NEW YORK — The attorneys general of 21 US states last week backed a lawsuit that October 7 victims filed against leading anti-Israel protesters in New York, in a significant show of support.
The lawsuit, filed in March in the federal Southern District of New York court, accused the activists of acting as “Hamas’ propaganda arm” in New York City and its Columbia University campus, in violation of federal anti-terrorism laws.
Immediately after the October 7 invasion, Hamas called for support from the “resistance abroad” and released a manifesto titled “Our Narrative.” The defendants followed those directives to aid the terrorist group, the lawsuit claimed.
The Columbia activists also shared statements supporting designated terror groups on the Telegram messaging app, such as tributes to the late Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas’s Yahya Sinwar, distributed Hamas material on campus, and celebrated the October 7 attack on its anniversary, the lawsuit said.
The attorneys general, echoing the complaint in the lawsuit, accused the activists of spreading terrorist propaganda, citing, for example, a “Day of Resistance Toolkit” that some of the activists shared on October 8, 2023.
The toolkit, published by National Students for Justice in Palestine, included instructions for activists, talking points for defending the Hamas attack, orders to organize “Day of Resistance” protests, and stated that activists were part of a “unity intifada” that was fighting Israel from Gaza.
“All Palestinian factions in Gaza appear to be participating under unified command,” the toolkit said. “We as Palestinian students in exile are PART of this movement, not in solidarity with this movement.”
The attorneys general argued that the statements and protests amounted to material support for Hamas, a US-designated terrorist group, in violation of the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, and that it was in their states’ broader interest to oppose terrorism.
Defendants include the groups Within Our Lifetime, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice for Peace, and Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of campus groups. Some of the individual leaders of the groups are also defendants.
The plaintiffs include Iris Haggai, a US citizen whose parents were murdered by Hamas, their bodies kidnapped to Gaza; several IDF veterans at Columbia; Shlomi Ziv, a former Hamas hostage; and Ayelet Samerano, whose son was killed on October 7 and his body taken into Gaza.
Ziv has said his captors showed him news reports about the Columbia protests and told him, “We have our people everywhere.”
There is no evidence the activists communicated directly with Hamas. Some of the group’s statements were shared in pro-terror Telegram channels and the student activists sometimes shared posts from the same channels.
The letter from the attorneys general is a petition to file an amicus brief, a legal move by those who are not party to a lawsuit but have an interest in its outcome. The anti-Israel activists have filed to dismiss the case, and the attorneys general filed the letter to oppose a dismissal.
The letter was led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird. The other signees were from Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. All 21 of the attorneys general are Republicans.
The defendants opposed the brief, calling the move “political posturing” that did not provide useful information to the court, and arguing that the brief was “part of a concerted pressure campaign to silence and sanction the Palestine solidarity movement.”
The motion to oppose the brief also said the attorneys general are not involved in enforcing federal law, and that none come from New York, where the court is located.
“The proposed amicus brief is an attempt to intimidate, defame and chill activist speech in violation of their First Amendment rights,” the defense said.
The judge in the case has not yet ruled on whether to accept the brief.