Using a Civil Suit to Punish/Deter Sponsors of Terrorism: Connecting Arafat and the PLO to the Terror Attacks of the Second Intifada

Dublin Core

Title

Using a Civil Suit to Punish/Deter Sponsors of Terrorism: Connecting Arafat and the PLO to the Terror Attacks of the Second Intifada

Description

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the conundrum of establishing the factual connection between the regime that secretly sponsors or supports terror and the actual acts of terror. To hold a regime responsible for terrorism, accountability must be established. In this context, the ongoing civil action of Sokolow v. The Palestine Liberation Organization,11 filed in the United States Federal Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008, perfectly illustrates the dilemma – on the one hand the offending regime disavows acts of terror while on the other hand it secretly supports and orchestrates terror.

Creator

Jeffrey F. Addicott

Publisher

St. John's Journal of International Law

Date

2014

Relation

St. John's Journal of International Law

Format

RFC3778

Language

English, en-US

Type

Text

Identifier

4StJohnsJIntlL71

PDF Search

Text


 


 

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/DETER SPONSORS OF
TERRORISM: CONNECTING ARAFAT & THE PLO TO
THE TERROR ATTACKS IN THE SECOND INTIFADA
Dr. Jeffery Addicott*
INTRODUCTION
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is
for good men to do nothing.”1
-Edmund Burke
As the so-called “War on Terror” 2 continues, it is
imperative that civilized nations employ every possible avenue
under the rule of law to punish and deter those governments and
States that choose to engage in or provide support to terrorism.3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* Professor of Law and Director, Center for Terrorism Law, St. Mary’s
University School of Law. B.A. (with honors), University of Maryland; J.D.,
University of Alabama School of Law; LL.M., The Judge Advocate General’s
Legal Center and School; LL.M. (1992) and S.J.D. (1994), University of
Virginia School of Law. This article was prepared under the auspices of the
Center for Terrorism Law located at St. Mary’s University School of Law, San
Antonio, Texas. The author wishes to acknowledge with special thanks the
superb efforts of research assistants and senior fellows for the Center for
Terrorism Law, Evan Anders and Elizabeth Germano who supported this article
with outstanding research and editing.
1
WILLIAM J. FEDERER, AMERICA’S GOD AND COUNTRY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
QUOTATIONS 82 (1994).
2
See Jeffrey F. Addicott, Efficacy of the Obama Policies to Combat Al-Qa’eda,
the Taliban, and Associated Forces – The First Year, 30 PACE L. REV. 340,
344−47 (2010) (discussing the confusion associated with the term War on Terror
and supporting an Obama term “War Against Al-Qa’eda” as better suited to
describe the conflict).
3
See generally John F. Murphy, The Control of International Terrorism, in
NATIONAL SECURITY LAW, 458−61 (John Norton Moore & Robert F. Turner
eds., 2005). There is no international definition of terrorism. Numerous
attempts have been made over the years to develop an international definition
for the term. The best came from former Secretary General of the United
Nations, Kofi Annan. See Serge Schmemann, Man in the News: UN's Candid
Reshaper Kofi Atta Annan, N. Y. TIMES (Oct. 13, 2001),
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/13/international/13ANNA.html. Echoing the
Geneva Conventions’ definition of a war crime, in 2005 Annan offered the
following definition of terrorism to the General Assembly:


Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

72

While the traditional use of criminal or military action are often the
responses most likely to be invoked against a regime that engages
in terrorism, the use of civil litigation with the potential to render
large civil judgments against the regime and regime elites have
fantastic potential to punish acts of terror and to deter future acts of
terror.4 Accordingly, the use of civil litigation to punish Statesponsored terrorism is a critical component in solving what one
international expert labeled the “counter-terrorism puzzle.”5 In the
groundbreaking book, Legal Issues in the Struggle Against Terror,6
University of Virginia School of Law Professor John Norton
Moore, devoted a chapter to the issue of terrorism civil litigation.
Entitled, “Civil Litigation Against Terrorism: Neglected
Promise,”7 Moore correctly observed that “turning law loose [via
civil suits] on terror states, rather than simply on tobacco
companies and corporate targets, will be greeted by broad public
support and understanding.” In other words, understanding the
reformative impact of large civil judgments, why not aggressively
employ this tool against regimes that engage in terrorism?
Proponents of using civil litigation against a regime that
engages in terror understand that there are obstacles. Apart from
overcoming traditional concepts of sovereign immunity and
gaining support from the American executive branch (particularly
in domesticating any judgment obtained), the process of litigation
against terrorist regimes is time consuming, expensive, and
difficult to prove in a court of law. While the first four factors may
be self evident, the issue of causation centers on the fact that the
regime that engages in terrorism is always quick to deny any

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[A]ny action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause
death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants,
with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a
government or an international organization to do or abstain
from doing any act.
4

Jack D. Smith, Disrupting Terrorist Financing with Civil Litigation, 41 CASE
W. RES. J. INT’L L. 65, 77−83 (2009) (discussing the emergence of civil
litigation as a means to disrupt terrorism).
5
See generally, BOAZ GANOR, THE COUNTER-TERRORISM PUZZLE (2005).
6
LEGAL ISSUES IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST TERROR (John Norton Moore &
Robert F. Turner eds ., 2004).
7
John Norton Moore, Civil Litigation Against Terrorism: Neglected Promise, in
LEGAL ISSUES IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST TERROR 197, 233 (John Norton
Moore & Robert F. Turner eds., 2004).

73

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

connection with the act of terror.8 Indeed, the regime that uses
terror as a tactic almost always employs it secretly, realizing that to
do otherwise would bring down immediate condemnation as well
the real possibility of overt acts ranging from embargos to the use
of armed force from the targeted nation as well as the civilized
world. Naturally, since the terrorist regime wishes to avoid
responsibility, they deny accountability. The use of terror is
conducted in secrecy. In essence this is the definition of Statesponsored terrorism, where a regime “directly but secretly uses its
own resources to sponsor acts of terrorism against another
country.”9 In turn, State-supported terrorism refers to the practice
of a regime providing resources or finances to a terrorist group for
the purpose of training, logistics, or execution of terror attacks.10
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the conundrum of
establishing the factual connection between the regime that
secretly sponsors or supports terror and the actual acts of terror.
To hold a regime responsible for terrorism, accountability must be
established. In this context, the ongoing civil action of Sokolow v.
The Palestine Liberation Organization,11 filed in the United States
Federal Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008,
perfectly illustrates the dilemma – on the one hand the offending
regime disavows acts of terror while on the other hand it secretly
supports and orchestrates terror.
The Sokolow case was filed under the Antiterrorism Act, 18
U.S.C. 2331, 12 by the survivors and families of U.S. citizens
murdered and wounded in terror attacks carried out between
January 8, 2001 and January 29, 2004, in or near Jerusalem, Israel,
during the so-called Second Intifada.13 The lawsuit alleges that the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), The Palestinian
Authority (PA), and various “JOHN DOES 1-99” 14 (the
organizations and groups that acted under the support and direction

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8

See Jeffrey Addicott, American Punitive Damages vs. Compensatory Damages
in Promoting Enforcement in Democratic Nations of Civil Judgments to Deter
State-Sponsors of Terrorism, 5 UNIV. OF MASS. ROUNDTABLE SYMPOSIUM L. J.
92 (2010) (discussing the legal hurdles in obtaining civil judgments).
9
JEFFREY F. ADDICOTT, TERRORISM LAW: MATERIALS, CASES, COMMENTS 5
(7th ed. 2014).
10
Id.
11
583 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
12
Id. at 453.
13
Id. at 454.
14
Id. at 451.

