Lebanese citizens’ opinions on Hezbollah are varied and many are quite critical of the organization. Throughout Lebanon, Shia Muslims look at the group relatively favorably while Sunni Muslims and Christians have a much more negative opinion of Hezbollah. However, despite disagreements on the stances and actions of the group, 99% of Arabs agree that all Arab countries must cease contact with Israel in response to Israeli military action in Gaza. Hezbollah as an ideological entity is not necessarily well-loved, but it is also one of few groups committed to resisting the Israeli occupation. This then becomes a difficult issue for many Lebanese civilians as Israel continues its attempt to expand into southern Lebanon, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. It seems that the only solution is the creation of an organization that will both have higher approval from Lebanese citizens and protect the country from Israeli occupation.

In this conversation of Lebanese support for Hezbollah, it is important to understand the religious makeup of Lebanon. While Lebanon recognizes 18 religious sects, there are three major factions, with 31.9% of Lebanese citizens identifying as Sunni Muslims, 31.2% as Shia Muslims and 32.4% as Christians. While all three groups are very close in size, it is interesting to note that Hezbollah is a Shiite group despite Shia Muslims being the smallest of the three largest religious groups. Shia Muslims are the largest group in Iran, however, which is the country responsible for the funding of Hezbollah.

Conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims has been a cause of division throughout the Middle East, with major clashes in both Syria and Iraq. Despite 85% of Muslims identifying as Sunni and 15% as Shia, Sunnis have not dominated militarily and there remains a great sectarian divide in countries like Lebanon. Fear of conflict is not limited to one group, though, with 67% of Lebanese Muslims believing that Shia-Sunni tensions are a big issue. The emergence of Hezbollah has certainly not aided this and, despite having governmental representation, Sunnis and Christians alike feel as though Hezbollah as a governing entity does not represent them.

Notably, in September 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah founder who led the group for over 30 years. Despite disagreements over Hezbollah’s existence, Nasrallah was relatively well-liked due to his resistance to Israel, including overseeing the end of Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

During an interview in September 1992, Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah is a resistance party that opposes the creation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Additionally, in their 1998 Statement of Purpose, Hezbollah says, “It should be clear that the kind of Islam we want is a civilized endeavor that rejects injustice, humiliation, slavery, subjugation, colonialism and blackmail while we stretch out our arms for communication among nations on the basis of mutual respect.” 

In the U.S. Counterterrorism Guide, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist group since 1997, a designation shared by the Arab League and the EU, among others. Since the group’s inception, it has been responsible for several terrorist attacks around the world. Hezbollah has bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut both in 1983 and 1984, with a total of 101 killed and at least 120 injured.

While Hezbollah was created to force Israel to cede its occupied Lebanese territory, the group has now morphed into a different sort of entity. Now, Hezbollah has transitioned from a military wing to a group with heavy influence in both Lebanese military action and politics. In addition, Hezbollah no longer solely targets the Israeli occupation. A prime example of this is the 1994 operation targeting a Jewish community center and killing 94 people in Buenos Aires. 
Since its inception, the United States has given Israel a total of $310 billion in aid, a vast majority of such being military. While the United States views the Hezbollah attacks as unprecedented, Hezbollah sees the United States as a proxy for Israel, funding the occupation of Palestine as well as southern Lebanon. As the United States continues to fund Israel’s attacks on Gazan civilians, a direct opposition to the goals of Hezbollah, it is difficult to see a future where Hezbollah’s terrorist designation is removed.

As of late February, Palestinian deaths surpassed 30,000 and the devastation has only worsened as the war progresses. Coming from a generation that has never known a world with a weak Israel, it seems illogical and unfathomable to continue supporting Israel as the death tolls increase. Despite protests, pressure from leftist democratic colleagues and international efforts advocating for more severe policies toward Israel, President Biden has barely budged on his stance. Furthermore, all of his statements toward Israel have come in the form of a written statement, phone calls or a statement read by a member of his staff. The only exception was during his State of the Union address where he stated, “Israel also has a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.” However, many are still pushing Biden to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and to stop sending military aid to Israel. In the eyes of many young democratic voters, President Biden is not doing nearly enough to stop Israel, and it’s difficult to understand why. 

While ending military aid to Israel and insisting on a permanent ceasefire may seem like a no-brainer for my generation, the reality is much more nuanced. Joe Biden’s stance toward Israel is not necessarily out of a lack of compassion or cowardice, but pure history and politics. Crediting his pro-Israel perspective to his father, Biden recalls that his father emphasized the undeniable justice of establishing Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948 following the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. His historic view of Israel is as a small country fighting for democracy in a region of instability, not the powerful, right-leaning and domineering country many people my age see today. Throughout his Senate career Biden also received $5 million from pro-Israeli groups, the chamber’s biggest recipient in history. This should not be surprising nor, arguably, worrying. For most of American history since the end of WWII, support for Israel has persisted, especially for democrats. Due to the historical context surrounding Biden’s tenure in the Senate, this is not abnormal. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state in 1949 and the country has been, and remains, America’s greatest ally in the Middle East and is praised as a symbol of democracy in the region. 

However, it is not 1949 anymore, and the gravity of the situation is becoming increasingly apparent. If Joe Biden does not reassess his pattern of nonconfrontation and passive diplomacy with Netanyahu, it may be too late to help the situation in Gaza and protect his base. President Biden won Michigan in the 2020 election but the results of the February Michigan primary, with a substantial number of undecided votes, suggest that his unwavering support for Israel could potentially be a deciding factor against him in a close general election. Key swing states like Michigan and young voters won Biden the 2020 election, but his support for Israel may jeopardize his 2024 chances, as young voters are less likely to vote in 2024 than in 2020. With such a close race, Biden cannot afford a low young voter turnout. 

That all being said, there is also the very real possibility that if President Biden takes back his support for Israel, Republicans may be quick to portray the president as anti-Israel. Republicans on the House Armed Service Committee have criticized initiatives to direct more aid into the region. Missouri Congressman Mark Alford said, “90 percent of [humanitarian]funding” ends up in the hands of Hamas. While the social media and political circles of my peers and I are skewed in favor of Palestinians, it can be easy to forget that the general public lacks a consensus on the level of support the United States should provide to Israel. Joe Biden is not the only one whose historical and personal experience with Israel deeply influences their political views. Older generations tend to view Israel as a refuge for the Jews after the painful, visceral memories of the Holocaust. One report shows that less than half (48%) of Gen Z and millennials believe the United States should publicly voice support of Israel compared with 63% of Gen Xers and 83% of baby boomers. 30 years ago, support for Israel was more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Today, many democratic Gen Z voters find it very difficult to wrap their heads around a world that sees Israel’s actions as justified and fair. Recognizing these generational divides is essential for navigating the broader discourse surrounding Israeli-Palestinian relations.

