Do on-campus activist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP), and Within Our Lifetime-United For Palestine operate as fronts for Hamas? A new lawsuit filed in federal court, brought in part by hostage families, alleges that these groups coordinate with the State Department-listed terrorist group and that they operate in a conspiracy to extend Hamas' terror to Jews in America.

And the plaintiffs allege that they have found a smoking gun to prove it. First, let's get to the lawsuit itself, whose respondents include one particular organizer in the news these days:

The lawsuit was filed by nine U.S. and Israeli citizens who were victims of Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, including relatives of people murdered or taken hostage, and two affiliated with Columbia who reported mistreatment there.

They accused the defendants of having since 2023 coordinated their efforts with Hamas, which the U.S. State Department deems a terrorist group, to further its attacks, and said some defendants "on information and belief" had advance knowledge of the attack.

The defendants include Mahmoud Khalil, who helped lead the Columbia demonstrations and was a negotiator between university administrators and the student group coalition and co-defendant Columbia University Apartheid Divest.

Other defendants include Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice for Peace, and some of their leaders.

That certainly complicates matters for Khalil, who is fighting deportation as the State Department essentially argues the same thing about his behavior at Columbia. Khalil is fighting to remain in the US by claiming that his actions fall under the First Amendment protections for political speech. Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that he was disseminating Hamas propaganda on campus -- helpfully labeled as product of Hamas' media group -- and organizing illegal activities such occupying buildings and falsely imprisoning two custodians in the process. Khalil may not even get a hearing, since this kind of determination is arguably non-justiciable.

But if he does get a hearing, one has to wonder whether the State Department might spring the smoking gun first.  It appears that these groups may have jumped on the October 7 bandwagon before it even began:

The families allege that as Hamas launched its brutal attack, where the terror group killed about 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 others, it put out a message abroad for it’s supporters to “join the battle in any way they can.”

The lawsuit accuses Khalil, Kiswani, Alwan and Jones of taking up the call and preparing to launch anti-Israel rallies at Columbia University.

“Associational Defendants have distributed pro-terror propaganda produced by and literally stamped with the logo of the ‘Hamas Media Office,’ ” the filing claims. ...

“Three minutes before Hamas began its attack on October 7, Columbia SJP posted on Instagram ‘We are back!!’ and announced its first meeting of the semester would be announced and that viewers should ‘Stay tuned,'” according to the suit.

One can infer a connection between these groups and the terrorists from the proximate response to these various calls from Hamas to "join the battle." If the SJP began that effort before the attacks took place, a judge or jury may well conclude that these groups have a closer relationship than just fanboyism. Bear in mind that it took more than a few minutes for the first reports to get out from Israel about the October 7 attacks, so that makes this look even more suspicious -- assuming the timing can be verified. 

Is it conclusive proof of coordination? No, but it would be the kind of circumstantial evidence that doesn't allow for any other reasonable conclusion other than sheer coincidence, which beggars belief. And bear in mind that the legal standard for Khalil and for these lawsuits will not be "beyond a reasonable doubt" because neither of these proceedings is criminal. The legal standard for civil lawsuits is usually "preponderance of evidence," and it's likely to be lower than that for Khalil's deportation under current statute, which gives Rubio plenary authority to determine a risk to national security in revoking visas and permanent-resident statuses. 

The plaintiffs will have to present evidence to substantiate all of these allegations, including and especially that the activists had started publicizing the attacks before they began. If they can prove that these messages did go out before the attacks, and these groups disseminated propaganda labeled "Hamas Media Office," the preponderance of evidence will definitely lean in the plaintiffs' favor. 

What will that do? Presumably, the plaintiffs will want damages large enough to cripple the operations of these groups and force their collapse. If and when a judge sees enough evidence to proceed to trial, discovery will likely get ordered that will allow the plaintiffs a close look at the finances of these groups. And that might lead them in all sorts of different paths, including more respondents to the lawsuit as well as money sources that might prefer to keep operating under the radar. 

Khalil will likely be watching this from Syria by that time, of course. And the rest of us will pop more popcorn as all of these machinations get exposed.