusalem killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more during the second Palestinian intifada between 2002 and 2004.

The jury awarded victims of the attacks more than $218m.

The Palestinian groups expressed dismay at the court's decision and vowed they would appeal.

As some of the victims were American citizens, the lawsuit was filed in a US court.

After deliberating for a day, jurors ruled in favour of 10 American families who were seeking damages related to the six attacks.

A joint statement by the PLO and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) described the charges as "baseless" and said they were disappointed by the ruling.

The victims' families allege that internal documents show the attacks were approved by the Palestinian authorities, while defence lawyers claim the bombers acted alone.

The victims had requested more than $350m.

This could be an interesting development

**AlmightyWalrus**

How on Earth does this court have jurisdiction in Israel? American citizens or not, this seems rather illegal.

Regardless, this isn't going to end well.

**Frazzled**

In the end, the US was forced to utilize THE ultimate weapon...lawyers!

**LordofHats**

How exactly are they planning to collect?

**SilverMK2**

Will be interesting to see what would happen if an american is hit by Israeli rocket fire...

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:
In the end, the US was forced to utilize THE ultimate weapon...lawyers!

It was only a matter of time till we found a way to utilize our ability to file frivolous suits as a weapon

Now if only we had a way to deploy it from a drone

**Jihadin**

Can actually garnish the funds any of those organizations I believe

**Dreadclaw69**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How on Earth does this court have jurisdiction in Israel? American citizens or not, this seems rather illegal.

The court has jurisdiction because Americans were wounded. On what basis do you believe that this is "illegal"? The UK and US governments have been found liable for injuries stemming from certain events in Iraq.

**Frazzled**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How on Earth does this court have jurisdiction in Israel? American citizens or not, this seems rather illegal.

Regardless, this isn't going to end well.

They have assets here.

we give them lots of money annually. We can garnish their "wages."
Interesting to see what proof they had as the claim the PA was involved. If its just groups, then those groups probably don't have assets and its a symbolic judgement. I'll note Libya owed millions for the TWA bombing under a similar strategy.

Innovative strategy. Now they could potentially sue if Americans were killed by Israel.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
How exactly are they planning to collect?

We send aids to Palestinian government...

I guess the courts could tap into that to satisfy the judgement... but, man that's seems murky..

**Hollismason**

Strangely they don't mention the counter suit by American Palestinians who've been injured by Israelis, something that has happened.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
In the end, the US was forced to utilize THE ultimate weapon...lawyers!

Fighting terror with terror?

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

We send aids to Palestinian government...

I guess the courts could tap into that to satisfy the judgement... but, man that's seems murky..

And yet, I doubt anyone will ever see a dime of that money.

Like the US wants to start paying British and Irish citizens for the money we sent to the IRA. Or the Russian for all the weapons we gave the Mujahadeen. And what about Palestinian-Americans killed by Israel? They've been sueing for over a decade.

I don't see how this is enforceable, not due to legal standards but due to the real world abyss it opens.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Fighting terror with terror?

Paper Terorism

**kronk**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
In the end, the US was forced to utilize THE ultimate weapon...lawyers!

Fighting terror with terror?

Spoiler:

Why has nobody thought of this before!?!?

**Yodhrin**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Will be interesting to see what would happen if an american is hit by Israeli rocket fire...

Was just thinking; does that mean the families of aid workers that have been shot/bulldozed by the IDF can sue Isreal for compensation now?

**Jihadin**

Might have to go through the world court or something

**AlmightyWalrus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How on Earth does this court have jurisdiction in Israel? American citizens or not, this seems rather illegal.

The court has jurisdiction because Americans were wounded. On what basis do you believe that this is "illegal"? The UK and US governments have been found liable for injuries stemming from certain events in Iraq.

It might just be me being silly, but isn't the job of a court to deal with cases within their jurisdiction? What right does an American court have to judge anyone for something that occured on sovereign Israeli territory? Couldn't this be seen as a violation of Israeli sovereignty, and thus illegal?

**Ouze**

I understand that Dreadclaw just copied and pasted the articles headline, so not knocking him, but the headline is super confusing.

It might be more accurate to have phrased it "US court: Palestinian groups liable for $218m terror judgement" or something like that. The plaintiffs were American and sued in a US court. The fact the attacks occurred in Israel should not have been wedged into the headline IMO, it belongs in the first few sentences. Not being pedantic, I think it's so confusing as to actually be bad reporting.

There is ample precedent for suing foreign powers for terrorism related injuries when those powers have US interests to collect from.

**Da Boss**

Be interesting to see how the court intends to enforce it's ruling. Seems like more of a symbolic thing.