It is also valuable for my age group to understand the historical relevance of congressional and presidential support for Israel. There has never been a U.S. president to actively oppose Israel. Throughout Joe Biden’s long career, it has never been an option to withdraw support for Israel. It is also important to note that Biden’s stance is not unique nor should it be surprising: the mainstream political discourse has always skewed in Israel’s favor. As Jimmy Carter once put it, “It’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.” In summary, it is unrealistic to expect Joe Biden and other politicians to completely shift their worldview that has been shaped over decades of precedent. 

This does not mean that the American people should wait around for Joe Biden to change his mind while thousands of Palestinians die every day. The world is not the same as it was 80 years ago and neither are international dynamics. While these historical precedents should not be ignored, there needs to be some acknowledgment of the Israeli government’s role in Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. In a conflict that is so rooted in history, it is imperative to keep in mind the long history that the president and the country have had with Israel if there is any hope of ending the suffering, death and destruction in Gaza.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

During the early 20th century, the movement witnessed several key historical events, including the Balfour Declaration of 1917, where Britain declared its backing for creating a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Britain’s support for the Balfour Declaration was influenced by a combination of strategic interests, Zionist lobbying, complex wartime alliances and conflicting promises. Underlying antisemitic and pro-Zionist sentiments and religious and historical motivations also played a role. 

During World War I, securing the Suez Canal and British imperial interests in the Middle East was paramount, and the establishment of a friendly Jewish state in Palestine was seen as beneficial. Prominent Zionists, such as Chaim Weizmann, effectively lobbied British policymakers, arguing that support for Zionism could garner Jewish support in the United States and Russia. Britain’s wartime diplomacy involved making conflicting promises to Arabs and Jews, with the Balfour Declaration attempting to balance these. Pro-Zionist views and the belief in fulfilling biblical prophecy also played a role. With the end of World War I in sight, British post-war strategic planning aimed to reshape the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape, prevent French dominance, and ensure a friendly presence near the Suez Canal. This era saw the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire post-World War I. The mandate period experienced a rise in Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine.

Following World War II, many Jewish survivors resided in Displaced Persons Camps across Europe, often under poor conditions, and sought to emigrate. Western countries, including the United States and Britain, denied Jewish refugees and were hesitant to substantially increase their Jewish immigration quotas due to reasons such as antisemitism, economic concerns and geopolitical situations. However, the British were open to directing these Jewish immigrants to Palestine, where they were welcomed by the Palestinians. As per the Palestine Passport Regulations of 1920, anyone wishing to enter Palestine needed a visa from either the Palestinian government or British consulates. The Immigration Ordinance of August 26th, 1920 empowered the Palestinian government to regulate entry. 

Palestinian nationality came into existence or started developing with the post-1917 period. This de facto nationality was formed locally, in line with the domestic law applicable to Palestine and British practices. Concurrently, the inhabitants of Palestine continued to be de jure (according to public international law) Ottoman citizens, albeit in a nominal sense. Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate, which was a unique provision not found in other British mandates, outlined the structure for Palestinian nationality:

“The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

The primary aim of the nationality regulation in this article was to facilitate immigrant Jews as Palestinian citizens. This was a logical extension of the overarching goal of Britain’s Palestine Mandate: establishing a Jewish national home within Palestinian territories.

Subsequently, Israel’s founding generation and its initial leaders entered Palestine on Palestinian visas. David Ben-Gurion, considered the country’s founding father, emigrated from Poland to Palestine. David Green was born in Płońsk, Poland. Like many immigrants to Israel, Green later changed his name to a Hebrew one, David Ben-Gurion, in a process called hebraization of surnames. Many immigrants to Israel have hebraized their names as part of integrating into Israeli society. In 1906, Ben-Gurion landed in Jaffa at Ahuzat Bayit, modern-day Tel Aviv.

Additionally, the citizenship request papers of 20-year-old Szymel Perski, who would later become the Prime Minister of Israel, had a special request: to change his name to Shimon Peres. In his citizenship request, Shimon included declarations in his own handwriting that he was employed in agriculture at a Jewish settlement, and the request to change his first name to Shimon came with the explanation that “Szymel is a corrupted Polish version of the name Shimon.” The request was stamped in October 1943 in the British Mandate of Palestine.

Over the years, there have been various grassroots initiatives, such as petitions and debates, urging the UK government and Parliament to formally apologize to Palestinians and take a leading role in peace initiatives. In 1923, Britain expressed “regrets for their aloofness” for ignoring Palestinian Arabs while continuing its mandate. On the centennial of the Balfour Declaration in 2017, a petition with over 13,500 signatures called for the UK Government to issue a public apology to Palestinians, citing that Britain’s colonial policy led to “mass displacement” and injustice. In 2021, more than a century after supporting the Balfour Declaration, The Guardian expressed regret for its initial endorsement. The newspaper included this stance in an editorial, listing the “worst errors of judgment” the British daily has made since its founding in 1821.

The effects of the Holocaust during World War II, which led to the extermination of six million Jews, added an urgency to the Zionist cause. The world’s failure to prevent this genocide underscored the necessity of a Jewish homeland. Some modern critics say that Zionists and Israel use arguments relating to the Holocaust as a tactic to keep Germany, Europe and the West locked into a state of eternal debt, and swiftly deeming anyone who criticizes the state of Israel an antisemite. 

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the independence of Israel, which was immediately met with war, as Arab countries invaded the new settler colonial state. Weeks before, underground Zionist militia groups — the Stern Gang and Irgun — orchestrated a massacre that was key to terrorizing Palestinian Arabs to leave their villages. Terrorism continued to be the modus operandi of settler Zionists. 

The Deir Yassin massacre was one of the many massacres that paved the way for the establishment of the state of Israel by repeatedly attacking Arab Palestinians and British personnel. They believed that by getting rid of British patronage, Zionists would become the sovereign masters of the country. These groups called themselves “Lohamei Herut Israel Lehi,” or fighters for the freedom of Israel. They ripped through Palestinian villages, causing a bloodbath among its inhabitants and forcing the survivors to leave. It is estimated that around 15,000 Palestinians lost their lives, and several hundred thousand were displaced, seeking refuge in different parts of Palestine or nearby countries. Palestinians refer to this tragic event as the Nakba, meaning “the catastrophe.” 

Thus, on burnt Palestinian villages, the new State of Israel was formed. 

The Deir Yassin massacre and the subsequent exodus of Palestinians in terror played a significant role in persuading the initially hesitant leaders of neighboring Arab nations to engage in military action following the declaration of the state of Israel, thereby initiating a sequence of regional conflict. The establishment of Israel marked a significant triumph for the Zionist movement but also set the stage for the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict, including the deeply rooted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has been involved in several conflicts which have resulted in changes in its territorial boundaries. Upon the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, neighboring Arab states invaded. The war resulted in Israel expanding its territory beyond the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. Many Palestinians fled or were expelled from these areas, leading to a significant refugee issue. In 1967, the Six-Day War took place. This war had a profound impact on Israeli and Palestinian territories. Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. This marked the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, which continues to be a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

In the 2000s and onwards, the Second Uprising (“Intifada”) and subsequent conflicts took place. The Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, and subsequent Gaza conflicts from 2008-2009, 2012, 2014, etc. have seen further entrenchment of territorial disputes. Israeli settlements in the West Bank have continued to expand, which are considered illegal under international law.

