Shurat HaDin

Shurat HaDin, also known as the Israel Law Center, is an Israeli non-governmental organization established in Tel Aviv in 2003. It presents itself as a civil-rights and legal-advocacy organization whose purpose is to combat terrorism and promote civil rights through research, education, and litigation. Rather than operating as a conventional commercial law firm or consumer brand, it functions as an advocacy organization that selects strategic cases and complaints intended to impose legal, financial, or reputational consequences on alleged terrorist actors, institutions accused of supporting them, and organizations or individuals involved in campaigns against Israel. The organization was founded by Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, who has served as its president and public representative. Darshan-Leitner has described the organization as being inspired in part by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s use of civil litigation against the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups. Shurat HaDin adapted that model to terrorism-related disputes, frequently relying on statutes such as the United States Anti-Terrorism Act, sanctions and banking rules, tax regulations, labor law, consumer-protection provisions, and anti-discrimination law. Its work has included lawsuits on behalf of victims of attacks, claims against banks accused of processing funds for sanctioned or terrorist entities, complaints to tax and labor regulators, and threats or warnings directed at charities, companies, universities, churches, publishers, and trade unions. A substantial part of Shurat HaDin’s activity has taken place outside Israel, particularly in United States courts. Its cases have sought damages from Iran, Syria, North Korea, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Palestinian Authority, as well as from financial institutions alleged to have facilitated terror financing. Some actions produced large judgments, including a 2012 judgment for the family of Daniel Wultz against Iran and Syria and a 2015 jury award in Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Other cases were dismissed, overturned on jurisdictional or procedural grounds, abandoned, or rejected by regulators. The organization has also pursued complaints and advocacy campaigns against supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and against organizations it alleges have links to proscribed groups. Shurat HaDin’s methods have attracted both support and criticism. Supporters view strategic lawsuits as a way for victims to obtain compensation and to expose financial networks that governments may be unable or unwilling to challenge directly. Critics describe the organization’s litigation as pro-Israel lawfare and argue that some of its cases are designed to deter criticism of Israel, the BDS movement, or Palestinian institutions. Questions have also been raised about its relationship with Israeli state institutions. Reporting based on a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable said that Darshan-Leitner described early organizational cooperation with the Israeli government, while she later denied making some of the reported statements. In her 2017 book Harpoon, she described receiving intelligence briefings and information from Israeli intelligence personnel, while characterizing her participation as voluntary and unpaid. These accounts have led some observers to call Shurat HaDin a government-organized NGO, a characterization the organization disputes. The organization has maintained a relatively small staff and has used public-relations support in Israel and the United States. It does not publicly disclose all of its donors. Public reporting has identified support from U.S.-based foundations, charities, Christian Zionist organizations, and Jewish communal donors, but such figures are time-specific and do not establish the organization’s current finances. Shurat HaDin remains best understood as a litigation-centered advocacy institution whose public identity is built around counterterrorism, accountability claims, and opposition to campaigns it regards as delegitimizing or discriminatory toward Israel.

