Zionist Advocacy Center

https://njtoday.news/2026/01/02/whistleblower-has-political-motivation-to-scour-technical-missteps-of-ideological-adversaries/

Whistleblower has political motivation to scour technical missteps of ideological adversaries - NJTODAY.NET On its face, the legal announcement was a standard dispatch from the ongoing cleanup of the coronavirus pandemic, the $6 trillion slush fund created by Congress and Republican President Donald Trump, and the nearly $800 billion Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that was sloppily disbursed. A tour co...

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-837632

Jewish Voice for Peace to pay over $600,000 to settle COVID-19 loan fraud allegation JVP will be paying twice the amount it received for a $338,817 second-draw loan under the Paycheck Protection Act Program.

Happy to announce that my case against Jewish Voice for Peace was unsealed and settled.

Non-Profit A Jewish Voice for Peace, Inc. to Pay $677,634 to Resolve PPP Fraud Allegations A Jewish Voice for Peace, Inc., a Washington, D.C., based nonprofit organization, has agreed to pay $677,634 to settle allegations that the organization violated the False Claims Act when it applied for and received a $338,817 second-draw loan under the Paycheck Protection Act Program of the CARES A...

I just got back from Tampa, Florida where the annual conference of the American Anthropological Association took place. We were exhibiting at the conference on behalf of an Israeli organization. Some of these organizations have talked about boycotting Israel and it's worth showing them that we will not be deterred. Of course, if they had boycotted us, a lawsuit would have swiftly followed.

Thanks to my Norwegian friends from Med Israel for fred (MIFF) for helping out with this. It was great to have some Viking vibes at the booth. We got a few dirty looks but none of the keffiyah-wearing crowd messed with us.

So my work was mentioned in the New York Times in an article about Pandemic Fraud lawsuits:

archive.is

Victory in a "Bake the Cake" Case

So I am happy to report a win in a matter brought against a small Jewish-owned garment business.

My client had declined to manufacture a run of shirts to be embroidered with anti-Israel messages along the lines of "Free Palestine." (Yes, we all know what is meant by "Free Palestine")

In response, the jilted customer filed a formal discrimination claim against my client. Of course, lawyers reading this will know that this type of issue has been coming up lately in the context of cakes for same-sex weddings.

Based on applicable law and precedent, the charges against my client were dismissed. And who knows, maybe I will get some pro-Israel t-shirts out of this.

Thanks to The Lawfare Project for the referral.

I have been very busy the last couple years.

He’s Waging ‘Lawfare’ Against Israel’s Critics — And Pocketing a Lot of Money The real story behind a venerable D.C. organization's legal settlement tells us a lot about the current state of political warfare.

I would like to publicly applaud שורת הדין - Shurat HaDin for their attempt to register the Ben & Jerry's trademark to distribute ice cream in Judea & Samaria and make a comment on the legal aspects of the situation.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israeli-ngo-trademark-ben-and-jerrys-knockoff-after-israel-boycott-report-674809

Obviously I am not an expert on Israeli trademark law, but there is a principle in trademark law known as "unclean hands." Essentially, the idea is that courts will not enforce your trademark if you are engaged in unfair conduct in respect of that mark. So for example, in a 1929 case American courts would not enforce a trademark purportedly owned by the Ku Klux Klan.

In Israel, it's well known that boycotts such as these, although nominally limited in scope, are in reality the camel's nose and are intended as economic warfare against the entire State of Israel. Therefore, Israeli courts may very well decide that Ben and Jerry's is not in a legitimate position to enforce its trademarks.

The other thing to keep in mind is that legal activism necessarily involves risks. It's true that the outcome here is uncertain, but the same is true with virtually every important court decision which resulted from legal activism. Indeed, the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in American schools, went against established precedent.

Israeli NGO trademarks Ben & Jerry's knockoff after boycott Tel Aviv-based Shurat HaDin Law Center has reportedly registered a trademark for "Judea and Samaria's Ben & Jerry's" with Zionist flavors.

Some good news from Europe:

A few months back, I received word that the procurement agency of a small European country was considering regulations which would permit government agencies to refuse contracts to companies which do not boycott Israel. The potential effect of such a policy would be to require all contractors to boycott Israel.

My European friends opposed this proposal, and I helped out by gently pointing out to the authorities that the proposal would create a legal conundrum: What will international contractors do if (1) many American jurisdictions forbid contractors from engaging in discriminatory boycotts; and (2) agencies within this European country require contractors to engage in a discriminatory boycott?

Today I learned that the proposal has been tabled. Hopefully for a long time.

In my view, Israel boycotts generally amount to illegal discrimination. If you disagree with the policies of the Israeli government, engaging in discrimination against Israeli businesses and individuals is not a valid response. Perhaps more importantly, the motives of boycotters are suspect: They constantly single out Israel for criticism and condemnation over reasonable behavior while ignoring actual misbehavior on the part of other countries.

For example, if you can stomach it, check out David Duke's web site. Why is a white supremacist so concerned over Israel's alleged mistreatment of Palestinian Arabs?

Fortunately, the anti-discrimination laws in New York (New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws) prohibit illegal discriminatory boycotts and I am glad to have the opportunity to oppose such behavior in the Courts.

I have good news and bad news: The bad news is that the LA Superior Court denied my request that UCLA be required to produce the names of presenters at the SJP conference which was held in 2018.

The good news is that I have reached a settlement in the case against the New Israel Fund. The parties have "agreed to disagree" about New Israel Fund's past behavior and the New Israel Fund has agreed that going forward, it will comply with applicable law.

A small step forward in my case against the New Israel Fund: The Federal Court in Manhattan just denied NIF's motion to dismiss.

This was a case in which I had alleged that New Israel Fund had violated the requirements of its tax exempt status by "electioneering" in violation of the Tax Code.

Next the case will proceed to discovery.

Am I a "right-wing lawyer"? Assuming that "right-wing" means "unapologetically supports Israel" I'm 100% guilty as charged!

That said, my primary aim in suing UCLA is not to "dox" anyone but rather to investigate terrorism.

Activists Join UCLA's Fight Against Doxing Palestinian Rights Advocates — Palestine Legal David Abrams, an attorney with ties to the Israeli government who files frivolous suits against Palestine advocates, is attempting to force UCLA to reveal the list of speakers at the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) conference that took place at UCLA in 2018. UCLA has refused to dis