Since its founding, Israel has experienced an influx of immigration from Jewish communities from around the world. The Zionist movement continues to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel (Aliyah) and maintains strong connections with the Jewish diaspora worldwide. Israel’s Law of Return, enacted in 1950, allows Jews to immigrate to Israel and grants them immediate citizenship upon arrival. However, Under the Absentees’ Property Law of 1950, Palestinian refugees who were displaced following Nov. 29, 1947, are classified as “absentees” and are not entitled to any rights, let alone allowed to return to their homelands. Their properties, including land, homes, apartments and bank accounts (both movable and immovable assets), are seized by the state. Because of this, Palestinians are the largest stateless community in the world. 

The Zionist movement, while achieving its goal of establishing a Jewish homeland, has sparked regional unrest and severe humanitarian concerns for the last 75 years. The future remains dark and escalation is bound to increase and worsen. 

The concept of a “Greater Israel,” according to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, is a Jewish State stretching “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates” and includes historic Palestine as well as other parts of Arab-majority countries. Some Zionists even believe that Greater Israel should span from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, covering areas such as Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey. Some historians and observers of international relations suggest that this is the reason behind Israel’s gradual expansion into neighboring territories, particularly Palestine. However, it is noteworthy that the concept of Greater Israel is not exclusively a Zionist endeavor. Recent discussions among some scholarly circles speculate on its potential role in U.S. foreign policy, aiming to expand U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and potentially leading to the region’s fragmentation and fracture.

Zionism as a movement gained momentum in the early 20th century, leading to the establishment of Jewish communities in Palestine, then under Ottoman and later British control. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, a statement by the British government, supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, further legitimizing the Zionist movement. 

Zionism has evolved over time and has faced various challenges and controversies, including opposition from some Jewish communities and conflict with the Arab population of Palestine.

However, Zionism has been central to the founding of Israel. It has provided the ideological and practical framework necessary for the Jewish people to establish a national homeland in Palestine. The movement’s determination directly led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. However, the creation of Israel also precipitated a profound and lasting impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations, laying the groundwork for a conflict that persists to this day. The displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the Nakba and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel has been central to the enduring strife between the two peoples. 

Zionism’s legacy is thus twofold: it achieved its goal of establishing a Jewish state but also contributed to a deep-seated conflict characterized by territorial disputes, political tensions and cycles of violence from both sides. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most complex and challenging issues in international relations, with Zionism’s historical role continuing to influence perceptions, policies and peace efforts in the region.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

Zionism encompasses a variety of ideologies but is generally linked to the encouragement of Jewish migration to the ancient Land of Israel (Eretz Israel), the revival of Jewish culture and the Hebrew language, and the belief in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in a sovereign state at the cost of Palestinian autonomy and self-governance. The Zionist movement marks a critical era in the history of Judaism, emerging in the late 19th century amid widespread anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe. A key driver for this movement was the prolonged persecution faced by Jews, coupled with the aspiration for a sovereign homeland to practice self-governance. Additionally, the movement drew significant impetus from biblical prophecies. The Torah, which is the foundational religious scripture of Judaism, repeatedly references the Land of Israel. 

For many Zionists, the creation of a state of Israel symbolizes the fulfillment of God’s promise to the forefathers — Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — that their offspring would inherit the land. This historical linkage is fundamental to Zionist philosophy, reinforcing the notion of the Jewish people’s entitlement to claim and govern this territory. The idea of the Jewish diaspora returning from their exile to the Land of Israel, a concept embedded in the Torah, is also perceived by some as being actualized through the Zionist movement.

Based on these religious and political beliefs, Zionism aimed to establish such a homeland in Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. 

However, some Orthodox Jews do not accept these assertions, with some even actively opposing the Zionist movement. Instead, they adhere to the messianic principle that Jews should only return to Israel and establish a Jewish state upon the arrival of the Messiah. In this view, any attempts to do this through human actions are premature and contradict divine intent. Additionally, the initial secular orientation of the Zionist movement sparked concerns among some circles about diminishing adherence to religious values and Jewish law. 

It is also crucial to understand Christian Zionism — a widespread belief among evangelical Christians — to gain a better understanding of the movement and current responses. The United States holds the largest evangelical population globally, making them the second predominant religious group in the nation after mainline (non-evangelical) Protestants. Notably, evangelical Christians, who are typically influential in American politics, have remained mostly quiet regarding the recent humanitarian issues in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Christian Zionism is rooted in the belief that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, seen as part of God’s plan for humanity’s ultimate destiny. The doctrine of Christian Zionism has gained prominence in public discourse, particularly due to its endorsement by evangelical leaders including former U.S. presidents such as Ronald Reagan and televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in their support for Israeli policies. This belief system is a significant factor shaping the perspectives of many Americans on Israel, Jewish people and their own nation’s role.

The conceptual groundwork for Zionism was established by Theodor Herzl, a journalist from Austro-Hungary. Inspired significantly by the Dreyfus Affair in France, a notable example of anti-Semitism that underscored the vulnerable situation of Jews in Europe, Herzl championed the idea of a Jewish homeland. He convened the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, signifying the official inception of the Zionist movement. This congress set the goal of establishing a “home for the Jewish people,” as articulated by Herzl in 1897. 

The early years of Zionism were largely secular, and its initial plan was wholly political.The Zionists and their supporters had considered, and subsequently vetoed, various territories in their search for a contemporary homeland for Jewish people including el-Arish, the Sinai Peninsula and Cyprus. Aside from Palestine, East Africa was also considered because, after the Kishinev pogrom in Russia, Herzl became more desperate to build a Jewish homeland. Ultimately, this initiative failed. The reasons for its failure are manifold, including resistance from the burgeoning white settler community in Kenya, indecision within the Colonial Office about managing the developing East Africa Protectorate and notably the hesitation of the Zionist leaders themselves.

Firmly focused on Palestine and its vicinity as the appropriate location for a Jewish national homeland, the Zionists, during their seventh Congress held in Basel in August 1905, emphasized the unfavorable elements of the fact-finding commission’s reports and subsequently declined the British proposal.

In the late Ottoman era, Jewish migration to Palestine was modest and largely driven by religious motives. The Palestinian Arab population, primarily Muslim but also comprising Christians, typically lived in harmony with the existing small Jewish community and the new Jewish immigrants.

As the Zionist movement promoting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine gained momentum, perceptions started changing. Initially, Palestinian Arabs were either neutral or somewhat supportive of Jewish immigration, but their stance evolved as its political ramifications became clearer. Prior to 1948, the dynamics between Jewish immigrants and Palestinian Arabs transitioned from a state of coexistence and harmony to escalating tension and conflict, driven by Zionist ambitions in the territory.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

Alice Walker, in her poetry book Sent By Earth, reminds us that murder is murder and that it is personal. Regardless of “if it is done in war. It is very intimate,” Walker says. “The beings we kill become, somehow, ours for life.”

I believe Walker is correct. 

