For decades, to be Muslim and/or Arab in the United States meant quietly tolerating the Jewish–American narrative about the Middle East. This narrative was kept alive with the injection of millions of dollars of funding into the media, national elections, think tanks in Washington, D.C., and lobbying groups with access to the U.S. Congress. The Arab and Muslim response for the most part was a resigned silence, partially due to having a lack of money and connections to compete with the presiding narrative. Moreover, feelings of frustration and defeatism over the barrage of falsehoods that dominated American conventional wisdom abounded. There was also the particular fear that confronting Jewish–American groups could mean losing a job, or being the target of an internet campaign, or being accused of anti-Semitism—the single most effective political weapon against any criticism of Israel. As an Arab-American, I, too, have been a target of Jewish–American wrath at different points during my twenty-five-year career as an author and journalist.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that U.S. President Joe Biden felt no hesitation when, during the early days of Israel’s war against the Palestinians in Gaza, he gave Israel full endorsement to take unlimited military action in the Strip—and even provided the advanced weaponry needed to accomplish that mission. According to The Washington Post, Israel used 22,000 U.S.-provided bombs to pummel the Palestinians in Gaza in the first six weeks alone. During that same period, Washington also handed over 2,000-pound “bunker buster” munitions and more than 50,000 artillery shells, the newspaper said, citing intelligence reports given to Congress.

But what the Biden administration has learned since October 7 was surprising, not only to officials in the White House and State Department, but to ordinary Americans: Arabs and Muslims have suddenly found a powerful public voice, one that could cost them reelection in what promises to be a close race in 2024. A new poll conducted for the progressive think tank Data for Progress October 18–19 found that 66 percent of American voters “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” with the following statement:  “The U.S. should call for a ceasefire and a de-escalation of violence in Gaza. The U.S. should leverage its close diplomatic relationship with Israel to prevent further violence and civilian deaths.”

Although Biden administration officials have been alarmed by the American electorate’s new support for the Palestinians in Gaza, much of the U.S. Congress has turned a blind eye to this profound shift in public opinion. Most continue to provide unconditional support for Israel and fail to even acknowledge the Palestinian plight. Nonetheless, there has been a public awakening, which is perhaps far more dangerous than the hatred and polarization former President (and possible 2024 Republican candidate) Donald Trump had created.

A New Broad-based Pro-Palestinian Coalition
Why has this dramatic shift in perception of Palestinians, and the Palestinian–Israeli conflict more broadly, happened, seemingly overnight? The main reason lies within the deep, overlapping connections among activists, particularly among the younger generation, who have tied opposition to Israel’s nearly hundred-year-old occupation of Palestine to the struggle for women’s rights, 2SLGBTQIA+ rights, Black Lives Matter, indigenous rights, and the rights of Latinos and all people of color in the United States. Even churches, including those led by black clergy, of many religious denominations are holding vigils for the Palestinians and demanding a cease-fire.

Arabs and Muslims, who remain a distinct minority in America, were suddenly able to mobilize hundreds of thousands of demonstrators on the streets of Washington and other major cities because they no longer stood alone. They were able to find solidarity with other special interest groups who have had a long history of applying political pressure, rather successfully, to achieve their goals. More broadly, public determination to save Palestine (or what is left of it) is part of a larger fight against the old colonialist order, to which the United States serves as a compelling poster child in the way it is backing Israel’s expansionism and settler-colonial project. Evidence of this broad coalition for Palestine can be seen in street protests since October 7. In November, for example, thousands of Americans, including African–Americans, Latinos, and other minorities, marched from Brooklyn to Manhattan to demand a ceasefire and justice for Palestinians. When interviewed, some of the demonstrators said the oppression Palestinians face is the “same” as that which Asian–Americans and African–Americans historically endure.

Further evidence of the newfound coalition for Palestinian rights can be found on some American radio stations, such as Pacifica Radio Network, a left-leaning broadcaster with a forty-year history of advocating for human rights. Each day, programs are aired by Arabs, Muslims, and others condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza and demanding a ceasefire. Broadcasters such as Pacifica stand in sharp contrast to the pro-Israel mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times—all of which behave as if the Palestinian side of the story does not exist, or is less important. The Israeli hostage crisis, for example, dominates their news agenda much more than the Palestinian hostage situation or the suffering of tens of thousands of Palestinians under occupation. Furthermore, Jewish and Israeli commentators are given free rein to tell their side of the conflict while Palestinian analysts rarely make appearances; if they do, they are bashed with the question: “Do you condemn Hamas?”

In addition, much of the reporting provided by broadcasters lacks crucial context and typically begins with the phrase “when the war started on October 7, after Hamas’s brutal attack on Israelis . . . .” This completely fails to provide any historical context, including the fact that Palestinians have lived under an illegal and inhumane occupation for more than five decades.