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

74

of the PLO and PA) “offered and provided those, acting on their
behalf, with substantial material and pecuniary inducements and
incentives to plan, organize and execute acts of international
terrorism, inducing the terrorist attacks in which plaintiffs were
harmed.”15
According to the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet or
Shabak), between 2000 and 2004, at least 1,028 innocent people
died as a result of Palestinian terror attacks. An additional 5,760
innocent people were wounded during the same period.16 From the
start of the Second Intifada, American citizens were among those
murdered and wounded. A partial list of the American civilian
victims, verified and publicized by the United States Congress in
House Concurrent Resolution 119, was released on March 26,
2003.17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15

Id. at 454.
Fatalities and Injuries in the Last Decade, ISRAEL SECURITY AGENCY,
http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/decade/Fatalities/Pages/default.
aspx. (last visited Mar. 13, 2013).
17
H.R. Con. Res. 119, 108th Cong. (2003).
• On October 30, 2000, United States citizen Esh-Kodesh
Gilmore, 25, was shot in Jerusalem;
• On December 31, 2000, Rabbi Binyamin Kahane, 34, and his
wife, Talia Hertzlich Kahane, both formerly of New York
City, were killed in a drive-by shooting near Ofra;
• On May 9, 2001, Jacob 'Koby' Mandell, 13, of Silver Spring,
Maryland, was killed in an attack near Tekoah;
• On May 29, 2001, Sarah Blaustein, 53, of Lawrence, New
York, was killed in a drive-by shooting near Efrat;
• On August 9, 2001, two United States citizens, Judith L.
Greenbaum, 31, and Malka Roth, 15, were killed in the
Jerusalem Sbarro pizzeria bombing;
• On November 4, 2001, Shoshana Ben-Yishai, 16, of New
York City, was shot and killed during an attack on a Jerusalem
bus;
• On January 15, 2002, Avraham Boaz, 72, of New York City,
was killed in a shooting near Bethlehem;
• On January 18, 2002, United States citizen Aaron Elis, 32,
was killed in a shooting in Hadera;
• On February 15, 2002, United States citizen Lee Akunis, was
shot and killed near Ramallah;
• On February 16, 2002, Keren Shatsky, 14, of New York City
and Maine, and Rachel Thaler, 16, of Baltimore, Maryland,
were killed in a bombing in Karnei Shomron;
• On February 25, 2002, United States citizen Moran Amit, 25,
was stabbed and killed in Abu Tor Peace Forest, Jerusalem;
16

75

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

Ultimately, of course, Yasser Arafat, President of the
Palestinian National Assembly (PNA), Chairman of the PLO, and
senior leader of the Fatah political party, bears direct responsibility
for the terror attacks against the American civilians that occurred
during the Second Intifada, resulting in the death and wounding of
hundreds of innocent civilians.18 President Arafat either directly
orchestrated the terror attacks, or encouraged others to commit the
terror attacks. In either case, given his supreme leadership role
associated with the Palestinian people, Arafat bears direct legal
responsibility for the murders and injury. While portraying his
government and himself to the civilized world as beacons of
“peace” and denouncing “terrorism,” the objective reality is that
Yasser Arafat and his regime worked tirelessly to promote and
encourage brutal acts of murder by means of terrorism in order to
achieve personal and political goals.19


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• On March 24, 2002, Esther Kleinman, 23, formerly of
Chicago, was shot and killed near Ofra;
• On March 27, 2002, United States citizen Hannah Rogen, 90,
was killed in a bombing at a hotel Passover seder in Netanya;
• On June 18, 2002, Moshe Gottlieb, 70, of Los Angeles, was
killed in a bus bombing in Jerusalem;
• On June 19, 2002, United States citizen Gila Sara Kessler,
19, was killed in a bombing at a Jerusalem bus stop;
• On July 31, 2002, five United States citizens were killed in a
bombing of a Hebrew University cafeteria: Marla Bennett, 24,
of San Diego, Benjamin Blutstein, 25, of Susquehanna
Township, Pennsylvania, Janis Ruth Coulter, 36, of
Massachusetts, David Gritz, 24, of Peru, Massachusetts (and
of dual French-United States citizenship), and Dina Carter, 37,
of North Carolina;
• On March 5, 2003, Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in
Lebanon, New Hampshire, died in a bus bombing in Haifa.
18

See JIM ZANOTTI, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RS34074, THE PALESTINIANS:
BACKGROUND AND U.S. RELATIONS (2012).
19
Jak Phillips, Top 10 Nobel Prize Controversies, Yasser Arafat, TIME, (Oct. 7,
2011), http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2096389_
2096388_2096380,00.html.

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

76

I. HISTORY OF YASSER ARAFAT AND THE PLO
“We know only one word: jihad, jihad, jihad. When we stopped the
intifada, we did not stop the jihad for the establishment of a
Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem. And we are now
entering the phase of the great jihad prior to the establishment of
an independent Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem.”20
-Yasser Arafat
Despite claims that he was born in Jerusalem, Yasser
Arafat was actually born in Cairo, Egypt. 21 In turn there are
numerous conflicting reports relating to his involvement in the
Arab-Israeli conflict. Arafat’s “war stories” of being driven out of
Gaza by Israeli tanks in 1948 and vowing to dedicate his life to the
“recovery of [his] homeland” do not align with the historical facts
of the time.22 There is, however, firm evidence that at least by the
mid-1950’s that Arafat had become a guerrilla fighter involved in
raiding Israeli territory and causing casualties.23 Arafat’s ultimate
life goal is best stated in his remarks made while receiving the
peace prize in 1996 in Stockholm, Sweden (for his work on the
1993 Oslo Accords): “[To] eliminate the state of Israel and
establish a purely Palestinian state.”24
Before Yasser Arafat was elected as Chairman of the PLO
in 1969, he established the Fatah party.25 At the time, Fatah was
one of several guerilla/militant organizations that engaged in
violence and terrorist attacks which they termed as an “armed
struggle,” against Israel but which in reality was primarily focused
on the murder of innocent civilians and not engaging in combat
with Israeli military or police. In fact, Fatah criticized the PLO for
being too docile in regards to Israel.26 In March 1968, a meeting

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20

In the Words of Arafat, N.Y. TIMES, (Aug. 4, 1997), http://www.nytimes.com/
1997/08/04/world/in-the-words-of-arafat.html.
21
EFRAIM KARSH, ARAFAT’S WAR 10−12 (2003) (describing Arafat’s Egyptian
accent and need for assistance in speaking Arabic with the Palestinian accent
coupled with the location of his birth certificate in Cairo).
22
Id. at 13−14.
23
Id. at 15.
24
Id. at 57.
25
See generally KENNETH KATZMAN, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RS21235, THE
PLO AND ITS FACTIONS (2002).
26
See Rashid Hamid, What is the PLO?, 4 J. PALESTINIAN STUD. 4, 99 (1975).

77

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

took place between the PLO, Fatah, and the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which resulted in the merging of
these organizations. As a result of this merger, the Fatah and the
PFLP were given 50 of the PLO’s 100-seat National Council.27
Hence, the PLO now became an organization that was heavily
influenced by militants bent of the use of illegal violence. In turn,
the PLO needed a charismatic leader who viewed terror tactics as a
valid tool to improve the Palestinians’ negotiating position, but
also had the political skills to deal effectively with the international
community and its mantra of nonviolence and peace.28 Arafat was
just that – a shrewd leader who at his very core readily embraced
the use of terrorism and guerilla tactics but also understood the
need to portray the PLO as acting in accordance with United
Nations principles of peace and nonviolence.29 Chairman Arafat
was now part of the means to bring about the so-called liberation
of Palestine. In 1969, Yasser Arafat was elected as the Chairman
of the PLO.30
Despite the merger which placed Fatah under the umbrella
of the PLO, Fatah continued to use violent attacks against innocent
civilians, even though Fatah purported formally to renounce
“armed struggle” in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords.31 In
fact, three terrorist organizations developed from the roots of
Fatah: (1) Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; (2) Force 17; and (3)
Tanzim militia.32

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27

See id.
See id.
29
See U.N. CHARTER art. 1; U.N. CHARTER art. 2, para. 3; U.N. CHARTER art. 2,
para. 4. The maintenance of international peace and security is, in fact, the very
purpose of the United Nations. No nation may resort to the “threat or [the] use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State” to
settle any form of dispute. This, and the clear prohibition in Article 1 against
any nation committing “acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,”
creates a legal framework dedicated to curtailing unlawful aggression.
30
See Katzman, supra note 25. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are
designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The organization must engage in
terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(3)(B)), or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. §
2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or
terrorism.
31
AARON PINA, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RS22395, FATAH AND HAMAS: THE
NEW PALESTINIAN FACTIONAL REALITY (2006).
32
Id. at 4.
28

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

78

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was designated by the U.S.
State Department as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in
2002.33 The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which emerged in 2000 at
the time of the Second Intifada, operated with horrific violence
against civilians during the Second Intifada.34 Their goal was to
use violence against civilians to force Israel to bend to Palestinian
demands in “peace” talks.35
Force 17 was commonly known as the PLO leadership’s
personal security force.36 Not only was Force 17 involved in
attacks on Israeli targets, but Force 17 was also responsible for
attacks against anti-PLO Palestinians. 37 Although the peak of
terrorist activity from Force 17 was in the early 1980’s, alumni of
Force 17’s active years have
gone on to commit other acts of terrorism. Such is the case of the
late Imad Fa’iz Mughniyah.38 At the top of the FBI’s most wanted
list prior to September 11, 2001, Mughniyah was responsible for
the killing of Americans as well as Israelis in the 1980’s and early
1990’s.39 Mughniyah’s shining achievement was his high rank in
Hezbollah, a designated FTO that has a long list of terror attacks
against Israelis and Americans.40
The Tanzim militia is also an armed offshoot of Fatah,
established in 1995 by Arafat and the Fatah leadership as a
paramilitary force. The Tanzim militia was intended to offset the
power of other Palestinian Islamist groups, particularly Hamas and
Palestine Islamic Jihad.41 The Tanzim militia functions as a grass
roots organization that operates at the community level, and, by
taking a hard-line position toward Israel, it has helped siphon
Palestinian support from the Islamist groups.42 Tanzim has been

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33

Id. See also List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE
(Sept. 28, 2012), http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm.
34
AARON PINA, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RS22395, FATAH AND HAMAS: THE
NEW PALESTINIAN FACTIONAL REALITY (2006).
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
A Deadly Trail of Attacks, WASH. POST, (Feb. 14, 2008),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021
303246.html.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
KENNETH KATZMAN, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RS21235, THE PLO AND ITS
FACTIONS 5 (2002)
42
Id.