The thousands of Palestinians  — who have been killed at the hands of the U.S.-funded bombs, and the settler colonial apartheid state of Israel — are not guilty. Americans are guilty.  At this point, with a death count of over 20,000 people and displacement of 1.5 million people, Israel’s violent ethnic cleansing campaign has officially surpassed that of the 1948 Nakba. And this terror campaign is that of U.S. citizens to face. 

PTSD isn’t an acronym long enough to describe what we have inflicted. The women in Gaza have no water to tend to their menstruating bodies, and they have no water for their daughters either. Over a million people in Palestine are displaced, many of them living under tents and tarps, and they spend hours of their days trying to obtain food and water. 

Hospitals — which are supposed to be protected by International Law — have been relentlessly destroyed. Less than 30 percent of Hospitals in Gaza are functioning.  “Not enough beds, not enough doctors, not enough space”, said Palestinian photographer Motaz Aziaza when describing the situation at Al-Aqsa Hospital. 

 “I miss my uni friends, I miss my life”, writes Plestia Alaqad who is a Palestinian journalist.

As we read and see these gut-wrenching and gruesome accounts, it is important not to desensitize ourselves to Palestinian suffering. There are actions we can take every day. Many of us in the U.S. have given far too many tax dollars to genocide. We let our media dehumanize Palestinians through their war-mongering lies. 50 days later and there is no end to this madness in sight. 

And now we must divest from the systems that sponsored this. We will divest from corporate media. I will not watch.  We will continue to boycott Starbucks, McDonalds and Disney. Ethnic cleansers do not get our business. 

Moreover, we must bear the burden of this violence, facing it entirely. Palestinians who have died did so with honor. They died in resistance to their violent occupation. Heartbreakingly, courageous journalists like Motaz Azaiza, Plestia Alaqad, and Hind Khoudary have become heroes of our generation, showing us what it means to be a warrior of resistance in the face of trauma and oppression. 

These heroes — and the burdens they have taken on — should bring us both hope and shame. As they brazenly call out the hypocrisy of Western Media, they have carved paths for us to speak truth to power. But isn’t it sad that our heroes never wanted to be heroes? Isn’t it sad that young adults (many of them our age) had to extort gruesome images of death and terror to make us care? 

Our privilege, as students in the West, means we must continue their work. Our activism will grow to be as relentless as the bombs that displaced and murdered our brothers and sisters. 

As artists, writers, historians, archivists and journalists, we have to tell the truth.  We should show images that maintain both the truth and the integrity of the Palestinian people. We will fight against this gruesome occupation for as long as it takes, and we will understand more than ever that this struggle is not insular. America’s longtime desire to Kill extends everywhere; nobody is safe. 

With our teeth sunk into the military-industrial complex, we have a long road ahead of us in resisting Israel and U.S.-led war crimes — along with further development of potentially catastrophic military developments, which could certainly lead to a disastrous nuclear war. 

Palestinians are wrongfully treated as tokens in the U.S.’s foreign policy agenda. You don’t need to be Arab or Muslim to see that this is wrong. Palestinians are not tokens, and neither are the people of Sudan, Congo & Armenia. These countries have all experienced genocide, ethnic cleansing, and gross human rights violations in recent months. Where has the mainstream media been? Reporting on Barbie. 

Truth is bleak these days. But to stand with the other, the group being marginalized and oppressed, will always be a part of the struggle for liberation. When I feel tired and hopeless, I remember that every action I make matters — that movements have always been built by ordinary people taking both small and large acts. I remember what Angela Davis said: “Freedom is a constant struggle.”

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

While this apartheid regime has existed for the past 75 years, and these atrocities for even longer, it has failed to gain adequate coverage by the mainstream media. The main reason for this is that of Israel’s creation, where a UN resolution gave Israel its own state, disregarding and displacing the Palestinian people who resided on the land. Israel is much richer than Palestine, and, however disheartening it may be, standing by Israel is more advantageous for governments across the world for many reasons, including the power of Israel’s financial allyship. Because of this, it is far more uncommon to see a major publication or news outlet throw its support behind the Palestinian people, who have been subject to ethnic cleansing for the past 75 years.

Now, as the world begins to understand the gravity of the genocide that is occuring in Palestine, governments are also beginning to crack down on any criticism of the state of Israel. 

While governments have expressed unwavering support for the Israeli government, despite the war crimes that are being committed daily, it becomes clearer every day that these countries’ populations do not agree. From Yemen to the United Kingdom and the United States, pro-Palestine protests have garnered millions to support their cause. However, as people begin to express their discontent with government support for Israel, these governments are limiting the right to protest and free speech. 

For example, in Germany, a country which outlines that, “every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech writing and pictures … There shall be no censorship,” the government is directly opposing what is stated in the country’s legal code. Currently, Germany is banning a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, with police attacking citizens for simply wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Palestinian scarf. These are not only horrifying attacks on free speech, but in direct opposition of what the German government claims to stand for. Germany has justified its actions as combating antisemitism, but it is abhorrent and dishonest to Jews and Palestinians alike to claim that standing up against Israel’s apartheid regime is an antisemetic act.

Germany is not the only country where this is happening, though. Austria, Hungary and Switzerland have all attempted to enact similar bans, while France continues to ban these protests on a case-by-case basis. 

Unsurprisingly, protest is also being heavily suppressed within Israel. In a country that is often lauded as the only democracy in the Middle East, its government is restricting the right to express any disagreement with its current actions. Not only is Israel arresting dozens of its Arab citizens for suspicions of terrorist sympathy, but is also treating social media posts with the Palestinian flag as hate speech. 

Seeing this, a clear act of anti-Arab sentiment and proof that Israel does not see Palestinians as equals, makes me wonder if Israel really has “the most moral army in the world” as it claims. If a global power who arrests citizens for sympathizing with innocent civilians is considered moral, the state of the world is worrisome.

The United States, a country that constantly boasts about its First Amendment rights and the right to free speech, is certainly not exempt from this hypocrisy. Some of the most elite universities in the country, which often pride themselves on being free-thinking and allowing of political speech, are among the harshest opposition to pro-Palestinian speech. 

Columbia University has suspended both JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) over claims that both groups are supporting hate speech. The idea that JVP, a Jewish activist organization with over 700,000 members, is antisemetic is not only laughable, but an insult to every Jewish person who stands against Israel’s crimes. Brown University is yet another example of this, arresting 20 Jewish students for asking that Brown consider a divestment resolution.

It is important to note that free speech within the United States is limited to the prohibition of government retaliation, meaning that groups not associated with the government are free to respond to speech as they wish. This is a bit of a difficult area to navigate, but it is crucial to remember that free speech does not signify speech without consequence. Speech that one simply disagrees with should not be a punishable offense, but speech that is hateful in nature and threatens violence must be addressed. Free speech does have consequences and it has limits, yet the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues to prove that governments will only acknowledge the right to free speech when it suits them. 

