Were any legal charges filed against the five Israelis and what were the outcomes of their cases?
Executive summary
Five Israeli men were detained by U.S. authorities on September 11, 2001, and were processed primarily on immigration-related grounds rather than criminal terrorism indictments; they were held for an extended period, interrogated, and ultimately deported to Israel without public criminal charges for terrorism, though the handling of their detention spawned later lawsuits and public controversy [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Arrests and the initial public narrative
Within hours of the attacks, national media reported that five young Israeli men working for a New Jersey moving company had been stopped after being seen filming the burning skyline and behaving “puzzlingly,” and that they were taken into custody by police and FBI agents amid widespread suspicion generated that day [5] [3] [4]. Early press coverage emphasized the dramatic scene—van, cameras, box cutters—and framed the detentions as part of a larger dragnet in which hundreds were questioned after the attacks [1] [4].
2. What charges were actually filed—immigration, not terrorism
Reporting contemporaneous to the detentions and later official summaries make clear that the five were faced with immigration proceedings—deportation for visa violations and related immigration offenses—rather than criminal indictments for terrorism; The New York Times explicitly reported deportation charges for overstaying visas and other immigration offenses [1], and other outlets likewise describe immigration holds and planned deportation [3] [6].
3. Detention, interrogation and agency involvement
The five were held for an extended period and subjected to repeated interviews and polygraph-type examinations while multiple agencies reviewed their cases; accounts say some were held in solitary, underwent several lie-detector tests, and that the FBI and other intelligence elements intervened in decisions about release or deportation, reflecting interagency concern in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 [6] [7]. Official Department of Justice reviews of the broader detainee response note coordination between FBI and INS on detainees arrested in connection with the terrorism probe, situating these arrests within a larger detention apparatus [7] [8].
4. Outcome: deportation without public criminal charges for terrorism
Multiple reports and subsequent summaries state that the five Israelis were held for weeks—accounts cite roughly 71 days—and were deported to Israel without being criminally charged in U.S. courts with terrorism offenses; ABC News and other outlets summarized that they were returned home “without being charged” after protracted detention [2] [4]. The public record, as reflected in mainstream reporting and later documentation cited in secondary sources, contains no evidence that U.S. prosecutors filed terrorism indictments against these men [5] [2].
5. Lawsuits, contested claims and later disclosures
After their return to Israel some of the men pursued litigation against U.S. authorities, and coverage has documented contested claims about whether the men had intelligence ties or simply were employees of a moving company; The Forward and ABC reported at different times that the FBI found no evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks and that allegations of Mossad links were not substantiated in released material, while Haaretz and other outlets recorded the men’s own denials and the company owner’s departure to Israel during the investigation [5] [7] [3] [9]. Declassified and FOIA-released documents and later government reviews have fed public debate, but do not show public criminal prosecutions of these five on terrorism charges [10] [8].
6. Caveats, competing interpretations and what the sources do not prove
Public sources differ in emphasis and implicit agendas—some outlets amplified the sensational “dancing Israelis” narrative that fed conspiracy theories, while official reviews focused on procedural aspects of detainee handling; the available sources establish immigration proceedings and deportation without terrorism indictments but do not purport to settle all questions about intelligence inquiries, classified leads, or internal agency assessments that remained non-public [5] [6] [8]. Where reporting indicates agency interest or prolonged detention, it does not equate to a public criminal charge; the record accessible in mainstream and government sources consistently points to immigration charges and deportation as the legal outcome for these five men [1] [2] [4].