79

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

directly linked to several mortar attacks on Israeli civilian
settlements.43
II.

TOTALITARIAN LEADERSHIP OF YASSER ARAFAT

“The [Palestinian National Assembly - PNA] council had not been
elected, so this amounted to a granting of absolute power to the
PLO pending the holding of elections. Not only did the chairman of
the PLO become the president of the PNA, he was also its prime
minister, the commander of the armed forces and president of the
legislative council, and had the power to appoint, promote and fire
members of the judiciary. The executive, legislative, and judicial
powers of the PNA were thus vested in the person of Yasser Arafat
or subordinated to PLO bodies over which he presided. It
amounted to installing a one-man, one-party system.”44
-Said Aburish, Arafat’s Biographer
In Oslo, Norway, the location of the 1993 Oslo Accords,
the Israelis conceded a matter of paramount importance to Yasser
Arafat. Israel recognized the Palestinian National Authority
(PNA) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian
people, with Arafat as its head.45 This was the culmination of
many years of effort on the part of Yasser Arafat, who was for all
practical purposes a dictator with dictatorial powers over the
Palestinian people. Indeed, he was a mastermind of manipulation,
equally able to play to the stage of the international community or
the “Arab streets.” But one example of this was the “walk-out”
episode staged by Arafat at the initial 1994 Cairo Agreement,
which was designed to buttress the Oslo Accords.46 After agreeing
with the Israeli prime minister on the specific terms, Arafat created
a scene by walking-out in the full presence of the international
media that had gathered in great force to witness the official
signing ceremony.47 By doing so, Arafat resolved two issues in his

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43

Id.
SAID K. ABURISH, ARAFAT: FROM DEFENDER TO DICTATOR 276 (1998).
45
Yasser Arafat: Architect of Terror, MIDDLE EAST NEWS WIRE, (Jan. 28,
2013), http://www.mideastnewswire.com/yasser-arafat-architect-of-terror
46
Amos Perlmutter, A Chosen Course, WASH. TIMES (Oct. 30, 2000),
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/oct/30/20001030-012207-1002r/.
47
Id.
44

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

80

favor. First, by entering the talks—and ultimately signing an
agreement—he had strengthened the narrative to the Israelis,
Egyptians, and Americans of working for a negotiated peace. This
took international pressure off of him while providing continued
financial support and respect from the world. Second, his
ceremonial walk-out was also for consumption by the Palestinian
people, demonstrating that he was unwilling to bend to the
Israelis.48
Like all totalitarian regime elites,49 Arafat was primarily
concerned with achieving and maintaining power. By engaging in
duplicitous conduct, Arafat was able to juggle competing and
antithetical objectives in a constant effort to maintain power and
force concessions from Israel. Arafat’s so-called “democratic”
elections were simply a veil for the cronyism and wide-spread
corruption of the PA.50 The extreme lack of consistency in the
Palestinian electoral process was known as “Arafatism” because of
the autocracy that Arafat’s Fatah dominated government had
established.51
Accordingly, when it came to fending off accusations that
he failed to combat Palestinian terrorism, Arafat maintained a


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48

Id.
See JOHN NORTON MOORE & ROBERT F. TURNER, NATIONAL SECURITY LAW
77 (2d ed. 2005).
Director of the Center for National Security Law, Professor John Norton Moore,
argues that totalitarian regimes are considerably more likely to resort to
aggressive violence than democracies. Professor Moore terms this phenomenon
the “radical regime” syndrome:
A radical totalitarian regime … seems to blend together a mixture of a
failing centrally planned economy, severe limitations on economic
freedom, a one-party political system, an absence of an independent
judiciary, a police state with minimal human rights and political
freedoms at home, a denial of the right to emigrate, heavy involvement
of the military in political leadership, a large percentage of the GNP
devoted to the military sector, a high percentage of the population in
the military, leaders strongly motivated by an ideology of true beliefs
including willingness to use force, aggressively anti-Western and
antidemocratic in behavior, and selective support for wars of national
liberation, terrorism, and disinformation against Western or democratic
interests.
50
See AARON D. PINA, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL33269, PALESTINIAN
ELECTIONS 57 (2006).
51
Id.
49

81

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

straight face that he was doing everything in his power to fight it.52
His efforts to portray his sense of helplessness even included
circular arguments claiming that Israeli attacks on those
responsible for acts of terrorism from his own police apparatus
destroyed the very forces he could have used to crack down on
terrorism!53
American administrative reports during Arafat’s tenure,
produced to evaluate the PLO’s compliance with its commitments,
consistently found that factions associated with the PLO
encouraged or participated in illegal violence against civilians in
Israel. 54 Despite the repeated claims by apologists for Arafat
stating that he had no control or influence over terror groups like
the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an organization that proudly claimed
responsibility for suicide bombings against Israeli citizens in the
Second Intifada, it is clear that Arafat and his regime bear direct
responsibility. For instance, in 2002, an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
commander admitted that Arafat controlled the brigade and they
were part of Fatah.55 A USA Today newspaper interview with
commander Maslama Thabet reported:
A leader of the largest Palestinian terrorist group
spearheading suicide bombings and other attacks against
Israel says he is following the orders of Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat. “Our group is an integral part of Fatah,”
says Maslama Thabet.56
Again, along with six other Palestinian terror groups, the Al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigade was and remains on the list of designated FTOs,
by the U.S. State Department.57

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52

Terrorism Havens: Palestinian Authority, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS(Dec. 2005), http://i.cfr.org/palestine/terrorism-havens-palestinianauthority/p9515.
53
Id.
54
KENNETH KATZMAN, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL31119, TERRORISM: NEAR
EASTERN GROUPS AND STATE SPONSORS 23 (2002).
55
Matthew Kalman, Terrorist Says Orders Come from Arafat, USA TODAY
(Mar. 14, 2002), http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/14/usatbrigades.htm.
56
Id.
57
Country Reports on Terrorism 2012, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE (May 30, 2013),
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209989.htm.

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

82

III. THE SECOND INTIFADA
“Struggle, struggle, struggle, struggle. Combat, combat, combat,
combat. Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad.”58
-Yasser Arafat
In terms of promoting democracy and peaceful coexistence
in the Middle East, the United States has always viewed the
development of a just and peaceful settlement between Israel and
Palestine as of utmost importance.59 Unfortunately, this goal has
yet to be achieved.60 While there exists no one answer to the
failure of the “peace process” between Israel and Palestine, it is
certain that the direct cause for many of the lost opportunities for
peace and stability must be placed directly at the feet of the former
leader of the Palestinian people – Yasser Arafat.
In September 2000, after over seven years of on again off
again “peace-talks” with Israel,61 Yasser Arafat intentionally chose
to turn his back on the Oslo Process and the American brokered
negotiations at Camp David – diplomatic initiatives that were
designed to help the Palestinians and Israelis achieve a lasting
peace in measured phases. Amazingly, at the Camp David peace
process brought together by President Bill Clinton, Israel had

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
58

Yasser Arafat Calls for Jihad, Struggle, and Combat, PALESTINIAN MEDIA
WATCH (Oct. 21, 1996), palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=711&fld_id=5253
(providing a media clip from official Palestinian TV).
59
EFRAIM KARSH, ARAFAT’S WAR 39 (2003).
60
See generally R. B. THIEME, JR., ANTI-SEMITISM (1979).
61
S.C. Res. 242, U.N. Doc. S/RES/242 (Nov. 22, 1967). United Nations
Security Council Resolution 242, adopted on November 22, 1967, is the central
document for establishing a “just and lasting peace.” Resolution 242 was
adopted five months after the Six-Day War in 1967 where Israel defended itself
against the armies of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and defeated all three. Israel
gained nearly 68,176 square kilometers of territory, but has since given back
over 90% of those lands. Resolution 242 allows Israel to administer the
territories it occupied in 1967 until a “just and lasting peace” is established. It
also recognizes Israel’s need for “secure and recognized borders.” It is
important to note that Resolution 242 only calls for Israel to withdraw from
territories consistent with its need for “secure and recognized borders.” The
Resolution does not call on Israel to withdraw from all the territories. Indeed,
considering that Israel has always acted in defense when attacked with
aggressive violence in 1948, 1967, and 1972, the nation of Israel has a far
superior title to these lands than Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians have never
had a nation.