A prime example of this within the United States is the censorship of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib was censured for defending the use of the slogan “from the river to the sea,” which is not violent, despite what Zionists may claim. What this statement means is that Palestine will be a free state for all to exist in, regardless of religion — it is not calling for Jewish genocide as many Zionists choose to believe. While Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, faces a completely unjust censure for this statement, government officials who have called for violence against Palestine have not faced similar repercussions. 

Representative Max Miller has gone so far as to say “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot.” 

This statement is unquestionably violent and does not begin to acknowledge the fact that Palestine is made up of innocent civilians, with half of Gazans being children. Yet, he has not faced any repercussions while Tlaib is censured for speaking on behalf of a country that endures genocide. The double standard here is astounding, and I am ashamed to be represented by those who silence voices advocating for equality while simultaneously failing to condemn others who wish violence upon innocent civilians.

The other side of the coin here is the individuals who are not receiving any repercussions for their actions. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and something that must not be taken away, it is important to consider that the right to free speech includes the ability to retaliate. 

While people are free to express themselves in a manner that you choose, they are equally able to respond, whether in agreement or not. And, as explained by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Everyone should unequivocally condemn the vitriol that is being spewed, that which is antisemetic as well as that wishing violence on Palestinians. The University of Southern California has its own issues with this, specifically regarding Professor John Strauss, who was taped on video saying, “I hope they all are killed,” as he walked passed an event held to mourn the thousands of Palestinian lives lost to Israel’s genocide. Not only is his speech not protected from consequence by the First Amendment, but it is in direct contrast with USC policy against hate speech. 

I must add that I do not have faith that USC will uphold what it claims to stand for and unequivocally condemn this violent speech, but I hope that I am wrong. 

Globally, we have been subject to a media campaign to support Israel and suppress any opposition to the Israeli government, labeling the fight for Palestinian liberation as antisemitic. However, it is clear that people across the world do not stand with our respective governments, and it is crucial that we continue to oppose Israel’s violent settler-colonial apartheid regime by using our right to free speech, regardless of the attempt to take it away from us.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

On a more contemporary note, it similarly pains me every time I read an article or hear a quote from a politician that insinuates that the genocide happening in Palestine is a complicated issue that requires an international relations degree or a doctorate in political science. 

If my fifteen-year-old sister can understand the history and gravity of this genocide, so can you. 

The current conflict is really quite black and white: Israel is a nation ranked 18th globally in military firepower, 25th globally in overall economic prowess, and 3rd globally in military spending per capita. They have not only been colonizing and terrorizing Palestine, a poverty-stricken nation with no formal military or government for the past several decades, but have also been relentlessly bombing Palestine for the past month under the guise of self-defense after Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, carried out a terrorist attack against Israeli civilians on Oct. 7.  

In the immediate aftermath of the fateful Oct. 7 attack, it was reasonable for people to empathize with Israel after an estimated 1,200 of its citizens were mercilessly killed and 240 were kidnapped by Hamas. But Israel’s response to this terrorist attack has long surpassed brutal. The world’s complacency in this continuous act of terrorism and genocide will be remembered long after we’re gone as one of the greatest humanitarian failures of human history. 

In less than one month since Hamas’ initial attack, Israel has slaughtered over 10,000 Palestinians, almost half of which have been children. The fact of the matter is that there are other ways to eliminate Hamas, if that really is the sole intent of Prime Minister Netanyahu, with minimal civilian casualties. With a military and intelligence branch as powerful as Israel’s, their special operations units should be one of the most advanced in the world, capable of weeding out and selectively targeting militants. And yet, for some reason, this isn’t the approach Israel’s choosing to take. It’s suspicious to say the least. 

Supporters of Israel will relentlessly cite the hostages that Hamas is still holding. Although I feel great empathy for those families whose loved ones are still being held captive, it has become blatantly obvious that retrieving those hostages is not Netanyahu’s main objective. If it was, he would have accepted the prisoner-hostage trade deal proposed in late October. His failure as an elected official was reflected as family members of the hostages gathered in the streets in Tel Aviv to protest his inaction. Netanyahu knows that if the hostages are returned, he won’t have an excuse to obliterate the entirety of Palestine.

As videos show the IDF bombing hospitals, schools, refugee camps, ambulances and schools, destroying families and dismembering children, my hope for humanity evaporates. As Biden announces undying support for the Israeli government solely due to the fact that they are the United States’ strongest ally in the Middle East, my faith in American democracy crumbles. As Zionists ask me “it’s sad, but what else are they supposed to do?” about their government killing entire families in a single blast, my faith in an empathetic humanity dissipates. As my peers naively and unabashedly support a nation whose sole objective is to commit genocide, I grow numb. 

To me and others who are a part of the Pro-Palestine movement at USC, the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Zionist movement are separate entities. When I criticize the Israeli government, I do not criticize the Jewish religion. I have met people of the Jewish faith who have claimed that Zionism both is and isn’t an integral part of the religion. But regardless about the credence of Zionism, it is an indisputable fact that the Palestinian peoples inhabited the land that is now Israel-Palestine for centuries before the influx of Jewish refugees in 1948. It is also an indisputable fact that Israel then colonized more than half of what was meant to be set aside as Palestine in the decades following the division of the land, forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their homes during the Nakba and beyond. 

I am not sure when condemning genocide became a politicized opinion — it should be black and white. Watching the continuous influx of videos of wailing parents and shell-shocked infants in Gaza at the same time that I see affluent people in America making this issue about themselves has been one of the lowest points of my life. I implore those, especially the wealthy and privileged at USC, who struggle to remove the spotlight from themselves to move it to those who live every day not knowing if they’ll make it to the next. Condemning the Israeli government as someone of the Jewish faith doesn’t reflect badly on you as a person, rather, it shows strength in being able to receive criticism.

Those who support Israel are wrong. Those who refuse to “pick a side” are wrong. Those who refrain from uttering the word “ceasefire” are wrong. Those who ignorantly equate the loss on both sides are wrong. This issue of genocide is absolutely black and white. 

There is no justification for the atrocities that Israel has committed. This is not an eye for an eye, but an eye for an entire generation of Palestinians. 

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

As a Jewish student at USC, I am extremely fortunate to be surrounded by a vibrant campus Jewish community, which is over 2,000 undergraduates strong, in these difficult times. On Oct. 10, we came together for a vigil to mourn the victims of the attack in a ceremony that included songs, prayers and speeches. Through the tears, we created a beautiful moment of togetherness and solidarity. Yet, as I stood in silent prayer, I could not help but notice the small group that had gathered to “protest” our vigil, holding up Palestinian flags and signs. Seeing other USC students deliberately protest our community’s sorrow was deeply disturbing. It felt as though we had come together to create a sacred space of mourning, and they had come to desecrate it.   

In the days since the attack, college campuses across the country have seen a wave of both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine vigils, marches and protests, illustrating the stark divide on the issue among college students. Many in the U.S. Jewish community were disturbed to see that the attack drew apparent praise from campus organization Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters across the country, leading dozens of national Jewish groups, campus organizations and state legislators to sign a letter demanding universities withdraw their schools’ recognition of and funding for SJP.

