Survivors of October 7th are suing pro-Palestinian groups. But what’s the point? | Israel-Palestine conflict news

Nine survivors of the October 7 attacks in southern Israel have filed a civil lawsuit against pro-Palestinian groups in the United States, alleging that their advocacy work on college campuses constitutes “material support” for “terrorism.”

But the defendants fought back, warning that the case is part of a pattern of legal attacks designed to put pro-Palestinian groups on the defensive and restrict free speech on U.S. universities.

“It is absolutely a threat to free speech, and it is a threat to free speech on any front, on any issue, not just in Palestine,” said Christina Jump, a lawyer for American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), one of the two defendants. in case.

The lawsuit, filed May 1 in federal court in Virginia, describes how the nine plaintiffs dodged gunfire and lost loved ones during the Oct. 7 attacks led by the Palestinian group Hamas.

It then alleges that AMP and another university group, the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), acted as a “propaganda division of Hamas,” targeting American students.

The suit says AMP and NSJP worked to “recruit uninformed, misguided, and impressionable college students to serve as Hamas foot soldiers on campus and beyond.”

The result, he argues, was “mental anguish, pain and suffering” for the nine survivors. But pro-Palestinian groups and free speech advocates fear that lawsuits like this one seek to silence student protesters by equating nonviolent political activity with “terrorism.”

“There are legal organizations, whether constituted as nonprofits or quasi-governmental organizations or private companies, that engage in using legal action to intimidate political opponents,” said Yousef Munayyer, head of the Israel-Palestine program at the Washington-based Arab Center. . DC, a think tank.

“We see this in many different contexts, but especially in Israel-Palestine, where it has become part of a strategy aimed at silencing dissent.”

Campus Speech Debate

The October 7 attacks killed around 1,139 people, with around 250 others taken prisoner.

In response, Israel launched a war in Gaza, bombing the narrow Palestinian enclave and cutting off essential supplies such as food and water.

More than 36,000 Palestinians were killed in Israel’s attack, many of them women and children, with human rights experts warning of a “risk of genocide”. The United Nations also declared “total famine” in parts of Gaza, sparked by Israel’s siege and efforts to block humanitarian aid.

College campuses have been central to the anti-war movement. Schools like Columbia University in New York have seen students set up camps and occupy buildings to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians.

A study by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a group that collects data on protests and political violence around the world, found that 97 percent of campus protests were peaceful.

But the reaction was intense. Some pro-Israel groups and elected officials have called on universities to use a tough hand against pro-Palestine protesters in the name of combating anti-Semitism.

Universities like Columbia responded by calling the police, resulting in the arrest of thousands of protesters across the country. Other students were suspended or denied diplomas for their participation in the protests.

In at least one case at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), protesters were physically attacked with metal pipes and mace by pro-Israel counterprotesters while police largely stood by.

Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said the backlash, in some cases, amounts to censorship.

“Freedom of speech on campus has really taken a hit in the last few months,” Terr told Al Jazeera. “Most of the cases of censorship we have seen have involved pro-Palestinian individuals, although there have also been some cases on the pro-Israel side.”

Sequence of legal actions

Advocates also see this month’s lawsuit as part of a broader trend of using the legal system to crack down on media and advocacy deemed critical of Israel. The case is the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by pro-Israel groups in recent months.

In March, October 7 survivors sued an American nonprofit organization that supports the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), alleging complicity in the deadly attack.

Israel, however, provided no evidence that UNRWA was involved, and an independent investigation cast further doubt on these claims.

Then, in April, family members of October 7th victims petitioned Canada’s judicial system to stop the country’s government from restoring funding to UNRWA, which provides critical aid to Gaza.

Another federal lawsuit, filed earlier this year, targeted a journalistic organization: the Associated Press (AP). It alleged that the Associated Press hired members of Hamas as freelancers in its news gathering activities.

The same organization that sued the Associated Press is also involved in May’s case against the AMP and NSJP: the Jewish National Advocacy Center (JNAC). The Associated Press called the complaint against her “baseless.”

The National Jewish Advocacy Center alleged that the organizations named as defendants in its lawsuits have ties to Hamas.

“This case is very simple: when someone tells you they are aiding and abetting terrorists – believe them,” said Mark Goldfeder, director of the center, in a press release announcing the lawsuit against AMP and NSJP.

Goldfeder did not respond to Al Jazeera’s questions about the May lawsuit or the case against the Associated Press.

But Jump, the AMP lawyer, said the case against her organization contained misrepresentations and falsehoods.

She said AMP operates entirely within the U.S. — and not, as the lawsuit indicates, in conjunction with foreign entities like Hamas. She further added that NSJP is not a subsidiary of AMP, as the lawsuit claims.

“There are a lot of talking points, a lot of jargon, a lot of generalizations and leaps,” Jump said of the process.

‘Stress and bullying’

Some critics believe that certain pro-Palestine groups should be scrutinized for the content of their messages – although they also consider the recent court case to be overly broad.

Many pro-Palestinian organizations have called for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to support for Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories. The NSJP expressed support for Palestinian armed groups, which they consider a legitimate form of resistance.

The NSJP, for example, issued a document in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, calling the violence “a historic victory for the Palestinian resistance”.

Dov Waxman, director of the Nazarian Center for Israel Studies at UCLA, said he believed the group’s rhetoric appeared to “implicitly support Hamas.”

This, in turn, could alienate others who criticize Israel’s conduct in Gaza, he added.

“I believe SJP deserves to be condemned for its expression of support for terrorism,” Waxman said in an email. But he drew a distinction between free speech and what was legally actionable.

“Rhetorical support for terrorism – although it is terrible – is not the same as material support for terrorism,” he explained. “In the United States, the first is protected speech; the latter is a crime.”

Munayyer, an analyst at the Arab Center, said claims of links between pro-Palestinian advocacy groups and “terrorism” often fall apart when examined. But he believes focusing on the deficiencies of the cases is misguided.

“The purpose of these efforts is to put targets on the defensive, to make them spend time, energy and resources on legal defense that they might otherwise be using for activism,” he said.

“The reputational damage – putting stress and intimidation on organizations – is the point. It’s not really about winning.”