83

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

agreed to “give up between 94 percent and 96 percent of the
disputed land on the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip and to
accept a Palestinian state.” 62 Despite these unprecedented
concessions by Israel, President Arafat rejected the offer and
elected to instead launch a low level campaign of terror against the
Israelis. Known as the al-Aqsa Intifada, or the Second Intifada,
this reign of terror lasted for over four years and cost thousands of
lives.
Some claim that the beginning of the Second Intifada was
sparked by the unwelcomed visit of Israeli politician and former
decorated Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) general (and future prime
minister) Ariel Sharon, with a full security entourage, to the
Temple Mount in Jerusalem – the site of the Jewish Temple
destroyed by three Roman legions in 70 AD63 and the site of two
Islamic mosques. This visit occurred on September 20, 2000, and
had been fully negotiated in advance with Palestinian leaders.64
The Palestinians, however, quickly insisted that that Sharon’s visit
pushed the Palestinians to take up arms. This explanation for the
uprising has been repeatedly challenged by many, to include
Palestinians such as Imad Faluji, a former member of the PA and
Minister of Communications65 and Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat’s
widow. 66 Nevertheless, even if one accepts the view that the
Second Intifada “spark” was not orchestrated by Arafat, it is clear
that Arafat utilized the Sharon incident as an excuse to begin his
planned Second Intifada following his walk out of the Camp David
accords.67

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
62

See ALAN DERSHOWITZ, THE CASE FOR ISRAEL 205 (2003).
See STEPHEN DANDO-COLLINS, LEGIONS OF ROME 351-354 (2010) (describing
how Roman general Titus, the son of Vespasian, used the 5th Macedonica, 12th
Fulminata, and 15th Apollinaris legions to surround and destroy Jerusalem
killing close to one million Jews and enslaving the 97,000 survivors of the
siege).
64
See ALAN DERSHOWITZ, THE CASE FOR ISRAEL 112 (2003) (citing the
Mitchell Commission Report that found that the visit of Sharon did not start the
Second Intifada – it was already planned by the PA and Yasser Arafat).
65
PA Minister of Communications: Intifada Already Planned When Arafat
Returned from Camp David, PALESTINIAN MEDIA WATCH (Dec. 5, 2000),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-SY8JxyUQA.
66
Suha Arafat Admits Husband Premeditated Intifada, JERUSALEM POST (Dec.
29, 2012), http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=297688
67
Khaled Abu Toameh, See How the War Began, JERUSALEM POS(Sept. 20,
2002), http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/111P55.htm(quotingcommunications
minister of the PA, Khaled Abu Toameth,: “The PA had begun to prepare for
63

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

84

The motive for Arafat’s launching of the Second Intifada
was certainly tied in part to his view that negotiating with Israel
was not winning him Palestinian support. Despite the fact that
Arafat had imposed the PLO’s authority over the West Bank and
Gaza with his 30,000-man security force, he almost certainly
realized that a rival Palestinian Islamist group called Hamas68 had
been growing steadily in popularity since its emergence in 1987 as
an outgrowth of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. Due to
its image as a “resistance” group, reinforced by tough talk and
actual terror attacks against Israel, Hamas electrified many
Palestinians. This, of course, came at the expense of Arafat’s
claim to be the sole representative of the Palestinian people. To
regain prestige and power, Arafat turned to terrorism and rejected
compromise. In fact, Arafat increasingly engaged in the use of
extremist Islamist rhetoric similar to that of Hamas, making
Jerusalem a focal point for the incitement of the violence. For
example, inspired by Arafat’s Islamist rhetoric at an Arafat rally in
December 2001, the crowd screamed: “We are marching, millions
of martyrs to Jerusalem.”69
It was at this time that the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a
direct offshoot of Arafat’s Fatah party, co-opted Islamic symbols
and slogans. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades served to bolster
Arafat’s credentials in this regard. In little time, al-Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades rivaled Hamas in its headline-grabbing attacks against
civilian targets by engaging in roadside shootings and suicide
attacks against civilians. By 2002, they had openly claimed
responsibility for dozens of attacks in which Israeli and foreign
civilians were murdered in terror attacks.70 Realizing the al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades had “killed a number of US citizens, the majority
of them dual US-Israeli citizens, in its attacks,”71 in 2002 the U.S.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David
negotiations, by request of President Yasser Arafat ….”).
68
MATTHEW LEVITT, HAMAS (2006) (describing the origin and policy of Hamas
as a Palestinian terrorist movement).
69
MATTHEW LEVITT, TARGETING TERROR: U.S. POLICY TOWARD MIDDLE
EASTERN STATE SPONSORS AND TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, POST–SEPTEMBER
11, 86 (2002) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/
TargetingTerror.pdf.pdf.
70
MATTHEW LEVITT, HAMAS 14 (2006) (setting out the origin of al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades).
71
Country Reports on Terrorism, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE (Apr. 27, 2005),
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf.

85

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

State Department designated the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as a
foreign terrorist organization (FTO). In their report, the State
Department affirmed that the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades “has
committed, or poses a serious risk of committing, acts of terrorism
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security,
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”72 A typical alAqsa Martyrs Brigades terror attack occurred on March 21, 2002,
when an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades suicide bomber detonated
himself in the middle of a crowded street in Jerusalem, killing
three and injuring 86.73 Less than three weeks earlier, another alAqsa Martyrs Brigades suicide bomber had murdered ten and
injured 50 at a bar mitzvah celebration. 74 In some instances,
members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades would openly admit
their direct allegiance to Yasser Arafat. For example, one
commander in Tulkarem acknowledged to a USA Today reporter in
2002, “We receive our instructions from Fatah. Our commander is
Yasser Arafat himself.”75
During an Israeli military incursion into the West Bank in
2002, a treasure trove of documents was seized from PA offices.
The documents provided detailed proof that Fatah, the dominant
faction of the Palestinian Authority, bankrolled nearly every aspect
of the terrorist operations of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – from
explosives to guns to gas money. 76 “The captured documents
proved unequivocally that the Fatah organization and the al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades are one and the same and they cannot be
separated,” an Israeli report stated.77
Following a review of the seized documents, Israeli
authorities concluded that “Yasser Arafat was personally involved

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
72

Designation under Executive Orders 13224 and 12947, 67 F.R. 14761 (Mar.
27, 2002), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-03-27/html/02-7492.htm.
73
Suicide Bombing in the Beit Yisrael Neighborhood in Jerusalem, ISRAELI
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, (Mar. 2, 2002), http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/
ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Suicide%20bombing%20in%20the%
20Beit%20Yisrael%20neighborhood%20i.aspx.
74
Id.
75
Matthew Kalman, Terrorist Says Orders Come from Arafat, USA TODAY
(Mar. 14, 2002), www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/14/usat-brigades.htm.
76
The Involvement of Arafat, PA Senior Officials and Apparatuses in Terrorism
Against Israel: Corruption and Crime, ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(May 6, 2002), http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/
Pages/The%20Involvement%20of%20Arafat%20PA%20Senior%20Officials%2
0and.aspx.
77
Id.

