Sponsors of Terror Held Legally Accountable

Justice cannot restore a life, but it can refuse to let murderers and their backers operate without consequence.

FIDF Chief Executive Officer Steve Weil is joined by Richard D. Heideman, Senior Counsel at Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, PC, and Joseph Tipograph, Attorney at Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, PC, to examine and detail the history of terrorism focused at Israel, learnings of sponsors of terrorism, filing lawsuits against sponsors of terrorism, and more. The legal team also presents the cases that are being brought regarding the October 7 attacks by Hamas.

May 26, 2024

VISIT: FIDF – Friends of the IDF: War for Our Home & How FIDF is Making a Frontline Difference.

Sponsors of Terror: Using the Law to Pursue Justice

Sponsors of terror do not get to hide behind distance, money, polished public relations, or legal complexity. Terror attacks rip families apart in seconds. The law cannot undo that loss. But it can create consequences, expose the networks behind violence, and give victims a powerful path toward justice.

For more than two decades, legal action has been one part of the fight against terrorism aimed at Israel, Americans, and Jewish communities worldwide. These cases are not simply about financial recovery. They are about accountability. They say clearly that those who fund, facilitate, reward, or materially support terror should be held responsible.

The Legal Fight Against Sponsors of Terror

There is a long and painful history behind this work. Hamas was not the first terrorist organization to target innocent people, and October 7 was not the first moment when victims turned to American courts for accountability.

In the 1980s, the Abu Nidal Organization carried out horrifying attacks, including the hijacking of EgyptAir Flight 648 and coordinated assaults at airport ticket counters in Rome and Vienna. Americans and Israelis were singled out, shot, and murdered.

Legal cases brought on behalf of American victims traced the attacks beyond the people who pulled the trigger. Evidence gathered from terrorists held in prisons pointed to training in Lebanon near the Syrian border, under the eye of Syrian military intelligence. Other evidence tied weapons to Libya.

That led to cases against Libya, Syria, and others. Libya later reached a settlement as part of its effort to be removed from the United States list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria went to trial, and judgments were obtained for victims.

Terrorism is rarely the work of one person acting alone. It depends on money, weapons, training, safe havens, and people willing to make murder possible.

This is the central idea behind cases against sponsors of terror. The legal system can look beyond the attack itself and examine the pipeline that enabled it.

How Terror Victims Can Bring Claims

American law provides important tools, although using them takes strategy, patience, and a very clear understanding of jurisdiction. One major route involves lawsuits against countries officially designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

Today, that list includes:

• Iran
• Syria
• North Korea
• Cuba

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign governments generally cannot be sued in United States courts. But the terrorism exception can allow claims against designated state sponsors of terror for acts of international terrorism abroad.

Iran and Syria have repeatedly been found liable in cases involving support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups. Victims may include those killed or wounded, but the impact of terrorism does not stop with the direct victim.

Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, claims can also be available to close relatives, including parents, spouses, children, and siblings. That makes sense. An act of terror shatters an entire family. It changes childhoods, marriages, careers, health, and every ordinary moment that was supposed to come next.

These are not ordinary wrongful-death cases. Terror creates a wound that reaches through a family for a lifetime.

Cases that Show What Accountability Can Look Like

The history of these cases includes attacks across decades. Each one is different. Together, they show that legal accountability can reach state backers and private entities that allegedly provide material support.

During the Second Intifada, suicide bombings struck buses, cafés, hotels, and public spaces across Israel. Cases were brought on behalf of American victims against Iran and Syria for their alleged sponsorship of Hamas.

One significant case targeted Arab Bank, a Jordanian bank with a New York branch. The lawsuit alleged that it provided financial services connected to the Saudi Committee to Support the Intifada, which allegedly paid incentives and rewards connected to attacks. A federal jury found Arab Bank liable for providing material support to Hamas. The case was later confidentially settled before damages were decided.

Another landmark set of claims followed the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. The attack killed American service members serving on a peacekeeping mission. Victims sued Iran for sponsoring Hezbollah, and major judgments followed. Funds connected to Iran’s central bank that passed through New York were ultimately attached and paid to eligible victims.

There have also been judgments involving individual attacks in Israel. The family of IDF soldier Max Steinberg, who was killed in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge, obtained a judgment against Iran and Syria based on their support for Hamas. The case recognized that Hamas, as a designated terrorist organization, could commit an act of terror even when the victim was serving in uniform.

In another recent case, the family of Ari Fuld received a federal judgment after he was stabbed to death in Gush Etzion. The ruling included damages for the pain and suffering he endured after the attack, during which he pursued and stopped the terrorist before another person could be harmed.

Holding sponsors of terror accountable means recognizing the full human cost, including the courage, pain, and loss carried by every family.

Why Qatar & Turkey Present Different Legal Challenges

Many people reasonably ask why lawsuits do not simply target every country accused of supporting Hamas or providing its leaders with safe haven. The short answer is sovereign immunity.