SJP’s activities, according to the letter, included hailing the terror attacks as a “historic win” and distributing materials with images of paragliders, which were used by Hamas members in an attack on the Nova music festival, on U.S. college campuses. The letter concludes with a demand for “moral accountability and official punishment for SJP and its chapters for their campaign to glorify the Hamas attacks on Israel of October 7.” 

SJP was not the only major political organization to seemingly justify the attacks. Black Lives Matter Los Angeles called the events on Oct. 7 an “act of self-defense” in a statement posted on Facebook, even while news emerged of the murder of a number of Black Israelis.

The letter also comes in the wake of several reports of antisemitic incidents, some violent, on college campuses. A Cornell University professor called the Hamas attacks “exhilarating” and “energizing,” while a Yale professor dubbed Israel a “murderous, genocidal settler state.” At Columbia, an Israeli student was assaulted outside the main campus library, and a Jewish student’s door was set on fire at Drexel University in Philadelphia. An NYU student even admitted to ripping down posters of kidnapped Israeli children that were hanging on campus.

Both the attack in Israel and the troubling reaction have deeply impacted the mental health of many young American Jews. Nearly all of the people interviewed for a New York Times article on the topic spoke about a kind of aloneness, and a sense that “a chasm had appeared between their network of Jewish friends and family and the non-Jewish world around them.”

“A lot of Jewish students are really struggling when they see their peers or their classmates celebrating, not just condoning, but celebrating what’s happening as a form of resistance,” says Julia Jassey, a recent college graduate and the CEO of Jewish on Campus, an advocacy group for Jewish and Zionist students.

In an interview with Ted Deutch, former U.S. Representative (D-FL) and current American Jewish Committee (AJC) CEO, CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer reflected on his sadness regarding the tense situation the American Jewish community has been facing for the past few weeks: 

“What is so depressing, when I drive around here in Washington, […] and I drive by a Jewish center or a Jewish synagogue and I see cop cars […] right in front, I say ‘Is this the United States? Do you need cop cars in front of synagogues like this?’ It’s so depressing to see that.”

Moreover, antisemitism resulting from the conflict in the Middle East is impacting far more Jews than just those in the United States and on its college campuses. Around the world, various Jewish institutions have faced attacks. 

On Oct. 18, two hooded men threw molotov cocktails at a central Berlin synagogue. In Tunisia, hundreds of rioters were filmed setting fire to and heavily damaging a historic synagogue, which is an important pilgrimage site that houses the grave of a prominent 16th-century rabbi. In Australia, a pro-Palestine rally devolved into chants of “Gas the Jews.” 

If anti-Israel sentiment is truly only about protesting the Israeli government’s policies in Gaza, why are Jews around the world under attack?

Social media, and the ease with which people can repost thoughts, tweets and infographics, can largely contribute to the feelings of fear, frustration and isolation that many in the Jewish community have been experiencing. 

In recent weeks, I have seen a barrage of posting and reposting of unverified information disguised as fact on my own social media feed, influencing the opinions of numerous followers on various platforms. One example that I observed was the reaction to the Oct. 17 Al-Ahli Arab hospital explosion in Gaza. While the explosion was without doubt a horrific tragedy, many were quick to express outrage by reposting unverified reports that an Israeli missile had been the cause of the devastation. As the U.S. intelligence community and other experts assessed the situation and determined that Israel “was not responsible” for the blast and it was most likely a rocket fired from Gaza, not only did the incessant outrage disappear into thin air, but few bothered to apologize and correct themselves after spreading dangerous misinformation. 

Pro-Palestinian Protests, Antisemitism and Zionism

I stand unconditionally in favor of the freedom of speech and protest. At the same time, I feel it is my duty to call out misconceptions and speech that directly threatens my community.  

Let me be clear: Not all pro-Palestine protest is antisemitic. Standing against Israeli government policies in the West Bank and Gaza and calling for improved humanitarian conditions for Palestinians is perfectly legitimate. Yet, some common slogans being chanted at recent protests around the country must be both properly contextualized and called out for what they are: calls for violence against Israel and the Jewish people. 

The commonly heard chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” advocates for a Palestinian state that stretches from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. The establishment of such a state would mean the complete eradication of Israel, a UN member state, and the ethnic cleansing of the over 7 million Jews that call Israel home. The chant denies the Jewish connection to Israel and labels Israel’s entire Jewish population as “occupiers” or “settlers,” therefore legitimizing them as targets for violence. It also immediately shuts down any discussion of a two-state solution to the conflict. One can imagine the outcry that would occur if a protest publicly called for the destruction of any other UN member state and the elimination of the majority of its population. Yet, in the case of Israel, slogans like these are seen as a legitimate form of protest.

Another frequently heard message is a call to “Globalize the Intifada.” To many in the Jewish community, the chant threatens a new wave of violence against Jewish people, business and places of worship around the world, and triggers painful memories of a series of attacks in Israel including bus explosions and cafe bombings during the First Intifada (early 1980s) and the Second Intifada (2000-2005).  

Similar to “From the River to the Sea,” another common protest chant, “There is only one solution,” also identifies the elimination of Israel as the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not only does that statement shut down any productive discourse for finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, it also apparently makes terrifying allusions to Hitler’s “Final Solution” to the “Jewish Question” during the Holocaust. 

The normalization of chants like these as legitimate protest and appropriate language stems from a widespread misunderstanding of important concepts related to Israel’s history and existence, as well as the conflict as a whole. Calling for the destruction of the state of Israel and thus denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, also known as antizionism, is antisemitism.

In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a working definition of antisemitism, a definition constructed by experts in the IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial and based on international consensus. The IHRA definition is seen as the “gold standard” definition of the term, and Jewish organizations in the United States and around the globe have worked tirelessly to persuade both governments and the private sector to adopt it as official policy. 

According to the definition, the following constitute antisemitism: 

• “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

• “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.” 
• “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

• “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

However, the IHRA definition emphasizes “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Similar to IHRA, other definitions of antisemitism, such as the Nexus Definition, also agree that “opposition to Israel’s policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the state of Israel and/or its policies should not, as such, be deemed antisemitic.” Thus, legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and its policies is both possible and common.

Zionism is another concept that has been misunderstood and demonized. Zionism is the movement for self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, Israel. For many, it is an integral aspect of practicing the Jewish religion and identity. 

Contrary to common misconceptions, Zionism as a concept originated far before the Zionist Congresses of late 19th century Europe, an assertion made by those who falsely argue that Zionism is a settler colonial, racist movement. The yearning to return to Zion, the biblical term for Israel and Jerusalem, has been a cornerstone of Jewish life since the Roman Empire colonized the land, sending Jews into exile in 70 CE. For 2,000 years, Jews have prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, wished “next year in Jerusalem” during holidays like Passover, and made pilgrimages to ancient sites in the area. 

In the mid-19th century, Modern Zionism emerged, modeled after the other widespread national liberation movements of the time across Europe. It was in response to a long history of intense hatred, persecution and discrimination in countries across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa where Jews lived. The early Modern Zionists believed that a modern Jewish state would provide a safe haven from the bigotry and endangerment suffered as a marginalized minority. 