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

86

in the planning and execution of terror attacks. He encouraged
them ideologically, authorized them financially and personally
headed the Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades organization.” 78 Israeli
authorities further charged that Arafat had “gave terrorism ‘free
reign’ (by releasing senior terrorists from prison and refrained
from carrying out minimal counter-terrorist activity) and even
encouraged terrorism….”79
Even if one gives some consideration to the false claim that
President Yasser Arafat should not be held responsible for the
terror attacks during the Second Intifada because they were beyond
his control, the sheer duration of time that passed during the
violence (2000 to 2004) is dispositive. The continuous murders
were not the case of some spontaneous limited acts of terrorism
over a short period of time by some crazed individuals. The
continuous acts of massive murders against innocent civilians by
means of terror attacks lasted for years, with Arafat’s full
knowledge.
When asked about Arafat’s knowledge and
involvement of the attacks committed by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’
Brigade, Hussein A-Sheikh, a Fatah leader, acted as if he were
insulted. A-Sheikh scoffed at the newspaper reporter posing the
question: “Of course, there is control. What do you think? That we
are just a bunch of gangs?”80
Indeed, in order to believe that Arafat had no control over
the groups that conducted the terror attacks, one must also believe
that Arafat acquiesced to insubordination in his organization and
relinquished to other groups a large portion of the power system he
worked so hard to craft for himself. Arafat was not a figurehead
leader; he was a brutal, totalitarian leader.81 Again, Arafat was the
President of the PNA, the Chairman of the PLO, and the senior
leader of the political party Fatah. In terms of the 1993 Oslo
Accords, for which Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994,
Arafat made it clear that under his regime: “[T]he PLO renounces

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
78

Id.
Id.
80
Matthew Kalman, Terrorist Says Orders Come from Arafat, USA TODAY
(Mar. 14, 2002), www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/14/usat-brigades.htm.
81
Arafat to Children: Death as a Child-Martyr is the Greatest Message to the
World, OFFICIAL PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY TV (Aug. 4, 2003),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuveNFq7WSo; See also, Palestinian MP
Dahlan: Arafat Deceived the World When Condemning Terror, OFFICIAL
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY TV (July 22, 2009), http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=lr3-Vileiew.
79

87

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume
responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to
assure their compliance, prevent violations, and discipline violators
[emphasis added].”82
IV.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR TERROR ATTACKS

“I am going to start the [Second] Intifada. They want me to
betray the Palestinian cause. They want me to give up on our
principles, and I will not do so.”83
-Yasser Arafat
There can be no question but that President Yasser Arafat
was a master of duplicity and political expediency. In this regard,
Arafat reflects the dilemma of proving that a particular regime and
the regime leadership are legally responsible for the acts of
terror. 84 Again, the plaintiff must demonstrate by direct and
circumstantial evidence that the regime is legally liable for the acts
of terror. In the case of the PA and Arafat during the Second
Intifada, this matter of proof is aggravated by the fact that
sometimes the PA would actually cooperate with Israel to stop
certain Palestinian terror attacks, particularly if the alleged terrorist
was not loyal to Arafat and “if such action coincided with the PA’s
interest at that time.”85 In every case, however, the PA would
always seek to identify the Palestinian human source(s) that Israel
relied on to obtain the information about the act of terror (or
planned act of terror) and to then murder them.86
There is direct and circumstantial evidence that Arafat not
only orchestrated terror attacks, but that he also utilized the local
media which operated under his control. By controlling the media,
Arafat allowed others to incite violence and intimidation against
Israel and in some cases, even the United States. Soon after the
launch of the Second Intifada, PA-run television was broadcasting

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
82

EFRAIM KARSH, ARAFAT’S WAR 109 (2003).
Suha Arafat Admits Husband Premeditated Intifada, JERUSALEM POST, (Dec.
29, 2012), http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=297688.
84
BOAZ GANOR, THE COUNTER-TERRORISM PUZZLE 55 (2005).
85
Id.
86
Id.
83

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

88

sermons calling for the murder of Jews and Americans.87 Since the
Arafat regime controlled the content of the media, the regime is
responsible for that content.88
In 2001, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the Mufti of Jerusalem who
was on the Palestinian Authority payroll, verbally praised the use
of suicide attacks against civilians, 89 promoting “jihad and
martyrdom.” In June 2001, one sermon broadcasted by the PA
station stated, “[b]lessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of
Allah; blessings to whoever raided for the sake of Allah; blessings
to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons’ and
plunged into the midst of the Jews.”90 Another sermon on the PA
station asserted, “[w]e must educate our children on the love of
Jihad for the sake of Allah and the love of fighting for the sake of
Allah.”91 PA TV also broadcasted a sermon said that there would
be “blessings for whoever has saved a bullet in order to stick it in a
Jew’s head….”92
As previously stated, in 1988 the PLO formally renounced
the use of terrorism, and it reaffirmed that commitment as part of
the September 1993 Oslo Accords associated with the mutual
recognition agreement with Israel.93 Nevertheless, there can be no
question that Palestinian terrorism under Arafat continued. A 2012
United States Congressional Research Service Report claims that
“since Oslo in 1993, these groups [Palestinian terror organizations]
have engaged in a variety of methods of violence, killing
approximately 1,350 Israelis (over 900 civilians – including Jewish
settlers in the Palestinian territories – and 450 security force

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
87

PA TV Broadcasts Call for Killing Jews and Americans, MEMRI (Oct. 13,
2000), http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/378.htm.
88
See infra note and accompanying text.
89
The Highest Ranking Palestinian Authority Cleric; In Praise of Martyrdom
Operations, MEMRI (June 11, 2001), http://www.memri.org/report/en/
0/0/0/0/0/0/466.htm.
90
Friday Sermon on PA TV: Calling for Suicide Bombings, MEMRI (June 13,
2001), http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/467.htm.
91
A Friday Sermon on PA TV: … We Must Educate our Children on the Love of
Jihad, MEMRI (July 13, 2001), http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/
0/0/0/478.htm.
92
Friday Sermon on PA TV: Blessings to Whoever Saved a Bullet to Stick It In a
Jew’s Head, MEMRI (Aug. 8, 2001), http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/
0/0/0/492.htm.
93
See KENNETH KATZMAN, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL31119, TERRORISM:
NEAR EASTERN GROUPS AND STATE SPONSORS 22 (2002).

89

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

personnel).”94 The report goes on to say that “although damage is
difficult to measure qualitatively, suicide bombings have
constituted a fearsome means of attack claiming approximately
700 Israeli lives (mostly civilians within Israel proper).”95 Most of
these attacks and fatalities occurred during or just before the
Second Intifada spanning the years of 2000-2005.96
An overview of the so-called “peace” process with Arafat
reveals a pattern of duplicity on the part of Arafat:












The Oslo Accords (1993) - Arafat agrees to cooperate
with Israel to combat terrorism.
Gaza Jericho Agreement (1994) - Arafat again agrees
that Palestinians would act to prevent terror against
Israelis in the areas under their control. In exchange,
5,000 Palestinian prisoners were released.
Oslo II (1995) - Arafat agrees to continue on with the
Oslo Accords and his promise to combat terrorism. In
exchange, Israeli forces withdraw from the six largest
cities in the West Bank.
Hebron Accord (1997) - Terrorism continues but Israel
still transfers control of the West Bank City of Hebron.
Wye River Memorandum (1998) - In the face of
increased violence and terrorism, attempts are made to
make good on the promises made in Oslo. Again,
Arafat agrees to combat terrorism, arrest those
responsible, and collect weapons and explosives. In
exchange, Israel agrees to pull back from an additional
13% of the West Bank and allow an airport to be built
in Gaza.
The Camp David Summit (2000) - Yet another failed
attempt to initiate peace by the Clinton White House.
Arafat refuses to sign.
The Taba Talks (2001) - Both parties claim significant
progress towards an agreement but no agreement is


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
94

JIM ZANOTTI, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RS34074, THE PALESTINIANS:
BACKGROUND AND U.S. RELATIONS 11 (2012).
95
Id. at 12.
96
Id.

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

90

met. The Palestinian Second Intifada cycle of violence
escalates.97
The above outline reveals that there are two constants in the list of
peace talks – protracted terrorism violence and a lack of peace.
While there are clearly two parties involved and violence has been
committed on both sides, the issue concerns the intentional and not
the collateral use of violence directly aimed at murdering innocent
civilians.98 President Arafat and the PA have no justification in the
use of terror tactics. Murdering innocent civilians is not part of
negotiations toward peace.99

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
97

Shattered Dreams of Peace: The Road from Oslo – The Negotiations, PBS
FRONTLINE (Jun. 27, 2002), http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
shows/oslo/etc/synopsis.html
98
See Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT
Act), Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human
life that violate the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or
that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
of the United States or any state. These acts appear intended to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a
government by intimidation to coercion, or affect the conduct of a
government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts
occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in
terms of how terrorists accomplish them, the persons they appear
intended to coerce or intimidate, or the place in which the perpetrators
operate.
99

See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. §0.85 (2010) (asserting that there are numerous Federal
statutes that offer slightly different definitions of terrorism). The Department of
Justice defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social
objectives.” 28 C.F.R. §0.85(l) (2010)
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or
that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
or

