French MEP Rima Hassan appears at Paris criminal court on charges of glorifying terrorism online. Abdul Saboor/Reuters
‘The trial of the century for freedom of expression.’
For the last three years, Rima Hassan has watched in horror as thousands of people have been killed in her family’s homeland. The French jurist and La France Insoumise (LFI) MEP, who was born stateless in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, is one of France’s most outspoken critics of both Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the complicity of Europe’s governments.
Now, she could be sent to prison over a post on social media.
In March, Hassan posted a quotation on X/Twitter attributed to Kōzō Okamoto, a member of the Japanese Red Army who took part in a 1972 attack on an Israeli airport in which 26 people were killed.
“I gave my youth to the Palestinian cause,” Okamoto’s quotation read. “As long as there is oppression, resistance will not only be a right, but a duty.”
Far-right National Rally politician Matthias Renault, interior minister Laurent Nuñez and two French pro-Israel lobby groups reported Hassan to prosecutors for apologie du terrorisme (the glorification of terrorism) – a criminal offence. Hassan denied the charges and said her main goal had been to share a quotation about the “philosophy of resistance”, and that she couldn’t be accused of glorifying terrorism for doing so.
Hassan’s trial began on 19 October. If found guilty, she could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison and fined €100,000 under French law. Her situation, she said, is the latest in a series of legal and political battles in France over solidarity with Palestine.
“People who stand in solidarity with Palestine are labelled as terrorists because it [this label] is the only instrument that allows them to silence concrete opposition and activism,” Hassan told Novara Media ahead of her trial.
This isn’t the first time the French state has brought the full force of its institutional machinery against Hassan. 22 legal proceedings have been initiated against her in the last two years in connection with her political views (six have been closed by prosecutors without questioning, 13 after questioning and three remain open). In September, a separate trial in relation to two social media posts from 2025 was adjourned.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel. New Labour UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues Labour party policy of active support and complicity in Israel’s genocide.
Throughout history, almost every national liberation struggle has been labelled “terrorism” by the powers exercising colonial rule or foreign occupation. This strategy is nothing new.
The British Empire branded IRA fighters in Ireland and EOKA guerrillas in Cyprus as terrorists. France portrayed Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN) as a criminal organisation. The same happened to the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) in Namibia, and even Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC).
History, however, vindicated these movements and condemned the colonial regimes that sought to perpetuate their domination.
This pattern reveals a constant: those who occupy a territory seek to strip the occupied people of any legitimacy to resist.
The dehumanisation of resistance is a colonial strategy. By labelling every resistance fighter a “terrorist”, attention is shifted away from illegal occupation, apartheid and the denial of self-determination, and redirected towards the reaction of the occupied people.
This narrative, however, encounters clear limits within international law itself.
From the United Nations Charter to Resolution 1514 (XV) on decolonisation and Resolution 2625 (XXV), which reaffirms the principle of peoples’ self-determination, the understanding has been consolidated that peoples subjected to colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes have the right to struggle for their liberation.
Several subsequent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly recognised the legitimacy of national liberation movements and acknowledged that such resistance may take the form of armed struggle, provided that it remains subject to the rules of international humanitarian law.
This is precisely why the international community has never automatically equated national liberation movements with terrorist organisations.
International humanitarian law regulates the manner in which armed conflicts must be conducted and imposes obligations on all belligerents, including resistance movements.
However, it does not eliminate the political and legal right of a people to resist occupation. Confusing these two dimensions serves only the interests of occupying powers, because it transforms a conflict of a political and legal nature into a mere policing matter.
The history of the so-called “State of Israel” itself exposes this contradiction.
Before 1948, Irgun and Lehi were regarded as terrorist organisations by the British government because of attacks such as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the assassination of UN mediator Folke Bernadotte.
Years later, their leaders reached the highest levels of government, and Menachem Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize. This demonstrates that the label “terrorist” often reflects political circumstances more than any permanent legal definition.
