Massive Protests Call for a Unified Palestine
During the recent weekend, anti-Israel demonstrations unfolded in cities worldwide, from Washington, D.C. to London, Paris, Madrid, and Kuala Lumpur. Protesters chanted well-known slogans like “Free, free Palestine” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
In a notable development, three key anti-Israel figures openly shared their aspirations with Fox News Digital. They expressed a vision for a single state dubbed “Palestine,” which would merge the territories of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. This plan includes granting Palestinians a “right of return” and equal rights as citizens alongside the Jewish population residing in Israel.
This proposed political arrangement notably implies that Israel would no longer function as an independent Jewish nation. Moreover, it suggests a significant demographic shift that could lead to a large Palestinian majority.
Current estimates indicate Israel’s population is approximately 10 million, comprising about 7.8 million Jews, 2 million Palestinian Arabs (predominantly Muslim), and around 200,000 individuals from other backgrounds. Simultaneously, there are approximately 5.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and about 8 million living in the diaspora.
The candidness exhibited by these leaders sheds light on a political objective that activists have long pursued, which critiques Israel as a “settler colonial” state that practices “apartheid” and “genocide.” While activists argue that Israel should not persist as a Jewish state, Israeli officials strongly deny the allegations of “genocide” and “apartheid,” asserting that Israel serves as a nation for Jewish people, providing civil and political rights to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.
Supporters of Israel also point out that critics seldom apply similar human rights assessments to Arab and Muslim-majority countries, many of which emerged from historical upheavals that displaced millions, including Jews expelled from those regions.
At a protest in Chicago, Hatem Abudayyeh, a Palestinian-American activist, described his vision for Palestine as “one democratic secular state.” Miko Peled, another activist and Israeli-born, stated that the name should simply be “Palestine.” Maryland congressional candidate Sam Husseini even suggested “1948” as a possible name, reflecting a year significant in both Israeli and Palestinian narratives.
These leaders’ direct responses marked a shift from previous euphemistic rhetoric surrounding Palestinian liberation and revealed a clearer stance among activists. In Washington, Olivia DiNucci, a local coordinator for CodePink, was queried about her perspective on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When pressed on whether “Palestine” includes contemporary Israel, she chose not to answer at that moment, later labeling the question as a “gotcha” inquiry.
The atmosphere during the protests indicated a firm rejection of the long-influential two-state solution. New York City demonstrators, affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, were recorded chanting, “1-2-3-4. Occupation no more. 5-6-7-8. Israel is a terrorist state.” They made their stance clear: “We don’t want no two state!” In London, a rallying call emphasizing a singular state was similarly echoed.
Signs carried by demonstrators conveyed messages contesting Israel’s claim to the land, emphasizing that their struggle is rooted in the broader context of liberation. Interestingly, while many protest leaders justifying these calls did not directly reference the recent Hamas attacks on Israel, some within the crowd appeared to understand them as justified.
In this wave of protests, a well-organized support network among leftist and activist groups is becoming evident. This “red-green” alliance combines socialist and communist factions with Palestinian and Muslim organizations, all aided by funding from individuals like Neville Roy Singham, who has invested heavily in networks advocating for Palestinian rights.
Abudayyeh clarified that a new state would advocate for a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. He articulated a firm belief that peace and justice in the region rely on recognizing this right, emphasizing that there wouldn’t be an intention to displace current residents of Israel.
His position strongly resonates with historical comparisons to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, suggesting a growing international consensus against the current state of Israel. When asked if their slogans imply the inclusion of modern-day Israel within a future “Palestine,” Abudayyeh asserted that there’s a shift in public opinion towards this realization.
Husseini, also an advocate for the one-state vision, offered a novel idea for the proposed country’s identity, suggesting it be called “1948” to symbolize the historical significance of that year. He noted that many Jews might eventually accept the term “Palestine” if they believed in equal rights for all.
In discussions surrounding the goal of a “Free Palestine,” Peled summarized the essence of these aspirations: a post-Zionist state that affirms equal rights for all inhabitants. He asserted that Israel is currently an “apartheid state” and emphasized the need for a true democracy that recognizes equal rights.
The concept of “Free Palestine,” therefore, is deeply intertwined with the idea of establishing a unified state known as Palestine, aiming for social and political justice for all its residents.