It is important to note that the definition of Zionism does not involve Palestinians nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Equally important, Zionism and identifying as a Zionist does not preclude support for Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

Zionism has often been described as a “settler colonialist” ideology. The term “settler colonialism” conjures historical memories of exploitative white European empires militarily invading lands in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, implanting their citizens in colonies through the use of force, subjugating the native and indigenous populations and stealing their natural resources. But using the term “settler colonialism” to describe events since the late 19th century paints an incomplete and inaccurate picture. It fails to acknowledge that both Jews and Palestinians are native and indigenous to the land. 

The Europeans who settled in colonies in the Middle East and North Africa were not indigenous or native to the land, nor held any religious and cultural connection to it in any way. The return of large numbers of Jews to Israel also resulted in the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language. No true colonialists came to a homeland and revived the ancient tongue they had spoken there. Unlike British, French and other European colonialists, there is no “motherland” to which the Jewish population in Israel may otherwise go back to. Many Jews in Israel, including many who fled persecution, have no other country to go to.

According to the “settler colonialism” narrative, Israel was established by oppressed white European Jews who in turn became oppressors of people of color, the Palestinians. Israel would then be an extension of privileged and powerful white Europe in a non-white Middle East. 

The problem with this narrative is that it does not reflect the reality on the ground. Over 21% of Israel’s population are non-Jewish Arabs. Among the 73.6% that are Jewish, Mizrahis, Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent, are the majority. Only about 30% of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi, or the descendants of European Jews. Thus, the “settler colonialism” narrative erases the stories of the descendants of the over 850,000 Middle Eastern and North African Jews that were forced to flee their homes due to antisemitism in Muslim-majority countries and settled in Israel, and also those of the over 160,000 descendants of Ethiopian Jews who were threatened by political destabilization in the early 1990s and airlifted to Israel.

As the current conflict drags on, I continue to hope and pray that all the hostages that were taken by Hamas are returned safely and the ongoing violence and civilian loss of life on both sides comes to an end. 

As college students, independently of what you stand for, I urge you to acknowledge the complexity and historical roots of this conflict, and to verify the sources of the information you receive, especially when reposting on social media. Even unintentionally spreading misinformation promotes hatred and isolation and endangers the lives of both Jews and Muslims around the world. Diversity of opinion should always be welcomed on our college campuses, but hatred and defamation should not.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

Dahbour’s father, Ahmad Dahbour, was a renowned Palestinian poet who fled the attacks of the Israeli militia on the city of Haifa in Northern Palestine, which is now Israel, during a series of expulsions in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced to flee or were ejected. This destruction of Palestinian society and the large-scale, permanent displacement of the Palestinian people in 1948 is known as the nakba or the “catastrophe.” Ahmad Dahbour’s family left on April 21, 1948 — his second birthday. Ahmad was carried by his parents through Lebanon, and then to Syria, where they settled in a refugee camp that was initially horse stables the French colonizers had left behind on the edges of the city of Homs.

Central to understanding the establishment of the state of Israel is the Mandate System in the Middle East, which was a colonial method of administration forced on the former territories of the Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations in July 1922. What was key to the establishment of this system was the belief that the people in the region could not govern themselves, and was used as another form of imperial control. France was assigned the mandates over Lebanon and Syria, and Britain gained control of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq.

After the British failed to enforce order during the nakba and left without a formal transfer of power, Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948. The establishment of the state of Israel permanently displaced over 75% of the Palestinian population and has forever changed the lives of over 13 million Palestinians as of 2023, most of whom remain in a permanent state of uncertainty as refugees in Jordan, Lebanon or Syria — with no promise of return or Palestinian citizenship. 

In 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which became known as the Partition Plan. This resolution gave what would become present-day Israel 57% of historic Palestine and internationalized Jerusalem, meaning that the city would fall under international governance because of its importance in the Abrahamic religions. After Israel declared its independence in May 1948, a coalition of Arab states consisting of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt launched a defense on behalf of Palestine. However, the Arab coalition was outnumbered approximately two to one by the Israeli military and conceded by late 1949. 

Although it is illegal under international law (UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, XXV) to legitimately acquire territory through the use of military force, Israel occupies 78% of Palestine — 50% more land than the 1947 Partition had allotted following the 1948 war. The city of Haifa was in the original 57% of land allocated to Israel, so, regardless, Dahbour’s family would have lost their home.

The historical establishment of the state of Israel is often justified as “a land without people for a people without a land.” This statement fails to recognize the only aspect that differentiated Palestine from other formerly Ottoman territories such as Egypt and Jordan was Western recognition of their sovereignty. Nationalism as an acknowledged concept largely didn’t exist in the Middle East until after WWI. However, it is evident that for centuries Palestinians have understood that they had an identity separate from that of other Arabs — that they had an established ancestry, culture and a right to the land they had inhabited for generations. 

Dahbour’s mother was also from Northern Palestine. His parents met in the refugee camp in Homs, where Dahbour was born. He then spent his childhood in the Yarmouk camp in Damascus, considered the capital of the Palestinian diaspora, before later moving to Lebanon. 

The remnants of the Dahbour family house are still in Haifa, referred to as “the possessions of the absentees.” Eventually, the Israeli government was allowed to assume possession of their family’s land under the Absentee Property Law of 1950. This law states that any Palestinian resident or Arab national from November 29, 1947 (the day the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Partition Plan which established the state of Israel from 57% of the land that was historic Palestine) until the end of Israel’s declared state of emergency from 1948 (which still has not officially ended) who resides in an Arab country or “in any part of the Land of Israel that is outside of the area of Israel,” (meaning Palestine) who owns land in what is now present-day Israel, forfeits their rights to this land, no matter if their absence was forced. Through this law, the property of hundreds of thousands of expelled Palestinians became a possession of the state of Israel. 

As an adult, Dahbour’s father soon became known for his revolutionary poetry and joined the Palestinian National Liberation Movement, presently known as Fatah. This is now the largest faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and is the party of Mahmoud Abbas, the current president of Palestine. When Dahbour’s father retired, he was the Deputy Minister of Culture for the Palestinian Authority. 

In 1984, Dahbour’s family followed the PLO as they relocated to Tunis, Tunisia, after the 1982 Lebanon War. In 1991, Dahbour moved to Sacramento, California to study political science and international affairs, where he became the president of the General Union of Palestinian Students at CSU Sacramento. Dahbour explained that “having witnessed my father’s involvement in the PLO throughout my youth, it was natural for me to be close to my cause, having grown up in a refugee camp and seen the suffering, the oppression, and the longing to return to Palestine.”

“Palestine was always portrayed as the promised land for us, a home to which we would eventually return, the alternative to our reality, to the suffering we lived through. When we cried as children, my grandmother would say, ‘Don’t worry, tomorrow a bus will come and take us back to Haifa.’” 

After the signing of the first Oslo Accords in 1993, which resulted in Israel recognizing the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people, Dahbour’s father and mother returned to Palestine. At the age of 21, Dahbour visited his homeland for the first time. In 1995, after Dahbour received his United States citizenship, he was able to use his American passport to gain access to modern-day Israel. During previous trips, Dahbour had been confined to the Gaza Strip under his Palestinian refugee travel document. 