In the contemporary context, this debate remains highly relevant. Palestine continues to be recognised by the United Nations as a territory under occupation, while Western Sahara remains on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, awaiting the fulfilment of its people’s right to self-determination.
In this context, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which emerged during the First Intifada, and the Polisario Front, recognised by the United Nations as the representative of the Sahrawi people in the Western Sahara peace process, belong to the historical tradition of national liberation movements.
As with South Africa’s ANC, Algeria’s FLN, Namibia’s SWAPO, Mozambique’s FRELIMO and many other movements, both base their struggle on their peoples’ claim to the right of self-determination in the face of occupation or foreign domination.
This does not mean that every military action carried out by resistance organisations is automatically legitimate under international law.
The rules of international humanitarian law apply to all parties to a conflict and prohibit deliberate attacks against civilians, regardless of the cause being defended.
However, possible violations of these rules do not, in themselves, invalidate the legal legitimacy of the struggle for self-determination, nor do they automatically transform a national liberation movement into a terrorist organisation under international law. These are distinct questions, frequently conflated for political convenience.
There is no colonialism without resistance. There never has been.
The French Resistance against Nazi occupation, Vietnamese guerrillas, Algerian fighters, South Africans who confronted apartheid, African liberation movements, the Polisario Front and the Palestinian resistance all demonstrate that no people will indefinitely accept the loss of their land, sovereignty and dignity.
The real question, therefore, is not why resistance exists.
The question the world should be asking is why military occupations, colonial processes and regimes that deny entire peoples the right to determine their own destiny continue to exist.
As long as there is colonisation, apartheid, illegal annexation and denial of self-determination, there will be armed resistance movements.
And international law, despite political pressure and attempts to criminalise liberation movements, continues to uphold the fundamental principle that the freedom of peoples is not an act of terrorism, but a fundamental right of humanity.
Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says Sundown Syndrome is a dead givaway and he wishes someone would Lock Him Up
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A screen grab from a video shows Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem in Beirut, Lebanon on October 30, 2024. [Stringer – Anadolu Agency]
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said on Wednesday that the resistance had succeeded in “thwarting the Greater Israel project” and protecting what he described as Lebanon’s existence from plans of “extermination and displacement”.
In a recorded speech, Qassem said that the basis of any negotiations with Israel should be “mutual security”, reiterating the group’s firm rejection of any proposal to disarm Hezbollah. He described such proposals as an “Israeli prescription” that would not be accepted.
He called on the Lebanese authorities and political forces to engage in internal dialogue to organise national affairs away from external dictates or any direct negotiations, stressing Hezbollah’s readiness to cooperate on efforts to protect Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Discussing the conflict, Qassem said developments since 1948 reflected what he described as Israeli expansionist ambitions, which he said reached their peak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement of what he called the “Greater Israel” project.
He added that the issue was not about future intentions but rather “an ongoing aggression and continuous crimes against civilians”, claiming that women and children were being targeted under international cover.
Qassem said the Israeli project aimed to eliminate Hezbollah militarily, culturally and socially, arguing that this would amount to “the destruction of a large segment of Lebanese society”. He added: “We are not fighting only for land, but in defence of our existence and our future.”
He also reviewed what he described as the resistance’s achievements against Israeli occupation, saying they had helped prevent Israel from achieving stability or expanding its influence in the region.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says Sundown Syndrome is a dead givaway and he wishes someone would Lock Him Up
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Protesters march through downtown Chicago during an “Emergency Protest” on April 8, 2026 in Chicago, Illinois, United States. [Jacek Boczarski – Anadolu Agency]
In the Middle East, the perception of ordinary Americans has long followed a familiar script: detached, uninformed, inward-looking, and politically shallow— a society of ‘gas guzzlers’, with little grasp of global realities beyond their immediate geography.
This perception did not emerge from thin air. It was cultivated—reinforced, even—by American political and media institutions themselves. Politicians claimed to speak on behalf of ‘the American people’, while mainstream media shaped what those people knew, and, crucially, what they did not know.
For decades, Americans overwhelmingly aligned with Israel. This was not merely ideological; it was instructional.