Another reason for Arab–American and Muslim empowerment is the emerging profile and demographic of the demonstrators on the streets. The young people criticizing Israel and challenging pro-Israeli Jewish–American groups were not even born at the time of September 11. Therefore, they have not been raised with the instilled fear pervasive in older Arabs and Muslims in American society at the time and for many years after 9/11. Rather, many are fully engaged in their universities, communities, and professional circles—they have healthy incomes, they know their legal rights as U.S. citizens, and they use the near-omnipresent power of social media to get their voices heard.

Furthermore, the younger generation of Arab and Muslim activists defy Americans’ perception of their experience in the United States. According to a March 2021 Pew Research Center survey asking Americans how much discrimination they think a number of religious groups faced in society, they were more likely to say that Muslims face “a lot” of discrimination compared to other religious groups included in the survey, including Jews and evangelical Christians. In some ways, the socio-political upheaval seen in the United States led by the younger Arab and Muslim generation bears resemblance to the Arab uprisings of a decade ago: a fearless young generation that is demanding change and challenging perceptions of their identity.

Nevertheless, a disconnect between American society supporting the Palestinians, and the Washington body politik’s almost-unanimous backing of Israel remains and is clear in recent polling. Another poll from Data for Progress said that 61 percent of likely U.S. voters support calls for a permanent ceasefire and a de-escalation of violence in the war. Citing the poll in a post on social media platform X, Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who was censored by her colleagues in Congress for her criticism of Israel and demands for a ceasefire, questioned why so few members of the government were aligned with the public’s views. She noted that only 11 percent of members of Congress have called for a ceasefire. In December, Congress passed Republican-sponsored legislation condemning anti-Semitism, which many conflate with any criticism of Israel. The vote was 311 to 14.

Yet, despite the views in Congress, a recent Gallup poll also reflected the American public’s unease with U.S. official support for Israel in the war. A November 30 Gallup found that 45 percent of Americans disapproved of Israel’s military action in Gaza, while 50 percent approved. It found that 63 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of people of color, and 67 percent of young people aged 18–34 all opposed the war. Only 32 percent of Americans approved of Biden’s handling of the Israel–Hamas situation, Gallup said.

All of these new developments do not mean that Arabs and Muslims are safe from acts of violence, threats, and racial discrimination in the United States. According to data tracking by several Arab–American organizations, there has been a dramatic spike in hate crimes, exceeding those after 9/11. Perhaps the violence and threats against Muslims and Arabs are happening partially because of this broad support from American interest groups and the fact that the views of the former can no longer be marginalized as fringe opinions.

 The Pro-Israel Jewish–American Response
For the first time, the Jewish–American community in support of Israel has found itself among a diminishing pool of Americans who shared their views. In response to broad public support for Palestine, Jewish-American groups have unleashed millions of dollars to discredit their opponents. The Jewish–American campaign this time is far more aggressive than I have ever witnessed. For example, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a rightwing lobbying group, has vowed to spend 100 million dollars to defeat the candidates running for Congress who criticize Israel’s military action in Gaza.

Pro-Israel Jewish–American groups, which already have deep support within American media, are paying for ads in major newspapers. For example, The New York Times ran a full-page ad on December 3 titled “An Open Letter to Hamas Apologists”. The ad, sponsored by a group called Israel 365, stated: “Until now, cowards excused their hate by telling us that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.…That gig is up.” The ad goes on to admonish Israel’s critics: “I accuse the world media, who could barely constrain their exuberance in publishing the blood libel of Israeli airstrikes killing 500+ civilians at the Gaza hospital only to be disproved by inconvenient facts, of malpractice of the highest order for their ‘facts’ on the Hamas Ministry of Health.”

In addition, the same groups are threatening to withdraw donations from universities that allow pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses; blacklists have been drafted with names of students who participate in the demonstrations, either to ensure they could no longer get jobs or that the jobs they had been offered are rescinded. Professors on campuses who dare to defend Palestinians or criticize Israel are called out and demands are made for their removal. Furthermore, all opponents are labeled anti-Semites, or worse, Nazis. In short, the weaponization of the Holocaust is in full operation.

Campus Free Speech Under Israeli Occupation?
University campuses have become the battleground for debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; for some students, it seems as though they are living in “Israeli-occupied universities”. College campuses are the focus of Jewish-American ire. Professors, especially those who teach courses on the Middle East, are practicing self-censorship, according to a poll conducted by University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami.

Demands are being made for the dismissal of presidents of Ivy League schools who do not completely restrict speech on college campuses regarding criticism of Israel. During a hearing before the U.S. Congress in December, the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania refused to explicitly say that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate the universities’ codes of conduct. The three said it would depend upon the context in which the statement was made. The presidents were unable to assure critics that campus free speech rules do not allow for explicit calls for violence but do make room for political statements, no matter how disturbing they might be.

The pro-Israeli American–Jewish reaction was swift. The next day the CEOs of top corporations and politicians called for the university presidents’ dismissal from their universities. Pennsylvania’s Jewish governor Josh Shapiro called the University of Pennsylvania’s president’s remarks “shameful”.

