Today the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear in the upcoming session; among the petitioners are a group of American citizens whose family members were murdered in Israel during the second intifada. A federal court had ordered the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to pay the plaintiffs $655.5 million, but a court of appeals then threw out the verdict on the grounds that foreign organizations could not be tried in American courts for crimes committed abroad. Yishai Schwartz argues that this latter decision is wrong, and that the Supreme Court should restore the ruling against the PLO and PA. (Free registration may be required.)

The decision [to reject the original verdict] rests on an old and venerable constitutional doctrine: “personal jurisdiction.” For hundreds of years, this doctrine has limited American state courts, confining their authority only to those present in a particular state or who have consented to be sued there. It is this sensible principle that prevents one state’s courts from encroaching onto its neighbor’s turf. In Sokolow v. PLO, [as this case is generally known], the appeals court applied the same principle to a foreign defendant in federal court. Personal jurisdiction, the court ruled, limits transnational cases in precisely the same way it limits interstate disputes. . . .

The ruling flies in the face of congressional will. After all, the law that permitted this lawsuit, the [1992] Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), is unusual. Whereas most of America’s laws govern conduct within America, the ATA is different. . . . Its text specifically authorizes Americans to sue foreigners for acts of “international terrorism” occurring outside the United States and instructs courts not to dismiss suits simply because their location inconveniences defendants [as was done in Sokolow by] the appeals court, which held that the Constitution, through the doctrine of personal jurisdiction, protects the PLO’s fundamental right not to be sued from afar.

That decision gets the Constitution wrong. . . . [The doctrine of] personal jurisdiction has no place restricting the federal government’s interactions with foreign powers. The U.S. Constitution is about ensuring domestic tranquility, not guaranteeing fair treatment to foreign peoples. It protects, [for instance], New York’s sovereignty from Virginia. It was never intended to protect Palestinian sovereignty from the United States. . . . [Therefore], the Supreme Court should decide to hear the case, and restore the hard-fought judgment won by the victims of terror.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.