Recent legislation, and a Supreme Court case, have made it easier to prosecute not just terrorists, but those who fund them. Now it looks as if hundreds of millions of dollars may be recovered for victims of Hamas attacks on October 7, and much more for the nearly 3,000 people killed by the Saudi-funded terrorists on 9/11. This new way to discourage terrorism by making its funders pay, is discussed here: “After a $655M PLO verdict, Oct. 7 victims go after Hamas’s money – interview,” by Sarah Ben-Nun, Jerusalem Post, April 21, 2026:
The next legal front for victims of terrorism, including those affected by Hamas’s October 7 massacre, may lie not only in proving who carried out an attack, but in tracing the money that made it possible. For attorney Gideon Fisher, that is the heart of the matter.In an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Sunday, he said his office has been handling cases involving victims of hostile acts for years and was now also representing October 7 massacre victims. In addition to using civil litigation to pursue compensation for victims and bereaved families, it is also targeting the financial infrastructure that allows terrorism to function, he added.“Terrorism without finance [means] there is no terrorism,” Fisher said. Terrorist groups cannot survive without money, and litigation can be used not only to seek damages, but to strike at terrorism’s “economic bunker,” he said. Since the October 7 massacre, Fisher said, his firm has been approached by more than 2,000 recognized victims of hostile acts. His office only works with people already recognized by the National Insurance Institute as victims of hostile acts, he said, adding that Israeli citizens, dual nationals, and foreign nationals who have been affected by the massacre have contacted the firm….
For Fisher, the significance of the current moment is not that compensation is suddenly guaranteed. It is a route that, once appearing largely blocked, may now be reopening.
If plaintiffs can show that an attacker, or the attacker’s family, received or stood to receive funding from a defendant, that may justify legal action not only in Israel but in the US as well, he said.
Think of what this could mean for the Palestinian Authority, with its Pay-For-Slay program that provides payments to imprisoned terrorists or to the families of terrorists who are killed while engaged in their attacks.
Imagine if not only Hamas, but the funders of Hamas, including well-off Muslims in the U.S. Europe, and the Middle East, were to be held liable for the mass murders carried out in Israel on October 7, 2023. Not all of them have assets that can be located and seized, but some will. And eventually, if judgments in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars were repeatedly reached for the thousands of victims not just of the October 7 attacks, but of other acts of terrorism, the funding for terrorism would dry up. There would still be the lone wolf terrorists, needing nothing more expensive than a pistol to commit murder, but the terrorist organizations themselves would shrink for lack of funding and then, one hopes, disappear.
rubiconcrest says
This is great news.
But I terrorism does not begin with financial support of jihadists. The ideology, Islam, glorifies and sanctifies everything from jihadism, to the imposition of sharia penalties for blasphemy and apostasy. We cannot ignore the institutional ideological support for killing of any kind. It is the elephant in the room creating a continuous flow of jihadists.
ploome says
exactly
and every time I see a jihad i(called terrorist in USA) described as a “lone wolf”, it ignores the fact that these individuals are part of one organization and follow their mandate to spread terror and slaughter the unbeliever.
There are no lone wolves, they are part of the 2 billion ummah mandated to spread terror and jihad.
Winston 101 says
ploome,
This is such a strong point, I hope you will continue to put it forward. The more I reread your post the more it sinks in.
There are no “lone wolves”, or even “terrorists” in Islam.
Those two terms separate the person from being a Jihadi for the ummah of Islam.
A Jihadi whose actions are commanded and praised in Islam’s Quran.
Every individual of Islam is called to Jihad; when individuals answer the call they are not
‘lone wolves” they are Islamic Jihadis.
I hope I have fully grasped your concept. If not, feel free to fill me in.
Language is important and we should call a Jihadi a Jihadi.
ploome says
exactly, and you are correct….
language is important
somehistory says
“The love of money is the root of all evil.” (Apostle Paul) and the threat of losing money, or having to pay it out, can be an effective weapon for those who know how to use it.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
How about making Qatar pay? Except that they know who to pay off if they don’t want to pay the victims of Hamas
ploome says
you write, about Qatar-
“Except that they know who to pay off”
yes they do. The pay off and support the education of our children.
They pay the long game.
They are seen as benefactors and supporters of higher education,,
what could be better?
While they make sure their narrative and agenda gets positive treatment. Look how public opinion has changed since 9/11.
The most astonishing and deadly attack on American homeland by muslims and now muslims in America are more numerous and powerful than ever before.
How does this happen??
OLD GUY says
Every terrorist is part of an organization called ISLAM.
Alkflaeda says
We also need to avoid buying from Muslims as much as possible, because we cannot know that some part of our payment will not go, directly or indirectly, to fund terror. The person from whom we buy, or for whose services we pay, may not even know that some of the money that he gives to some intermediate group is finding its way into terror funding. The other thing is that one member of a grooming gang has been able to sue her abuser in the civil courts, and has won a payout of £400,000 – which the UK courts are failing to enforce. It would be good if far more of the women who suffered were able to bring suits. And, of course, if the awards were actually paid.