91

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

Palestinian terrorist attacks, which were often directed by
Yasser Arafat and the PA leadership, continued to take place even
after the first reports of American casualties at the start of the
Second Intifada. Indeed, at no point did the violence against
civilian targets let up from 2000 to 2004. Instead, the terror attacks
against civilians increased in frequency and number. This indicates
that the PA, as it continued to direct the violence, was not willing
to cease its paramilitary campaign despite the mounting American
casualties.
It is common knowledge that tens of thousands of Israeli
citizens are dual nationals who hold US citizenship. 100 These
American-Israelis are indistinguishable from the broader Israeli
public. Moreover, Israel (and particularly Jerusalem) is an
important international tourist destination with hundreds of
thousands of visitors and tourists arriving each year to tour the
biblical sites. Additionally, many thousands of foreign students,
including American citizens, study abroad in Israel during the
school year and summer recesses. Thus, at any given time, there
are thousands of foreigners, including many Americans, traveling
in Israel. As such, the Palestinian terrorist groups surely knew that
by perpetrating terrorist attacks in public streets, on passenger
buses, in cafes and on highways, there was a high probability that
American citizens could be murdered or injured.
The notion that the Palestinian terror groups or that the
Palestinian leadership who controlled the terror groups were
unaware that American citizens were being murdered and wounded
is impossible. In each terrorist attack, the international media
publicized the death and injury of the American or Americans in
question. In addition, the American government made it clear
from the beginning of the Second Intifada that Americans were in
danger. The State Department issued multiple travel warnings,

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which
they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate
or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek
asylum.
100
Michele Chabin, American Citizens Living In Israel, Abroad Cast Votes,
USA TODAY (Oct. 31, 2012), www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/
10/31/israel-ex-pats/1669543/.

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

92

including those on December 7, 2001, 101 August 2, 2002, 102
January 10, 2003,103 March 24, 2004,104 August 3, 2004,105 and
November 26, 2004.106 In other words, the U.S. State Department
made it clear every few months that the dangers to American
citizens remained high, as a result of the continued Palestinian
violence. These warnings were obviously issued to Americans, but
they were conveyed via State Department channels each time to
the PA.
Congress also made clear its concern about the role the PA
played in the terrorist violence, and consistently called upon the
PA to halt the Second Intifada immediately. Their concern was
primarily focused on ending the violence, without specific regard
for potential American casualties. On October 19, 2000, House
Resolution 5500 called for the establishment of a body within the
Justice Department to “monitor acts of international terrorism
alleged to have been committed by Palestinian individuals or
individuals acting on behalf of Palestinian organizations.”107
In fact, there are numerous findings by the United States
Congress in concurrent resolutions and bills that directly link
President Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to terrorism
and the murder of civilians. Gathering all the pertinent facts, the
United States Congress specifically found that Yasser Arafat and
“the forces directly under his control were responsible for the
[intentional] murder of hundreds of innocent [civilians] and the
wounding of thousands more.”108 Furthermore, Arafat was directly
implicated in funding and supporting terrorists who had claimed
responsibility for homicide bombings in Israel.109

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
101

Israel, the West Bank and Gaza - Travel Warning, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE
(Dec. 7, 2001).
102
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza - Travel Warning, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE
(Aug. 2, 2002).
103
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza - Travel Warning, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE (Jan.
10, 2003).
104
Travel Warning - Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE
(Mar. 24, 2004).
105
Israel West Bank and Gaza Travel Warning, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE (Aug. 3,
2004).
106
Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE (Nov. 26, 2004).
107
H.R. 5500, 106th Cong. (2000)
108
H.R. 4693, 107th Cong. (2002).
109
H.R. 4693, 107th Cong. at 3 (2002)

93

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

A list of pertinent Congressional Resolutions and Bills
illustrates the point:
(1) House Concurrent Resolution 426 of the 106 Congress
(October 25, 2000), Concerning the Violence in the Middle
East, 110 (passed by a vote of 365-30) 111 made specific
findings and conclusions:










The fact that Chairman Yasser Arafat pledged in
writing that: “‘[T]he PLO renounces the use of
terrorism and other acts of violence, and will assume
responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in
order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and
discipline violators.’”112
The fact that over “95 percent of the Palestinian
population [is] under the civil administration of the
Palestinian Authority.”113
The fact that “the Palestinian Authority with the
assistance of Israel and the international community,
created a strong police force, almost twice the number
allowed under the Oslo Accords, specifically to
maintain public order.”114
The fact that “the Palestinian leadership not only did
too little for too long to control the violence, but in fact
encouraged it.”115
“Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress – (1) expresses, its
solidarity with the state and the people of Israel at this
time of crisis; (2) condemns the Palestinian leadership
for encouraging the violence and doing so little for so
long to stop it, resulting in senseless loss of life; (3)
calls upon the Palestinian leadership to refrain from any
exhortations to the public incitement, urges Palestinian
leadership to vigorously use its security forces to act


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
110

H.R. Con. Res. 426, 106th Cong. (2000).
CLYDE MARK, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., IB92052, PALESTINIANS AND
MIDDLE EAST PEACE: ISSUES FOR THE UNITED STATES 7 (2005).
112
H.R. Con. Res. 426, 106th Cong. at 2 (2000).
113
Id.
114
Id.
115
Id.
111

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

94

immediately to stop all violence, to show respect for all
holy sites, and to settle all grievances through
negotiations.”116
(2) Senate Bill 684 of the 108th Congress (March 21, 2003),
Koby Mandell Act of 2003,117 made specific findings and
conclusions:




The fact that “[n]umerous American citizens have been
murdered or maimed by terrorists around the world,
including more than 100 murdered since 1968 in
terrorist attacks occurring in Israel or in territories
administered by Israel or in territories administered by
the Palestinian Authority.”118
The fact that “[t]his situation is especially grave in the
areas administered by the Palestinian Authority,
because many terrorists involved in the murders of
Americans are walking free [from] there; some of these
terrorists have been given positions in the Palestinian
Authority security forces or other official Palestinian
Authority agencies; and a number of schools, streets,
and other public sites have been named in honor of
terrorists who were involved in the murders of
Americans.”119

(3) House Concurrent Resolution 202 of the 107th Congress
(July 27, 2001), Condemning the Palestinian Authority and
Various Palestinian Organizations for Using Children as
Soldiers and Inciting Children to Acts of Violence and
War,120 made specific findings and conclusions:


The fact that “the Palestinian Authority established and
trained units, called the Fatah Youth cadres, of
‘Shabiba,’ to fight in the current ‘Intifada.’”121


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
116
117
118
119
120
121

Id.
S. 684, 108th Cong. (2003).
Id.
S. 684, 108th Cong. at 2 (2003),
H.R. Con. Res. 202, 107th Cong. (2001).
Id.

95

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

The fact that “the Palestinian national media have
encouraged children to become martyrs.”122
• The fact that “the Palestinian Authority has incited and
continues to incite its children to acts of violence
against Israel and promotes the martyrdom of
children.”123
• The fact that “Yasir Arafat has called Palestinian
children, ‘generals of the Intifada’ and those ‘who
throw the stones to defend Jerusalem, the Muslims, and
the holy places.’”124
• The fact that “Sheik Ikrima Sabri, the Mufti of
Jerusalem appointed by Yasir Arafat, stated that, ‘the
younger the martyr, the greater and the more I respect
him.”125
• The fact that “during the summer of 2000,
approximately 25,000 Palestinian children attended
military-style summer camps run by Yasir Arafat’s
Palestinian Liberation Organization Fatah Movement to
indoctrinate them in anti-Israeli militancy.”126
• The fact that “the American Academy of pediatrics
states that ‘governments that encourage or permit
children to participate in violence, to further political
aims, are practicing a form of societal abuse.’”127
• “Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress: (1) considers the
Palestinian Authority in violation of the principles
embodied in the United Nations convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989) for its use of children as
soldiers as soldiers and inciting children to acts of
violence and war; (2) strongly urges Palestinian
Council to immediately declare its commitment to the
United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child
and adopt legislation to implement the Convention as
soon as possible; (3) while reaffirming the continued
applicability of all existing prohibitions, restrictions,

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


122
123
124
125
126
127

Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

96

limitations, and directives otherwise apply to the
Palestinian Authority.”128
(4) United States House of Representatives in Resolution 392
of the 107th Congress (May 2, 2002) 129 (passed by a vote of
352-21),130 made specific findings and conclusions:








The fact that “Yasir Arafat and the members of the
Palestinian leadership have failed to abide by their
commitments to non-violence made in the Israel-PLO
Declaration of Principles (the ‘Oslo accord’) of
September 1993, including their pledges: (1) to adhere
strictly to a ‘peaceful resolution of the conflict,’ (2) to
resolve ‘all outstanding issues relating to permanent
status through negotiations,’ (3) to renounce ‘the use of
terrorism and other acts of violence,’ and (4) to ‘assume
responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in
order to assure their compliance [with the commitment
to nonviolence], prevent violence, and discipline
violators.’”
The fact that “the continued terrorism and incitement
committed, supported, and coordinated by official arms
of the Palestinian Authority are a direct violation of
these commitments.”131
The fact that “the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is
part of Arafat’s Fatah organization and has been
designated a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” by the
United States Government - have murdered scores of
innocent Israelis.”132
The fact that “Yasir Arafat was directly involved in the
Palestinian Authority’s thwarted attempt to obtain 50


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
128

H.R. Con. Res. 202, 107th Cong. at 3 (2001). “The Tulkarm Women’s
Union has urged Yasir Arafat ‘to issue instructions to your police force to stop
sending innocent children to their death’; and Carol Bellamy, the Executive
director of the United Nations Children’s Fund, has called on the Palestinian
Authority, ‘to take energetic measures to discourage those underage from
participating in any violent action because such action places them at risk.’” Id.
129
H. Res. 392, 107th Cong. (2002),.
130
CLYDE MARK, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., IB92052, PALESTINIANS AND
MIDDLE EAST PEACE: ISSUES FOR THE UNITED STATES 7 (2005).
131
H.R. Res. 392, 107th Cong. (2002).
132
Id.