The public was told—repeatedly—that Israel reflected ‘American values’: democracy, civility, modernity. Palestinians and Arabs, by contrast, were framed as perpetual antagonists, initiators of violence, and ‘obstacles to peace’.
Some Americans embraced this framing on religious or ideological grounds. But for the majority, the pro-Israel position became a default—an inherited conclusion rooted in limited access to alternative information. Israel was ‘good’, Arabs were ‘bad’. The narrative was simple, binary, and rarely challenged.
With mainstream media as the primary source of information, this perception hardened over time. Support for Palestine, and for broader Arab causes, remained confined to academic spaces and activist circles—often informed by anti-colonial and anti-imperialist frameworks, but numerically marginal and politically contained.
The mainstream remained locked in place. But that lock has been broken.
The shift did not happen overnight. Among Democrats, cracks began to appear as early as the mid-2010s. In 2016, Gallup data still showed Democrats sympathizing more with Israelis than Palestinians. By 2018, that gap had narrowed. Significantly. By 2021, parity had nearly been reached. And by 2024–2025, Democrats—especially younger voters—were expressing majority sympathy for Palestinians, with some polls showing support exceeding 50 percent among those under 35.
This transformation was driven in part by grassroots activism, particularly within progressive circles, where Palestine became a central moral and political issue. But it was also driven by something far more consequential: the collapse of narrative control.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza accelerated this shift dramatically. Not only because of the scale of violence in the besieged Strip, but because, for the first time, the reality of war was not mediated solely through the filters of corporate media. Independent journalism, social media, and direct visual evidence disrupted decades of curated narratives.
The informational balance—long skewed—began to tip.
At the same time, American trust in mainstream media reached historic lows. According to Gallup, by 2025, only about 31 percent of Americans expressed trust in mass media to report news “fully, accurately, and fairly,” with trust among younger Americans even lower.
Up to this point, one could still argue that the shift remained politically contained: Democrats moving toward Palestine, Republicans remaining firmly aligned with Israel. But then came a rupture.
On February 27, 2026, Gallup released a poll showing that, for the first time in modern polling history, more Americans sympathized with Palestinians than with Israelis—41 percent to 36 percent. This was not a marginal fluctuation. It was a structural break.
That moment should have been seismic. Yet, it was not treated as such. Mainstream media largely buried the story. And within days, the political conversation shifted to a new crisis: the war with Iran.
In the weeks that followed, polling attention moved rapidly to American attitudes toward military escalation. Across multiple surveys, the outcome was consistent: Americans rejected war, and an even greater number rejected the idea of a prolonged military entanglement.
Yet mainstream commentary refused to connect the dots. Palestine was treated as one issue. Iran as another. Venezuela, interventionism, and global militarism as separate, disconnected phenomena. Each was analyzed in isolation, stripped of its broader political and moral context.
Instead of recognizing a pattern, commentators fragmented the evidence. Opposition to war was framed as ‘war fatigue’, or economic anxiety, or partisan resistance to President Donald Trump. The focus was placed on gas prices, electoral calculations, and political polarization—not on the possibility that Americans were making moral judgments independent of elite narratives.
But the pattern is there. And it is unmistakable.
True, Americans are still told what matters—Israel, Iran, energy security, the Strait of Hormuz, etc. The agenda remains largely intact. But the conclusions no longer follow automatically. The chain between attention and consent has been broken.
This is not simply a political shift. It is a cognitive and moral one. Economic concerns and partisan affiliations still shape public opinion, as they always have. But they no longer fully determine it.
Increasingly, Americans are evaluating global events through a moral lens—one that prioritizes civilian suffering, questions power asymmetries, and challenges the legitimacy of endless war.
This is not speculation. It is confirmed by data—most clearly in the case of Palestine, which has emerged as a moral compass for a wider transformation in American public consciousness. The shift in sympathy toward Palestinians is not an isolated anomaly, but a signal of a deeper rethinking of power, justice, and resistance. And it is likely irreversible.
