Israeli advocacy group Shurat HaDin (Israel Law Center) won a $323 million judgment in a U.S. court against Iran and Syria for supporting terrorists who killed an American teenager and ten others in a 2006 bombing, The Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
The group’s attorney, Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, told AP that Shurat HaDin had won courtroom victories against Iran but never before against Syria.
The center was representing the family of 16-year-old Daniel Wultz of Florida, who was one of 11 people killed when an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber set off his explosives at a Tel Aviv restaurant six years ago. Daniel’s father was severely injured in the attack.
Darshan-Leitner told AP that Iran supports the Islamic Jihad movement financially while Syria had granted the group a haven to train in its territory.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in the Monday ruling, according to AP, “When a state chooses to uses terror as a policy tool – as Iran and Syria continue to do – that state forfeits its sovereign immunity and deserves unadorned condemnation. Barbaric acts like the April 17, 2006 suicide bombing have no place in civilized society and present a moral depravity that knows no bounds.”
An American lawyer representing Syria argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds of “sovereign immunity” but the court dismissed it, the report said.
Darshan-Leitner said there is a good chance that the victim’s family will get compensation through frozen Syrian assets held by the U.S.
“For the first time an American court is holding the government of Syria accountable for its decades-long support of terrorism,” she told AP.
Darshan-Leitner has won hundreds of millions of dollars for terror victims in lawsuits against Muslim terror groups.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, the last sentence of the article says “Darshan-Leitner has won hundreds of millions of dollars for terror victims in lawsuits against Muslim terror groups.” I think that’s pretty clear.
The fact that it is difficult collecting damages from rogue nations like Syria and Iran does not negate the importance of the fact that the courts have recognized the crimes committed by these countries. The Goldman family never collected money from O.J.Simpson for killing their son but it was finally proven in court that Simpson was a murderer.
Precisely.
Shurat HaDin had stopped the flotilla in its tracks.
The flotilla wanted martyers.
Shurat HaDin set it up so the flotillas could not even get port calls.
The flotilla event became a flotilla flop. The flotilla was made to look like idiots.
No martyrs died to rub in Israel’s face.
The IDF was kept out of the picture. Instead the flotilla was made to look helpless and feckless.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Look, Curious — particularly in view of the fact that there are people, like Yamit (but not only him), who are ALREADY predisposed to mistake your meaning, you’re going to have to take the time to be sure that your printed words — as they appear on-screen — do in fact say what you intend them to say.
We all think in our own, tailor-made, mental shorthand (grammar, diction, syntax & the like are not necessary in thinking things thru for ourselves)
— but in the press and the heat of the moment, it’s very easy to forget
that everybody’s mental shorthand is different from everybody else’s.
The way you WROTE this: “No violence, no martyrs, which is what the organizers wanted” allowed a reader (if so inclined) to take “no violence, no martyrs” as the antecedent for “what the [flotilla] organizers wanted”
— when what you MEANT was that violence & martyrs were precisely what the flotilla freaks DID want, and that this was thwarted by Shurat.
When you sit down to the keyboard, you have to translate your own unique mental shorthand for everybody else. That’s what writing’s about.
@ yamit82:
Pull in your horns.
He meant that “violence & martyrs” was what the flotilla organizers wanted — and that by preventing the flotilla, Shurat had SHORT-CIRCUITED that eventuality.
Are you nuts?!
Here is what I meant
Shurat HaDin prevented the flotilla from getting the martyrs and violence they sought.
Shurat HaDin outwitted them, and stopped them without letting them obtain the martyrdom they sought,
@ CuriousAmerican:
I agree with laura.
What do you mean she is intelligent? I don’t think you would you know intelligence if it hit you between your eyes.
.
It’s stealth because their methods are cloaked and intentions are hidden behind their methods.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I know what they did I asked how much of the publicized judgements were actually actualized. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Such litigation in of itself is very expensive and I know they aren’t doing it gratis.
I would have preferred the the IDF stop them and even blow them out of the water. Then I could be sure none would follow. I hear more flotillas are being readied as I write…
.
The Arabs hae been engaged in Lawfare for many years, that’s what propted Shurat Hadin to fight fire with fire. Where you been Curious?
BULLSHIT, they wanted confrontation and violence and they thrive on martyrs. What galaxy did you say you are from?
She is intelligent.
Nitzana Darshan-Leitner is a heroine.
Nothing sleathy about it. Just jihad by other means.
CuriousAmerican Said:
aka “stealth jihad”
As usual, Yamit, you do NOT see the bigger picture.
Shurat HaDin almolst singlehandedly stopped the Gaza flotilla of 2011.
They threatened cellphone companies, insurance companies, gps services, ports, etc. that if they provided any phone services, repair services, port services, gps location services, internet services,etc. they would be sued.
The Israelis did not have to storm the boats as they did in 2010.
Every company in the planet was afraid to help the flotilla in any way.
The flotilla set out, but could find no supplies on their way. Ports were told to sieze their boats if they left for Gaza.
People were afraid to sell them gas; for fear of being sued.
They did not even get close to Gaza.
No violence, no martyrs, which is what the organizers wanted.
The flotilla of 2011 petered out.
Shurat HaDin outwitted the flotilla.
The only problem is: The Arabs may take up lawfare, too.
How much if any of Darshan-Leitners court victories actually produced for her clients any money?