A few days later, the president of the University of Pennsylvania and the chairman of the university’s board of trustees were forced to resign. Never mind that the Supreme Court has already ruled that such speech is protected unless there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship between hate speech and violence in a particular incident. In other words, saying aloud that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians or calling for genocide against Jews is protected unless a clear connection can be made between the speech and a violent act. It is unfortunate that the presidents did not make this point during their testimony before Congress. Harvard’s first female black president, Claudine Gay, survived an emergency meeting of the university’s governing board. After two days of intense deliberations in response to her testimony before Congress, the board said it supported her and remained confident in her abilities to lead Harvard. However, during the weeks that followed the board’s decision, powerful Jewish donors who fund Harvard continued their intense campaign against her. On January 2, she wrote that she could no longer stand the pressure—including criticism of her academic research and even threats to her life—and she resigned as Harvard president.

A columnist for the Guardian, Moustafa Bayoumi, eloquently noted that the presidents were victims of a trap. He wrote: “The American university is, by tradition and design, precisely where abhorrent ideas can be uttered. So if someone had called for the genocide of Jews, which they haven’t, that would be extremely disturbing but still protected speech.”

The more neutral argument made about what speech should be allowed on American college campuses focuses on the question of whether universities have become too politicized, leaving behind the traditional mission of education. For those who agree with that statement, political debates have no place on campuses. However, over the last half-century, student protests against the war in Vietnam, the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran—when Iranian students demonstrated against the clerical takeover of Iran—and the U.S. invasion of Iraq have turned campuses into fora of debate and protest. In more recent years, the politicization of campuses has accelerated, as groups such as the AIPAC have used their vast funds to influence political debates, which professors should be hired, and which curricula should be taught.

Responding to Jewish pressure, some campuses, including George Washington University in Washington D.C., have banned the group National Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a network that was founded in Berkeley, California with chapters across the United States. Free speech advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argue the ban is an infringement on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and lawsuits have been filed in response. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis accused SJP activists of being in league with Hamas, and a state official ordered the “deactivation” of chapters at two state schools.

Pro-Israeli American–Jewish groups have also condemned more liberal Jewish groups for supporting the Palestinians. A campaign was launched against Jewish Voice for Peace, a group that has joined forces with Arab and Muslim groups and claims 300,000 members. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a conservative and well-funded Jewish advocacy group, condemns the Jewish Voice for Peace as a “radical anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activist group that advocates for the boycott of Israel and eradication of Zionism”. ADL has pressured university administrators to ban its presence from university campuses and some have complied, prompting free speech legal experts to say the action is unconstitutional.

There is no middle ground when it comes to views about Israel’s war against the Palestinians. For those in the growing chorus of Americans pressing Biden to demand a ceasefire (even though he has little leverage over the Israeli government at this point), nothing short of ending the war will satisfy them. For many Jewish–Americans and their powerful allies in the Congress and the media, any mention of sympathy for the 30,000 Palestinians (at the time of this writing) who have been slaughtered is an act of betrayal against Israel.

Shifting Tides in U.S. Politics
The polarization of opinion that has developed among Americans over Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians is likely to have an effect for years to come. The pro-Palestinian coalition is likely to expand, particularly within a younger generation of Americans who are concerned about human rights around the world, and support for the traditional Jewish position is likely to continue shrinking. Jewish groups may soon discover that the millions of dollars they have used to manipulate American public opinion about the Israeli occupation only has an effect on Congress. As a result, they will find it more difficult to reconcile with how their taxpayer money is invested. Pro-Israeli American-Jewish activists admit as much, now that the tide is turning against them. Already, the hate crimes against Jews have increased 59 percent since last year, at least according to the conservative Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation League. Conflating what it is to be a Jew in America with unconditional support for Israel—long the objective of the pro-Israel lobby—is now having some serious ramifications.

Biden’s pro-Israel stance—the greatest from any U.S. president in recent history—could cost him his reelection in 2024, even though he is cynically relying on two assumptions: American voters will forget about the horror in Gaza by November; and those who do not, will decide Biden is still a better alternative to Trump. Not only will he likely lose states such as Michigan, which has large Arab and Muslim voters, but advocates of human rights in other swing states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, have vowed to actively work to defeat him by boycotting the election. In this way, the outrage over the Biden administration’s policies on Israel and the Palestinians is overshadowing fears over the prospect of a second Trump term in the White House. That says a lot about the shifts in public opinion. And it is not only Biden who is motivating human rights advocates to vote against him in 2024: Vice President Kamala Harris, whose roots in India have made her a symbol of ethnic diversity, is perceived as hypocritical. While she ran on a platform for the need for brown and black power and against white colonial rule, in office she has done little to advance these goals and has fallen far short of defending the lives of Palestinians, who presumably would be included in her campaign pledge to help minorities. Thus, she is of little use to those who were enthusiastic about her election as vice-president in 2020.

This scenario is indeed full of gloom. But the upside is that, perhaps for the first time, Arabs and Muslims in the United States have broad support within society and are viewed not as a problem but as champions for being on the right side of history. Unfortunately, this will not end the horrific tragedy now unfolding in Gaza or save the Palestinians there from more Israeli brutality.