**Ouze**

Da Boss wrote:
Be interesting to see how the court intends to enforce it's ruling. Seems like more of a symbolic thing.

The Palestinian Authority has US based assets which could be seized. In fact, Google is saying this isn't even the first time such a judgement has been levied against this organization for nearly the exact same circumstances. I'm going home now so don't have time to see if they ever collected.

**Da Boss**

Yeah, but is this court a serious enough mover to enforce something like that? Seems like it would be a foreign policy thing that would need more than just the backing of this court.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

**Frazzled**

Yodhrin wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Will be interesting to see what would happen if an american is hit by Israeli rocket fire...

Was just thinking; does that mean the families of aid workers that have been shot/bulldozed by the IDF can sue Isreal for compensation now?

if they were American citizens. American citizens have to be harmed (so no IRA doesn't work).

Again this is probably more symbolic than anything.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How on Earth does this court have jurisdiction in Israel? American citizens or not, this seems rather illegal.

The court has jurisdiction because Americans were wounded. On what basis do you believe that this is "illegal"? The UK and US governments have been found liable for injuries stemming from certain events in Iraq.

It might just be me being silly, but isn't the job of a court to deal with cases within their jurisdiction? What right does an American court have to judge anyone for something that occured on sovereign Israeli territory? Couldn't this be seen as a violation of Israeli sovereignty, and thus illegal?

US Citizens were harmed. US courts have jurisdiction over US citizens. Thats a common jurisdictional ploy by courts in many countries.

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, but is this court a serious enough mover to enforce something like that? Seems like it would be a foreign policy thing that would need more than just the backing of this court.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

Why would this court not be a serious enough mover to enforce this?

**Ouze**

Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, but is this court a serious enough mover to enforce something like that? Seems like it would be a foreign policy thing that would need more than just the backing of this court.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

No, there definitely is a political intersection here. This is actually a pretty good example of when 2 branches of government can butt up against each other.

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, but is this court a serious enough mover to enforce something like that? Seems like it would be a foreign policy thing that would need more than just the backing of this court.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

Why would this court not be a serious enough mover to enforce this?

Because in the end I don't think that the United States is going to make foreign policy decisions based on what 10 random jurors picked from the street who have no training of any kind in foreign policy or terrorism decided in a civil court case.

**Ouze**

If you want to read more about it, there's an interesting* article about some of the pitfalls and vagaries of collecting a foreign judgement here.

*And by interesting, I mean long**.

**And by long, i mean, I skimmed the first page and decided that was all I cared about this subject matter.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Because in the end I don't think that the United States is going to make foreign policy decisions based on what 10 random jurors picked from the street who have no training of any kind in foreign policy or terrorism decided in a civil court case.

The case was in relation to personal injuries suffered by private US citizens that was found to be caused by the PLO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages. There was so political relief sought by the plaintiffs, nor awarded by the court. The State Department is not, to my knowledge involved in this case. Did you have another source that indicated that foreign policy decisions would be made on the basis of this judgement?

Also are civil cases not decided by a judge solo? I thought that jurors were primarily a feature of the criminal justice system.

I'll ask again, is there any reason why people believe that this judgement is unenforceable? The PLO have assets in the United States, and receive funding from the United States. It is a readly enforceable judgement on its face

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because in the end I don't think that the United States is going to make foreign policy decisions based on what 10 random jurors picked from the street who have no training of any kind in foreign policy or terrorism decided in a civil court case.

The case was in relation to personal injuries suffered by private US citizens that was found to be caused by the PLO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages. There was so political relief sought by the plaintiffs, nor awarded by the court. The State Department is not, to my knowledge involved in this case. Did you have another source that indicated that foreign policy decisions would be made on the basis of this judgement?

When you start talking about US foreign aid for Palestine, then you start talking about foreign policy IMO.

Also are civil cases not decided by a judge solo? I thought that jurors were primarily a feature of the criminal justice system.

It can vary, but almost all civil cases that I have heard off had juries. And unlike a criminal trial you only need a majority of jurors to rule on something and not all of them.

**LordofHats**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Did you have another source that indicated that foreign policy decisions would be made on the basis of this judgement?

Seizing assets owned by a foreign body is a foreign policy decision. The court can order the seizure but the executive can refuse to enforce the order (and I suspect will).

It's a massive foreign policy decision (plus it leaves the massive hanging question about Americans killed by Israel like Rachel Corrie who have been suing in US and Israeli courts for over a decade). I highly doubt the US Government wants to open that can of worms.

**whembly**

Didn't the 9/11 victims successfully sue the Saudis/Taliban/??

EDIT: Yep... lawsuits incoming!
http://nypost.com/2013/12/20/911-victims-ok-to-sue-saudi-government/