By BERNIE BELLAN In 2022 the Jerusalem Post listed the 50 most influential Jews in the world. Number 42 on that list was Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, head of an organization known in Hebrew as Shurat Hadin or in English as the Israel Law Centre. (Interestingly, number 33 on the list was writer Dara Horn. Both Horn and Darshan-Leitner share one other attribute in common: They’ve now both been speakers at the Adas Yeshurun-Herzlia’s annual guest lecture.)
On the afternoon of Sunday, May 7, Darshan-Leitner addressed an audience gathered at the Adas Yeshurun-Herzlia. She spoke via Zoom from her home in Israel. The title of her talk was “My journey to the US Supreme Court.”

I had the pleasure of meeting Nitsana Darshan-Leitner in 2013 when I was part of a mission sponsored by Shurat Hadin. Later that same year I interviewed her over the phone. Both my article about that initial meeting in Israel and my later interview can be found on our website. Simply click on the “Search Archives” link at the top of the home page and enter Nitsana Darshan.
Back in 2013, however, Shurat Hadin was mostly involved in filing lawsuits against governments, e.g., Iran and the Palestinian Authority, or against banks, e.g., the Bank of China. The purpose of filing those lawsuits, as Darshan-Leitner also explained on May 7, was to go after the sources of funding for terrorist groups.
While some may wonder about the effectiveness of such a strategy, the proof is in the pudding. As Darshan-Leitner noted during her hour-long talk, Shurat Hadin has won over $2 billion in judgments against various actors since lawyers working pro bono in 2000 filed their very first lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority that year. And, in case you think that those judgments are merely symbolic – given how difficult it often is to collect on a judgment, Darshan-Leitner added that, to date, Shurat Hadin has been able to collect $400 million altogether. In turn, the funds collected have been handed over to the families of victims of terrorism.

How did Shurat Hadin get its start?
It goes back to a grisly episode that occurred in 2000 when two Israeli soldiers made a wrong turn in their jeep and ended up in Ramallah, she told the Herzlia audience. They were dragged from their vehicle and ended up in a PA police station where they were beaten to death by Palestinian policemen. Then their bodies were handed over to the mob waiting outside the police station whereupon they were tied to a vehicle and dragged through the town.
Normally, Darshan-Leitner explained, the policemen involved in the murders of the two Israeli soldiers would have been pursued through legal means, but in this case it was decided to go after the Palestinian Authority itself. Eventually Shurat Hadin won a judgment of $64 million against the PA.

Other acts of terrorism where it was possible to prove who was responsible have also been followed up with lawsuits and judgments. But, as Darshan-Leitner admitted, in cases where the Palestinian Authority has been held liable for acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens, Shurat Hadin has asked the Israeli government to withhold funds that are supposed to be transferred to the PA as part of an agreement reached during the Oslo Accords under which Israel would collect tax revenues from Palestinians and hand those revenues over to the PA. Whenever an Israeli government has threatened to withhold revenues, however, pressure is exerted not to do that in the interest of keeping the PA from collapsing.
It’s been a different story when it comes to non-Israeli victims of terrorism. Under laws passed in the US (and in other jurisdictions, including Canada) over the years, governments and financial institutions that have been found to have provided the financing for terrorist groups that were responsible for the killing of Americans (and other nationals) can be sued in the countries from where those nationals came if they have laws similar to the one in the US.
In various lawsuits filed against the PA in courts when individuals have been killed as a result of terrorist activities which Shurat Hadin has been able to prove were financed by the PA, a total of $655 million in judgments have been won by Shurat Hadin against the PA.
But, here’s the catch: The US State Department has consistently intervened whenever the PA has been found liable in US courts, arguing that “the PA is a vital part of US policy in the Middle East,” Darshan-Leitner said.
Further, the PA has claimed that it has no legal presence in the US and that in order to be held liable for damages, Shurat Hadin would have to show that the PA has “personal jurisdiction” in the US. A US Court of Appeal agreed with that argument and all the prior judgments against the PA were subsequently vacated. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, Shurat Hadin’s argument was rejected again.
The US Congress, however, saw things differently, and passed legislation requiring any country or entity receiving aid from the US government to “have to accept personal jurisdiction in cases of terror,” Darshan-Leitner said.

While Shurat Hadin has been successful in winning judgments in various courts over the years, in 2015 it adopted a new strategy, which was to go after some of the biggest providers of social media, including Google (which owns Youtube) and Facebook, arguing they abet terrorism, not only by allowing content on their sites that publicizes terrorist acts, they also often promote terrorism byproviding that content.
Although there is nothing new in the argument that social media have played a huge role, both in promoting acts of terrorism – and antisemitism in general, Darshan-Leitner explained that Shurat Hadin employed a new tactic in its recent submission to the US Supreme Court.
Until now, she observed, social media have been protected from any claims against them by referring to Section 230 of something called the Community Decency Act, which was passed by Congress in 1995.
That section protects social media by drawing a distinction between producers of content on the internet and publishers of that content. For instance, in its lawsuit against Facebook (for $1 billion), lawyers representing Shurat Hadin argued that teenagers have been prompted to emulate Facebook posts that explained techniques that could be used in murdering, such as how “to twist a knife.”
“Any time there’s an attack, “Facebook posts glorifying that attack received “tens of thousands of likes,” Darshan-Leitner observed.
In its defense, she said, Facebook has argued that “they’re only a bulletin board…they’re not publishers.”
Facebook also says that “it does block pages and monitor content,” Darshan-Leitner said, but Shurat Hadin mounted an experiment to show that Facebook is inconsistent in how it monitors posts.
Two different pages were created by Shurat Hadin, she continued. “One was against Palestinians, one against Israelis. Facebook took down the page against Palestinians,” but not the one against Israelis.”
Shurat Hadin also filed suit against Google for allowing ISIS to post videos on Youtube showing how to behead people.