Mainstream media will continue to set the agenda for the foreseeable future. But it has lost something far more important: its ability to manufacture consensus at scale.
That signals possibility. And perhaps, for the first time in generations, a reason for cautious—yet unmistakable—optimism: that ordinary Americans are no longer passive recipients of power, but active participants in shaping a more morally conscious political reality.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Donald Trump calls for help from NATO allies in securing the Straight of Hormuz despite saying on 7 March 2026 that they don’t need people to join wars after they’ve already won. He’s challenged with the claim that he lies as much as the IDF.
IOF soldiers carrying out a raid in Jenin, in January 2025, as part of Operation Iron Wall. Photo: IOF Spokesperson’s Unit
The IOF claims that the extensive military campaign aims to crackdown on new Palestinian armed resistance groups in the making.
After Israel’s 10-month “Iron Wall” operation in the northern governorates of the occupied West Bank had failed to eradicate Palestinian resistance, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) launched yet another extensive military campaign on Wednesday, November 26, targeting the same areas.
The IOF and the Israel Security Agency (known as Shin Bet) said in a joint statement on Wednesday morning, that the new operation aims to prevent emergent Palestinian resistance groups from being established in several areas in the northeast of the West Bank, including Tubas, Tammun, and Aqaba.
According to Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, the intensive military action involves three IOF brigades, forces from the Commando Brigade, Samaria and Menashe regional brigades, Shin Bet agents and Border Police officers.
The Israeli Air Force is also taking part in the operation by carrying out strikes “to isolate and seal off” the targeted areas.
The broad assault expanded to the northern governorate of Jenin on Wednesday night, resulting in the killing of Osama Kameel (20) in Qabatia town.
On Thursday, November 27, the IOF announced that the Israeli Air Force targeted seven sites allegedly used as hideouts by resistance groups in different parts of the West Bank with airstrikes.
Furthermore, over 220 sites were searched, dozens of Palestinians were interrogated and several others were detained.
Citing the Israeli Army Radio, Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported that the Israeli forces assassinated three Palestinian resistance fighters during a raid in the neighborhood of Jabal Abu Dhuhair, in the outskirts of Jenin refugee camp on Thursday. However, the identities of the slain Palestinian men have not been revealed yet.
The operation was preceded by bloody days across the West Bank
Israel’s new wide-scale offensive followed some of the bloodiest days across the West Bank, during which the IOF had murdered a number of Palestinian youths.
On Friday, November 21, Israeli soldiers shot dead Amr Al-Marboua (18), and Sami Mashaikha (16) during a military incursion in the town of Kafr Aqab, north of occupied Jerusalem.
Palestinian police officer Younis Shtayyeh (24) was also killed by the IOF on Friday, in the town of Tell near the northern West Bank city of Nablus.
On Sunday, November 23, Adel Qazzaz (26) succumbed to injuries he sustained after being shot by Israeli troops days earlier in Dura town, in the West Bank southern governorate of Hebron.
That same day saw the killing of Baraa Maali (20) at the hands of the IOF, while he was confronting an attack by illegal Israeli settlers on the village of Deir Jarir northeast of the Ramallah and Al-Bireh governorate, in the central occupied West Bank.
“Resistance is a viable and continuous effort”
The current Israeli military campaign in the northern West Bank marks a crucial development, because it has once again confirmed the determination of the Palestinian people to continue resisting Israel as a fascist occupying power.
Analysts claim that while Netanyahu’s government has relentlessly sought to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict by waging a brutal indefinite multi-front war across West Asia, its goal seems to be far from attainable, as facts on the ground show that the peoples of the region continue to support the path of resistance.
This approach brings to mind the legacy of late Palestinian resistance icon and writer, Basel Al-Araj, who once said: “Resistance is a viable and continuous effort”.
Genocide denier and Current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is quoted that he supports Zionism without qualification. He also confirms that UK air force support has been essential in Israel’s mass-murdering genocide. Includes URLs https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmers-100-spy-flights-over-gaza-in-support-of-israel/ and https://youtu.be/O74hZCKKdpAKeir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