Countries such as Qatar and Turkey are generally protected from suit in American courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act unless a specific exception applies. The terrorism exception is limited to countries formally designated as state sponsors of terrorism.

That does not mean private entities are beyond reach. Banks, charities, cryptocurrency platforms, and other non-state actors can face claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act if they knowingly provide material support to designated terrorist organizations.

Still, these cases are tough. A defendant based overseas may argue that an American court lacks jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs then must establish jurisdiction and show a meaningful legal connection to the United States. It is detailed work. It is also vital work.

Claims involving sponsors of terror can reach back as far as ten years under certain statutes, subject to important legal rules and exceptions. That time window matters because terror financing is often hidden through long-running networks, institutions, and intermediaries.

October 7 Cases Examine a Wider Support Network

Since the Hamas atrocities of October 7, several lawsuits have been filed in American courts. These cases reflect the broad range of activity now being examined as potential material support for terrorism. The allegations remain allegations unless and until proven in court.

One case, Sassi v. Iran, was brought against Iran under the terrorism exception. The complaint points to a statement reported by Iran’s ISNA news agency in December 2023, in which an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesperson reportedly described the October 7 attack as retaliation for the killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.

Another case, Raanan v. Binance, alleges that the cryptocurrency exchange processed transactions associated with Hamas and related Palestinian terrorist organizations between 2017 and mid-2023. The complaint alleges that the platform served as a concealed financing channel and failed to implement legally required safeguards against terror financing.

A Florida case, Newman v. Associated Press, raises allegations involving photographs taken during the October 7 massacre. The complaint alleges that photojournalists credited by the organization had Hamas affiliations and were embedded with Hamas terrorists during the attack.

In Lavi v. UNRWA USA National Committee, plaintiffs allege that the American nonprofit transferred donations to UNRWA while knowing that Hamas members were on UNRWA payrolls in Gaza and that resources were used to aid terror activity. The complaint also raises allegations concerning weapons storage at schools and educational materials promoting violence.

A further case, Parr Resser v. AJP Educational Foundation, names American Muslims for Palestine and National Students for Justice in Palestine. The plaintiffs allege that these organizations acted as Hamas propaganda operations in the United States, including on college campuses.

The legal question is bigger than who carried out an attack. It asks who helped make the attack possible.

Justice Requires More Than Courtroom Victories

A judgment is powerful, but it is not always the final step. Victims may need to locate assets, overcome appeals, work with government agencies, or seek distribution from victim compensation funds.

American victims holding judgments against designated state sponsors of terror may qualify for payments from the United States Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund. Some families have received multiple distributions, providing a measure of recognition from the system after years of legal work.

But justice also requires government action. Federal agencies, the White House, Congress, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, and the State Department all have roles to play. So do lawmakers willing to press for victims who are their constituents.

Sometimes an indictment is issued, yet the accused remains abroad. A painful example is Ahlam al-Tamimi, identified as the mastermind of the 2001 Sbarro restaurant bombing in Jerusalem, which killed 15 people, including American citizen Malki Roth. Tamimi was released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, lives in Jordan, and has not been extradited to the United States despite an American indictment.

That is why legal pressure must continue. Sponsors of terror, planners, facilitators, and perpetrators should never be allowed to fade quietly into ordinary life.

Bring the Hostages Home by Demanding Their Release

The hostages seized on October 7 are another part of this legal and moral battle. Their detention violates international law. The burden cannot rest only on Israel to bring them home.

The world must demand that Hamas release them. That is the right focus. Hamas took them. Hamas must release them.

Hostage-taking is not leverage. It is a crime. The demand must be simple: release them now.

The wider fight also reaches the court of public opinion. Antisemitism, terror, and anti-Israel hatred are not separate problems. They feed one another. Campaigns that demonize Israel, normalize boycotts, and spread false accusations can create an environment where violence is excused, minimized, or even celebrated.

That poison did not appear overnight. It grew through years of political organizing, international conferences, campus activism, and organizations that treated hatred of Israel as something respectable. It is not respectable. And it should be confronted with facts, law, courage, and unity.

Standing Together Against Terror

The legal battle against sponsors of terror is slow, demanding, and sometimes frustrating. But it matters because it gives families a voice. It documents the truth. It follows the money. And it tells the world that terror networks are not untouchable.

There is no single institution that can carry this fight alone. Governments must act. Courts must apply the law. Lawyers must press the cases. Communities must stand with victims. And people of every political background must refuse to accept terror, Antisemitism, or hatred as normal.

We are facing military warfare, terror, diplomatic warfare, and a fight for truth. Every one of us has a role.

Justice may take time. But every lawsuit, judgment, investigation, and act of public resolve helps make the message louder: those who murder innocents, and those who enable them, will be pursued.