97

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW









[Vol. 4, No. 2

tons of offensive weapons shipped from Iran in the
Karines-A, an effort that irrefutable proved Arafat’s
embrace of the use and escalation of violence.”133
The fact that the Israeli Government has documents
found in the offices of the Palestinian Authority that
“demonstrate the crucial financial support the
Palestinian Authority continues to provide for terrorist
acts, including suicide bombers.”134
The fact that “Yasir Arafat continues to incite terror by,
for example, saying of the Passover suicide bomber
[April 2002], ‘Oh God, give me a martyrdom like
this.’”135
The fact that “Yasir Arafat and the PLO have a long
history of making and breaking anti-terrorism
pledges.”136
“Resolved, That the House of Representatives – …
condemns the ongoing support and coordination of
terror by Yasir Arafat and other members of the
Palestinian leadership [and] demands that the
Palestinian Authority at last fulfill its commitment to
dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian
areas, including any such infrastructure associated with
PLO and Palestinian Authority entities tied directly
with Yasir Arafat.”137

(5) House Bill 4693 of the 107th Congress (May 9, 2002), To
Hold Accountable the Palestine Liberation Organization
and the Palestinian Authority, and for Other Purposes, aka,
‘Arafat Accountability Act’,138 made specific findings:


The fact that “Yasser Arafat and the forces directly
under his control are responsible for the murder of
hundreds of innocent Israelis and the wounding of
thousands more since October 2000.”139


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
133

Id.
Id.
135
Id.
136
Id.
137
Id.
138
See H.R. Res. 4693, 107th Cong. (2002)
139
Id.
134

Spring 2014]



USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

98

The fact that “Yasser Arafat has been directly
implicated in funding and supporting terrorists who
have claimed responsibility for homicide bombings in
Israel.”140

(6) House Concurrent Resolution 119 of the 108th Congress
(March 26, 2003), Condemning Attacks on United States
Citizens by Palestinian Terrorists, and Other Purposes,141
made specific findings:


The fact that “since Yasser Arafat renounced violence
in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at
least 38 United States citizens, including one unborn
child, have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists.”142

Of course, as in any issue involving legal responsibility, it
is always critical to ascertain the actual “words” employed by the
guilty party. Throughout the Oslo Accords, Arafat would often say
one thing to the civilized world in English but quite another to the
Palestinians in Arabic.143 Most often he would tell the Palestinians
that the Oslo Accords were only a “phased strategy” because of
Islam’s absolute “right of return” to the Holy Land.144 Even after
the Oslo Accords, Arafat still advocated for a “liberated and Arab
Palestine.”145 His goal to “obliterate the Jewish state altogether”146
never changed. While President Yasser Arafat was cognizant of
the need to conceal his involvement in promoting and advocating
terror, the following quotes from Arafat and those close to him
illustrate his advocacy and ultimate responsibility for terror attacks
against innocent civilians:
(1) In 1996 Arafat spoke at a rally near Bethlehem saying: “We
know only one word, Jihad. Jihad. Jihad. Jihad. Whoever does


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
140
141
142
143
144
145
146

Id.
See H.R. Con. Res. 119, 108th Cong. (2003)
Id.
See AVNER FALK, FRATRICIDE IN THE HOLY LAND 75 (2004).
See EFRAIM KARSH, ARAFAT’S WAR 5-6 (2004).
See id. at 58–59.
See AVNER FALK, FRATRICIDE IN THE HOLY LAND 75 (2004).

99

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

not like it can drink from the Dead Sea or from the Sea of
Gaza.”147
(2) Again in Bethlehem at a speech in 1996, Arafat said:
“Struggle, struggle, struggle, struggle. Combat, combat,
combat, combat. Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad.”148
(3) In 1997 Arafat spoke at a rally saying: “O my dear ones on the
occupied lands, relatives and friends throughout Palestine and
the diaspora, my colleagues in struggle and in arms, my
colleagues in struggle and in jihad …. Intensify the revolution
and the blessed intifada …. We must burn the ground under the
feet of our invaders.”149
(4) In a 1997 letter to the Conference of Businessmen for
Jerusalem, Arafat wrote: “The settlements [Israeli] are a
declaration of total war against the Palestinian people, an
open and destructive war against our people, our land, and our
holy places. The Israeli settlements on our land, in our
Jerusalem and in the rest of the West Bank are a war against
the peace process.”150
(5) In 1996, Arafat publicly honored the Hamas terrorist Yahya
Ayyash, known as the “the engineer” and organizer of many
suicide bombings against civilians: “Today, I ask of you, my
brothers, to recite the Opening [Chapter in the Quran] for all
our Martyrs, and the last among them, the Martyr, engineer
Yahya Ayyash.”151

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
147

Yasser Arafat’s Timeline of Terror, COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE
EAST REPORTING IN AMERICA (Nov. 13, 2004), http://www.camera.org/
index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=795.
148
See Yasser Arafat Calls for Jihad, Struggle, and Combat, PALESTINIAN
MEDIA WATCH (Oct. 21, 1996), http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=711&fld_
id=723&doc_id=5253 (providing a media clip from Official Palestinian TV)
149
See Timeline of Terror, supra note 147.
150
In the Words of Arafat, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 4, 1997, http://www.nytimes.com/
1997/08/04/world/in-the-words-of-arafat.html.
151
See Arafat Honors Ayyash, “The Engineer,” Hamas’ Organizer of Suicide
Bombings,
PALESTINIAN
MEDIA
WATCH
(Jan.
7,
1996),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZKxHMtaiMg
(offering
a
private
recording).

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

100

(6) Suha Arafat, the widow of Yasser Arafat, when interviewed on
Dubai TV in 2012, in reference to Yasser’s involvement in the
Second Intifada: “I met him in Paris upon his return … Camp
David had failed, and he said to me, ‘You should remain in
Paris.’ I asked him why, and he said, ‘Because I am going to
start an intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause.
They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do
so.’”152
(7) In 2010 Palestinian Authority TV interview with Muhammad
Dahlan, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, Dahlan
said: “In the intifada, when Arafat wanted something, he asked
his security services, 40% of which were either
killed, Shahids (Martyrs) or prisoners….. Arafat brought
about the intifada…... We [the PLO and PA security services]
are the ones who started it.”153
(8) Muhammad Dahlan also stated in 2009: “I lived with
Chairman Yasser Arafat for years. Arafat would condemn
[terror] operations by day while at night he would do
honorable things.”154
(9) Mazen Izz Al-Din, the Deputy Director of the PA’s Political
and National Education Authority, when asked about the
responsibility for the terror campaign, admitted: “The Al-Aqsa
Intifada – if we want to be truthful and open, history will reveal
one day – that it [the Second Intifada] and all its directives
belong to the President and Supreme Commander, Yasser
Arafat.”155
(10) The PA Minister of Prisoners, Ashraf Al-Ajrami, stated:
“Even this intifada, whose flag Hamas has tried to wave
unjustly, forcibly, falsely and fraudulently – that [intifada] flag

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
152

Suha Arafat Admits Husband Premeditated Intifada, JERUSALEM POST, Dec.
29, 2012, http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Suha-Arafat-admits-husbandpremeditated-Intifada
153
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Ziberdik, Arafat Planned and Led the
Intifada: Testimonies from PA Leaders and Others, PALESTINIAN MEDIA
WATCH (Nov. 28, 2011). http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5875
(providing a PA TV (Fatah) transcript).
154
Id.
155
Id.

