In 2016, Congress expanded the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) to allow private parties to sue anyone who “aids and abets” acts of international terrorism. While the law’s stated aim was to combat terrorism, it has been repurposed by pro-Israel groups who have used the provision to file nuisance claims—often with financial backing from the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs—against pro-Palestinian groups and causes. One such lawsuit alleged that a U.S. charity aided and abetted Hamas’s terrorist operations by supporting the BDS movement, a polarizing but avowedly nonviolent movement that advocates boycotts, divestments, and sanctions as a means of pressuring Israel to comply with international law. Another lawsuit accused a nonprofit organization, UNRWA USA, of aiding and abetting the Oct. 7 attacks by raising humanitarian aid (alongside 72 countries, Save the Children, and the World Diabetes Foundation) for the UN Relief and Works Agency—the UN agency tasked with providing education, health care, and food assistance to Palestinian refugees. Another legal action claimed that the Associated Press aided and abetted Hamas’s terrorist operations by purchasing a photograph from a freelance photographer who, years earlier, was anonymously accused of sympathizing with Hamas. And a lawsuit in Virginia alleged that a private foundation and student coalition aided and abetted Oct. 7 by disseminating purportedly “pro-Hamas” propaganda after the attacks were completed. None of these lawsuits have survived a motion to dismiss—a procedural step that asks whether the complaint’s allegations, if true, would state a legal violation.
The Anti-Terrorism Act Is Being Weaponized to Harass Israel’s Critics | Lawfare