Shurat HaDin was founded in Tel Aviv in 2003 by attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. Its declared mission was to combat terrorism and advance civil rights through legal action, education, and research. The organization’s model emphasized using civil courts and administrative processes to pursue targets that might be difficult to reach through criminal or diplomatic channels. Darshan-Leitner has compared the approach to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s litigation against extremist groups in the United States. During its early years, Shurat HaDin developed a portfolio of cases involving alleged terror financing, victims of attacks, and Iranian or Palestinian institutions. In 2006 it sued former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami on behalf of families of Iranian Jews who disappeared while attempting to leave Iran. In 2008 it participated in cases against American Express Bank, Lebanese Canadian Bank, and UBS, alleging that financial institutions had facilitated transfers connected to Hezbollah or sanctioned states. These cases reflected the organization’s broader strategy of treating banks and intermediaries as potential sources of accountability. The organization expanded its international litigation in the following decade. In 2009 it helped bring a U.S. federal case concerning the alleged abduction of South Korean pastor Kim Dong-shik in China. In 2011 it sued former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and Simon & Schuster over Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, seeking damages under consumer-protection theories. Critics characterized that case as an attempt to chill political speech; the plaintiffs withdrew it after several months. In 2012 Shurat HaDin pursued a case for the family of Daniel Wultz, an American teenager killed in a 2006 Tel Aviv suicide bombing. A U.S. court awarded $323 million against Iran and Syria. That year the organization also challenged World Vision Australia and the Australian government aid agency AusAID over funding for the Union of Agricultural Work Committees. The aid organizations temporarily suspended the relevant work, but an investigation found no evidence substantiating the alleged link between UAWC and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and World Vision later resumed cooperation. The group increasingly turned to legal actions concerning BDS and criticism of Israel. In 2013 it sued University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch after he declined to support an academic fellowship application connected to Hebrew University. The action was framed under Australian anti-racism law and was presented by the organization as a challenge to discriminatory academic boycotts. The case was dismissed in 2014, with the court also awarding legal costs to Lynch. In 2014 Shurat HaDin filed a complaint against the Presbyterian Church (USA), seeking scrutiny of the church’s tax-exempt status after its divestment decision involving several companies with Israeli business interests. In 2015 the organization threatened Coca-Cola over its relationship with a Palestinian franchise holder whom it associated with BDS advocacy. It also filed an unfair-labor-practice complaint against the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America after the union endorsed BDS; the National Labor Relations Board dismissed the complaint. In the same period, Shurat HaDin represented plaintiffs in Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Although the jury issued a substantial award, the Second Circuit overturned the result in 2016 because the defendants did not have the necessary U.S. connection for federal jurisdiction. Shurat HaDin has also been involved in public campaigns and legal pressure concerning online hate speech. In 2015 it used contrasting anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian Facebook pages to criticize the platform’s handling of hate content, after which Facebook removed both pages. The organization’s public profile has been shaped not only by its cases but also by controversy concerning its funding and state relationships. Public reporting has described a small staff, undisclosed donors, and support from U.S. foundations and charities. Accounts by Darshan-Leitner and reporting based on a diplomatic cable have described contact with Israeli government and intelligence bodies, including the provision of information relevant to litigation. Darshan-Leitner disputed parts of the cable’s account, while later writing about intelligence cooperation in Harpoon. Critics consequently portray the organization as a vehicle for Israeli government-aligned lawfare; supporters describe it as an independent legal mechanism for victims and counterterrorism enforcement.

• 2016

  Sokolow verdict overturned

  [1]Shurat HaDinen.wikipedia.org

  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reverses the Sokolow judgment on jurisdictional grounds.

• 2015

  Sokolow jury award

  [1]Shurat HaDinen.wikipedia.org

  A jury awards plaintiffs $218.5 million in litigation against the PLO and Palestinian Authority, an amount subject to statutory trebling.

• 2014

  Lynch case dismissed

  [1]Shurat HaDinen.wikipedia.org

  An Australian court dismisses Shurat HaDin’s action against academic Jake Lynch and awards costs to the defendant.

• 2012

  Daniel Wultz judgment

  [1]Shurat HaDinen.wikipedia.org

  A U.S. court awards $323 million to the Wultz family in litigation against Iran and Syria over a Tel Aviv terrorist attack.

• 2008

  Banking litigation expands

  [1]Shurat HaDinen.wikipedia.org

  Shurat HaDin participates in cases against American Express Bank, Lebanese Canadian Bank, and UBS concerning alleged terror financing and transfers to sanctioned regimes.

• 2003

  Organization founded in Tel Aviv

  [1]Shurat HaDinen.wikipedia.org

  Nitsana Darshan-Leitner establishes Shurat HaDin, also known as the Israel Law Center, with a mission centered on counterterrorism, civil rights, education, and litigation.

A litigation-driven Israeli legal advocacy NGO positioned as a civil-rights and counterterrorism organization, with a strong focus on strategic lawsuits, financial accountability, and opposition to anti-Israel boycott and delegitimization campaigns.