101

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

belongs to Yasser Arafat alone … These [Palestinian Authority
security] forces paid the heavy price in the Second Intifada.”156
(11) Sultan Abu Al Einein, Fatah Secretary General in Lebanon
stated: “Yasser Arafat used to condemn Martyrdom operations.
He used to condemn these operations in very severe terms, but
at the same time, it is clearly determined that the Martyr
Yasser Arafat financed these military operations.”157
(12) Yasser Arafat: “We know only one word: jihad, jihad,
jihad. When we stopped the intifada, we did not stop the jihad
for the establishment of a Palestinian State whose capital is
Jerusalem. And we are now entering the phase of the great
jihad prior to the establishment of an independent Palestinian
state whose capital is Jerusalem.”158
(13) Maslama Thabet, Palestinian terrorist group leader said:
“He is following the orders of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
‘Our group is an integral part of Fatah.’”…“Fatah, headed by
Arafat, is the largest group in the Palestinian Authority.”…
“Our commander is Yasser Arafat himself.”159
(14) Mohammed Odwan, Arafat’s foreign media spokesman,
confirms:“[T]he brigade is loyal to President Arafat.”…“They
are working for the interests of the Palestinian people” and
they “are fighting because they think these types of operations
will push forward their independence and dream of
freedom.”160
(15) In a televised address Arafat urged Palestinians to
“‘sacrifice themselves as martyrs in Jihad (holy war) for
Palestine.’”161

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
156

Id.
Id.
158
In the Words of Arafat, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 4, 1997,
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/04/world/in-the-words-of-arafat.html.
159
Matthew Kalman, Terrorist Says Orders Come from Arafat, USA TODAY,
Mar. 14, 2002, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/14/usatbrigades.htm
160
Id.
161
See id.
157

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

102

(16) Yasir Arafat has called Palestinian children “’generals of
the Intifada,’ and those ‘who throw the stones to defend
Jerusalem, the Muslims, and the holy places’.”162
These words uttered from President Yasser Arafat, his
widow, and members of his inner governmental leadership circle,
and other Palestinians speak volumes about his responsibility for
the deaths of innocent civilians during the Second Intifada.
Clearly, as the President of the PA, he bears direct responsibility
for directing and inciting illegal terrorist violence.
VI.

FINANCES OF THE PLO AND ARAFAT

“[W]hile Arafat bought stability and shored up his own position of
leadership, he also bought terrorism, corruption and a
continuing struggle against Israel.”163
-Ambassador Edward S. Walker, Jr.
Not surprisingly, President Arafat was engaged in massive
corruption when it came to receiving and paying out money
associated with the functions of government. Following the money
trail reveals that the PA’s finances and Yasser Arafat’s personal
funds were so intertwined that there was apparently no
distinction.164 How Arafat used the money to promote terror, is
best summed up by Ambassador Edward S. Walker, Jr., president
of the Middle East Institute, former assistant Secretary of State for
Near East Affairs, and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt.
Ambassador Walker related that “while Arafat bought stability and
shored up his own position of leadership, he also bought terrorism,
corruption and a continuing struggle against Israel.”165 Walker
also endorses the view that “according to Palestinians who sat in
on decisive meetings with Arafat, it was Arafat’s design and
money that triggered and sustained the intifada after Camp David
failure, not the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount.”166

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
162

See H. R. Con. Res. 202, 107th Cong. (2001).
See Claude Salhani, Show Me the Money, WASH. TIMES, Nov. 21, 2004,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/21/20041121-105705-7259r/.
164
See id.
165
Id.
166
Id.
163

103

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

In 2003,during the Second Intifada, the Arafat/PLO fortune
was estimated by Forbes magazine to be $300 million in hidden
offshore accounts alone.167 The Forbes piece further pointed out
that “[m]oney keeps Arafat in power …”168 with “$5.5 billion in
international aid that has flowed into the PA since 1994.”169 In
fact, Arafat “appears to have overseen virtually all disbursements,
from $600 payments to alleged terrorists and $1,500 in ‘tuition’ for
security officers, to $10 million, reportedly paid by a company
controlled by friends of Arafat, for a 50-ton shipment of weapons
from Iran.”170 One recipient was the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a
designated FTO, whose members received salaries from this
money, including a senior leader of the brigade – Nasser Awes.171
CONCLUSION
“Right before I left office, Arafat, in one of our last conversations,
thanked me for all my efforts and told me what a great man I was.
“Mr. Chairman,” I replied, “I am not a great man. I am a failure,
and you have made me one.” I warned Arafat that he was singlehandedly electing Sharon and that he would reap
the whirlwind.”172
-President Bill Clinton
Yasser Arafat was the President of the Palestinian National
Authority and recognized leader of the Palestinian people. At the
time of the Second Intifada, the Yasser Arafat and his PA
controlled 95% of the Palestinian people, had operational control
over a robust Palestinian police force almost twice the size allowed
for in the Oslo Accords, and maintained absolute control over the
media. There is no question that in this capacity he financed,

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
167

See Nathan Vardi, Auditing Arafat, FORBES, Mar. 17, 2003,
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/049.html.
168
Id.
169
Id.
170
See id.
171
See Matthew Kalman, Terrorist Says Orders Come from Arafat, USA
TODAY, Mar. 14, 2002, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/
03/14/usat-brigades.htm.
172
See BILL CLINTON, MY LIFE 915 (2005) (discussing former President Bill
Clinton on Arafat’s refusal to sign a peace agreement at the Camp David
Summit).

Spring 2014]

USING A CIVIL SUIT TO PUNISH/
DETER SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

104

planned, and oversaw the murders of hundreds of innocent
civilians in Israel during the Second Intifada. Fortunately, since
his death in 2004, a conclusive number of those in Arafat’s senior
leadership have now spoken out, assigning direct responsibility for
the horrific terror attacks against civilians in Israel during the
Second Intifada to Arafat and his regime.
Amazingly, despite the simple facts and the application of
common sense to those facts, apologists for Yasser Arafat still
maintain the false narrative that all the many acts of terrorism
during the Second Intifada came entirely from “rogue” Palestinian
terrorist factions which were beyond Arafat’s command and
control. Again, the facts of the matter speak otherwise. As former
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell observed about Yasser
Arafat: “[Arafat] ‘cannot engage with us and others in the pursuit
of peace, and at the same time permit or tolerate continued
violence and terror.’” 173 Since President Yasser Arafat never
attempted to annul or disavow the Palestinian Charter with respect
to the articles calling for the destruction of Israel,174 such duplicity
is not surprising.
Throughout the Second Intifada, there can be doubt as to
who was in control and whether the regime was aware of the terror
attacks against civilians. A Fatah Central Committee member in
December 2000 told the PA-run Al Hayat Al Jadida that “the
leadership of the PA remained the source of authority, and it alone
was the factor capable of leading the operations of the Intifada
throughout the homeland. I can say for certain that brother AbuAmmar [Yasser Arafat] is the ultimate authority for all operations,
and whoever thinks otherwise, does not know what is going on
....”175
At the end of the day, in order for the plaintiffs in Sokolow
to succeed in the subject civil action, it must be demonstrated that
the PLO and the Fatah party, both under the effective control of
Yasser Arafat, were responsible for the terror attacks during the
Second Intifada.
Because the defendants acted to avoid
accountability, as is the pattern for all regimes that sponsor or

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
173

CAROL MIGDALOVITZ, CONG. RESEARCH SERV. IB91137, THE MIDDLE EAST
PEACE TALKS 4 (2005).
174
See Joel Fishman, Palestinian Incitement: The Real ‘Deal Breaker’, 5
ISRAEL J. OF FOREIGN AFF. 1, 50 (2011).
175
MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 165: A Fatah Official on the Intifada and Its
Goals (Dec. 13, 2000), http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/402.htm.

105

ST. JOHN’S JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
& COMPARATIVE LAW

[Vol. 4, No. 2

support terrorism, this task is difficult. As this paper has
demonstrated, however, given the length of the Second Intifada
and the number of terror attacks, the fingerprints are massive and
the case stands as an ideal illustration of using civil suits to bring
terrorists to account.176 The Sokolow case has the potential to do
much good in the quest for justice and deterrence.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
176

See Generally Jeffrey Addicott, American Punitive Damages vs.
Compensatory Damages in Promoting Enforcement in Democratic Nations of
Civil Judgments to Deter State-Sponsors of Terrorism, 5 UNIV. OF MASS.
ROUNDTABLE SYMPOSIUM L. J. 89 (2010).

Files

Collection

Citation

Jeffrey F. Addicott, “Using a Civil Suit to Punish/Deter Sponsors of Terrorism: Connecting Arafat and the PLO to the Terror Attacks of the Second Intifada,” St. Mary's Law Digital Repository, accessed November 22, 2017, http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/4StJohnsJIntlL71.

Document Viewer