When lawyers for Shurat Hadin appeared before the US Supreme Court in February to present their brief, some judges on the court agreed that if Google is “recommending content, then they are responsible for that content,” Darshan-Leitner noted.
Still, she admitted that the chances are slim that the US Supreme Court will rule in favour of Shurat Hadin – in no small part because doing so would have huge implications for so many other companies in addition to Facebook and Google.
Nonetheless, she said, “We very much hope that the Supreme Court will find social media companies responsible for this terrorism.”

Later, David Matas asked Darshan-Leitner this question: “Why did you go after Facebook in the US when you could have gone after them in another country?”
The answer, according to Darshan-Leitner, is that “in Israel the courts follow US law.”
Further, she added, “Europe is out of the question. We don’t like European courts for various reasons.” On top of that, she continued, “European lawyers don’t work on contingencies. Also, you have to file a fee in advance of a court proceeding that is based on a percentage” of the amount of the lawsuit you are filing.”
Thus, it would have been hugely expensive to file a $1 billion lawsuit against Facebook in a European court.
Regardless what the Supreme Court’s decision was going to be, Darshan-Leitner said, “there are 25 proposals before Congress to amend Section 230” of the Community Decency Act.
“We have to insure that almost 80 years after the Holocaust there is a price to be paid for taking Jewish blood,” Darshan-Leitner said at the conclusion of her talk.

(Note: The Supreme Court decision on Shurat Hadin’s lawsuit against Facebook came down on May 18. Shurat Hadin lost. For more on the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Shurat Hadin case which was handed down on May 18.

Here is a report on the Supreme Court’s decision:

US Supreme Court rules for Big Tech in terror cases
“The victims accuse the social media giants of knowingly providing services to groups like ISIS and Hezbollah.”
(May 21, 2023 / JNS) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week against the families of terrorism victims in s cases in which the plaintiffs accused Google, Twitter and Facebook of “aiding and abetting” attacks by failing to block content promoting terrorism.
Thecase, Gonzalez v. Google, was sent back to a lower court. The plaintiffs asserted that the companies were liable for the death of American college student Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a café during coordinated ISIS attacks in Paris in 2015.
The May 18 decisions handed a victory to the tech industry by declining to weigh in on the foundational U.S. internet law known as Section 230.
The law, a provision in the 1996 Communications Decency Act, protects online companies from liability for content posted by their users. It also gives internet companies the ability to remove content without liability.
Of the two cases, Gonzalez v. Google gave the Supreme Court the more direct opportunity to tackle Section 230. However, the court said the suit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn’t have a case under the Anti-Terrorism Act. It advised the lower court that there was no need to address Section 230.
Shurat HaDin-Israeli Law Center President Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, one of the attorneys for the Gonzalez family, said, “While we are disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to acknowledge the dangers of Section 230’s blanket immunity for the social media platforms and their facilitation of these vital internet services to designated terrorist organizations, we intend to continue to litigate the case when it is remanded.
“It is clearly understood that platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook will never voluntarily act to self-regulate in any meaningful way that safeguards the lives of innocent people or protects the national security of the U.S. or other democratic states. The terror victims accuse the social media giants of knowingly providing their services to extremist groups like ISIS and Hezbollah and will continue to sue them for the devastation they caused to their families,” she added.
Policymakers from both the Democratic and Republican parties called for an overhaul of Section 230 in the wake of the court’s actions, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Not a get-out-of-jail-free card
“The Justices passed on their chance to clarify that Section 230 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for online platforms when they cause harm,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to the newspaper.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said the court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Google case showed “why we must update the law intended to hold these companies accountable.”
Said Darshan-Leitner, “The battle will now pass to the Congress as well, which can no longer hide on the sidelines. There is bipartisan support to rein in Section 230, and the Gonzalezes and other families of victims intend to press the Congress to amend this antiquated statute that aided in the murder of Noehmi Gonzalez.
“We lawyers see this decision as just another hurdle we need to navigate. It took decades to topple Big Tobacco; we’ll eventually rein in reckless and greed-driven Big Tech as well,” she said.
Republicans and Democrats have concluded that Section 230 gives too much leeway to online companies, though for different reasons. Democrats argue that the provision lets internet platforms avoid responsibility for hate speech and negative content. Republicans say it gives cover for Big Tech to censor conservative voices.
Tech companies argue that revamping Section 230 would lead to a flood of litigation and greater censorship as they block questionable content to avoid the increased liability.