• Legal advocacy · 2003

  Strategic litigation

  Shurat HaDin’s central activity is the selection and prosecution of civil cases intended to hold alleged terrorists, sponsoring states, financial intermediaries, and affiliated institutions accountable. The organization commonly works with victims and their families in courts outside Israel, particularly in the United States.

• Regulatory advocacy · 2003

  Terror-financing complaints

  The organization files or supports complaints and lawsuits against banks, charities, companies, and other intermediaries it believes may have enabled transfers to terrorist organizations or sanctioned governments. These actions combine legal claims with public pressure and regulatory engagement.

• Public-interest legal advocacy · 2013

  BDS and anti-boycott advocacy

  Shurat HaDin challenges academic, labor, religious, commercial, and institutional actions associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Its methods have included lawsuits, labor complaints, tax complaints, corporate warnings, and public campaigns.

• 2013

  Criticism of litigation against BDS academic

  The lawsuit against Jake Lynch was criticized by Australian Jewish and academic commentators as an inappropriate attempt to use courts to suppress advocacy for academic boycotts. The case was dismissed in 2014.

  Source

• 2012

  World Vision allegations criticized as unsubstantiated

  Shurat HaDin’s allegations that World Vision Australia and AusAID supported a PFLP front were not substantiated by the subsequent investigation. World Vision’s chief executive described some allegations as defamatory.

  Source

• 2011

  Jimmy Carter book lawsuit criticized as frivolous

  The action against Jimmy Carter and Simon & Schuster over Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was described by critics as a speech-chilling effort. The plaintiffs withdrew the case after several months.

  Source

• 2007

  Questions over Israeli government direction

  A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable reported that Darshan-Leitner said the organization had received direction and evidence from Israeli government officials during its early years. She later denied making the reported statement. Her later account of intelligence briefings, published in Harpoon, renewed debate over the organization’s independence.

  Source

Read more

• 2015Coca-Cola franchise warning

  Israel · Palestinian territories · United States

  Shurat HaDin urged Coca-Cola to sever ties with a Palestinian franchise holder whom it said supported BDS, warning that legal action might follow.

  Outcome. No resulting court judgment is established in the reference material.

  Source
• 2015Facebook hate-page comparison

  International

  The organization created contrasting anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian Facebook pages to challenge the platform’s moderation standards and alleged inconsistent treatment of antisemitic and anti-Arab content.

  Outcome. Facebook ultimately removed both pages after initially treating them differently.

  Source
• 2014Presbyterian Church USA tax complaint

  United States

  After the Presbyterian Church (USA) approved divestment from several companies with Israeli business interests, Shurat HaDin complained to the IRS and sought review of the church’s tax-exempt status.

  Outcome. The reference material does not establish a successful revocation of the church’s tax exemption.

  Source
• 2012World Vision Australia and UAWC challenge

  Australia · United States

  Shurat HaDin warned World Vision Australia and AusAID that funding the Union of Agricultural Work Committees could create civil or criminal liability because of an alleged relationship with the PFLP.

  Outcome. An investigation by AusAID, the Australian Federal Police, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation found no evidence supporting the allegation. World Vision later resumed work with UAWC.

  Source

• 2015

  Escalate legal pressure against BDS advocacyStrategy

  Background

  The organization treated academic boycotts, union endorsements, church divestment, and commercial relationships associated with BDS as potential legal or regulatory issues.

  Action taken

  It pursued lawsuits, labor and tax complaints, and warnings to companies and institutions.

  Aftermath

  Several initiatives were dismissed or unsuccessful, but they reinforced Shurat HaDin’s public role as an opponent of BDS.

  Source

• 2003

  Adopt civil litigation as a counterterrorism toolStrategy

  Background

  The organization was created on the premise that civil courts and regulatory systems could impose consequences on terrorist groups and their financial or institutional supporters.

  Action taken

  Shurat HaDin built its identity around strategic lawsuits, victim representation, research, education, and legal complaints.

  Aftermath

  This model became the basis for its international cases against states, banks, charities, unions, churches, publishers, and Palestinian institutions.

  Source

1. 1Shurat HaDinen.wikipedia.org
2. 2Israel Law Centerisraellawcenter.org