Dahbour would visit Palestine at every opportunity, enduring regular hours-long interrogations before being permitted to enter. However, as the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) worsened after the election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, so did the treatment of Palestinians entering Palestine. In 2000, the only airport in Palestine was destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), so in order to enter Palestine, travelers must first enter through Israel. 

In June of 2015, Dahbour was detained for three days in a prison cell at Ben-Gurion Airport after he was questioned about his personal contacts and demanded to provide Israeli officials with access to his social media and email accounts. Dahbour refused, citing a commitment to “maintain [his]integrity.” 

“It was very typical for me to be questioned upon arriving at the airport because of my Arab name. Usually, I would be asked if I was Syrian because my birthplace is written on my passport, but I always correct them and say no, I am Palestinian, but born in Syria. Once they discovered I am Palestinian, they took me to a room to wait for several hours.”

Dahbour was detained without legal representation and his belongings were searched. He could not contact his wife because his phone was taken, and even though both Dahbour and his wife contacted the American embassy, they were told, “There is nothing we can do for you in Israel.”

After being imprisoned for three days, Dahbour was deported to Canada on a connecting flight back to the US. Dahbour was escorted to the pilot by the Israeli airport authority with instructions not to return Dahbour’s passport until the plane had landed. The purpose of the trip was for Dahbour, as his parent’s only child, to take his ailing father to Jordan to receive medical attention. His father was left waiting in Ramallah while Dahbour was placed behind bars. Dahbour’s only crime was attempting to enter his homeland.

After he returned to the U.S., Dahbour went to Washington DC, where he met with Anne Patterson, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs under the Obama Administration. However, the meeting was unproductive and did not result in any recourse on Dahbour’s treatment and the discriminatory restrictions on travel blatantly enforced in Israeli airports. 

In 2016, Dahbour returned to Palestine for two years because his father’s health had significantly deteriorated. Once again, Dahbour was subject to heightened scrutiny because of his father’s prominent position within the Palestinian Authority and his political activism. The first year of his visit Dahbour remained in Palestine legally, but then needed to extend his visa to continue caring for his ailing father. However, “every time I would request an extension, the period they would extend it would get shorter and shorter until at one point I would apply for an extension and when I received it the visa would have already expired.”

Dahbour’s every attempt to extend the visa would cost him hundreds of dollars. Further, because relations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority had declined drastically, Dahbour was unable to secure a Palestinian ID, so he stayed in his own country illegally. Upon leaving after his father’s death in April of 2018, he was informed by the Israeli government that he would not be allowed back. Dahbour has not been able to return to Palestine since.

At present, Dahbour hopes he will be able to return to Palestine under Israel’s visa waiver program with the United States. The visa waiver program would allow Israelis to travel to the U.S. without visas, but as of the end of March 2023, the US has not approved Israel’s entry into the program. Israel has met the 3% or less non-immigrant visa refusal rate but has yet to guarantee entry to all Palestinian Americans traveling from Israeli airports into the West Bank. 

Currently, the Israeli government has decided to maintain its policies of restricting access to Palestinians who are American citizens at the expense of allowing their own citizens greater access to travel. In 2019, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that policies discriminating against Palestinians and non-Jewish Israeli citizens were necessary because “Israel is not a state of all its citizens, but rather the nation-state of the Jewish people and only them.”

As for Dahbour, he explains that “I haven’t been to Palestine since 2018, and I have been waiting patiently for the opportunity to return to my homeland and visit my parent’s graves.” He hopes that once the visa waiver is approved, he will be able to return to Palestine.

In January of 2023, 29 Palestinians, including five children, were killed by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). 2022 was the deadliest year for Palestinians since 2006, as 170 Palestinians, including at least 30 children, were killed; however, 2023 is already set to surpass that. Dahbour explains that Western media has contributed to the ambivalence surrounding the deaths of Palestinians killed by the Israeli Defense Forces. He argues that the media tends to portray Palestinian civilians as terrorists who were rightfully executed, regardless of the collateral damage of unarmed civilians and children who are often killed in these raids. 

Dahbour clarifies that he is not excusing attacks by either side, but expresses his frustration that this is “where the story starts, discounting that the problem lies in the occupation and injustice committed against Palestinians since the establishment of Israel, and the refusal to understand that most of them are occupiers and immigrants brought to historic Palestine by a colonial power.”

In February of 2023, US congressional representative Ilhan Omar was removed from the US House Foreign Affairs panel for arguing that political donations from pro-Israel lobby groups drive support for Israel in Washington. She was labeled anti-Semetic by the media and other members of Congress and later withdrew her remarks. 

Dahbour uses Omar’s incident to explain that another issue with the Western approach to the Israeli occupation of Palestine is “conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel, and the effort by the Israeli government to redefine antisemitism from discrimination against a religious group to anti-Israel policies. This is the weaponization of antisemitism as a tool to silence all criticism of Israel and its crimes.”

“It’s a fact that Palestine is occupied, it is a fact that Israel was built on lands that are part of historic Palestine, it is also a fact that Israel is a Jewish state. But as Palestinians we are fighting the occupier regardless of their religious background or identity. We are not fighting the Jewish identity, we are fighting the inhumane and criminal actions of the state of Israel.”

2023 has continued to be a year of extreme violence and aggression perpetrated by the IDF against Palestinians. During Ramadan, the holiest month in the Islamic calendar, the IDF stormed the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem during evening prayers for two consecutive nights, attacking the Palestinians with stun grenades and rifle butts as they were praying. The IDF dragged hundreds of Palestinians out of the mosque each night, with most of them — including children — released a few days later, having been beaten and interrogated while in detention. The IDF even prevented paramedics from accessing the wounded Palestinians on the scene by firing rubber bullets at ambulances. Following the attacks, the Middle East regional director for Amnesty International stated that, “Once again, Israeli security forces have shown the world what apartheid looks like.”

Dahbour explains that the Israeli state is an apartheid regime with two sets of laws favoring one group over another. “There are entire roads, settlements and communities even within the West Bank and Gaza that no Palestinians are allowed to use. There is a Jewish right of return [based on claims set out in a religious text, not a historical right], but Palestinians who long to see their homeland are not allowed to.”

While looking to a future of continued occupation of Palestine by Israeli settlers, with over 800,000 Israeli settlers encroaching on the West Bank, and an apartheid legal system enforced by the Israeli government, Dahbour says, “A two-state solution was flawed from the beginning. On a personal level, home for me is Haifa, [which is now part of Israel and inaccessible to him]. Politically, with the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements into Palestine, a one-state solution is the only solution.”

Although Dahbour remains hopeful about a future return to his homeland with his family, he states that “being under occupation means your fate is in the hands of the occupier.” Dahbour understands that what he references as the “American-Israeli colonial project” has little concern for the dreams of Palestinians, but he is committed to fighting for the rights and freedoms of the Palestinian people and the land of Palestine.