Trump has used government powers to target more than 100 perceived enemies

toggle caption Getty Images/Javier Palma for NPR

When Donald Trump campaigned for president, he promised his followers payback.

“I am your retribution,” he said in 2023.

It was not just campaign rhetoric.

In the first 100 days of his second term, President Trump has moved aggressively to fulfill his promise of retribution against an extraordinary range of individuals and organizations, targeting political opponents, news organizations, former government officials, universities, international student protesters and law firms.

An NPR review has found that the administration is using a vast array of government powers to launch criminal investigations, sweep people into ICE detention, ban companies from receiving federal contracts, revoke security clearances and fire employees.

Sponsor Message

Consider just one week in April.

On Wednesday, April 9, Trump ordered criminal probes into two former Trump administration officials, saying one was “guilty of treason” — a crime, Trump has noted, that is punishable by death. That same day, he signed an order targeting a law firm for alleged “election misconduct.”

The next day, Thursday, Trump’s former personal attorney, who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, announced criminal investigations into the state’s Democratic governor and attorney general over immigration policies.

That Friday, his administration sent a series of sweeping demands to Harvard University, including an end to diversity programs, audits to ensure “viewpoint diversity” and bans on certain student groups.

This agenda of retribution has defined the early days of the second Trump administration.

The list of targets now exceeds 100, according to NPR’s review, ranging from some of the United States’ most prominent Democratic politicians to international students who were unknown to the general public. The FBI’s arrest last week of a Wisconsin judge for allegedly obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement has raised additional concerns that the administration may also be targeting members of the judiciary. While discussing the case on Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi described some judges as “deranged” and added “no one is above the law.”

Sponsor Message

Trump has enlisted a wide spectrum of major and minor government agencies in his retaliation campaign. Among those agencies, NPR has found, are the departments of Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, Education, and Health and Human Services, along with the IRS, the General Services Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and even the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

At the same time, Trump has continued to pursue personal lawsuits aimed at imposing financial penalties on companies and news organizations that have angered him.

Some of the president’s allies argue that his actions mark the end of what they call the “weaponization” of law enforcement that began under President Joe Biden.

“We now see no political prosecutions, no sham indictments, no fake grand jury proceedings, but instead a way of looking at the Department of Justice in terms of restoration and ensuring that the rule of law will be carried out going forward,” said John Lauro, who served as Trump’s personal defense lawyer, at an event moderated by the conservative Federalist Society.

Others in Trump’s orbit have praised the crackdown — and urged the administration to go further.

“We are approaching 100 days of the new admin and nobody has gone to jail yet,” lamented Laura Loomer, a far-right activist who has informally advised Trump both during the campaign and in office.

Chilling effects and legal battles

In the face of these threats, some media organizations, law firms and universities have chosen to comply with the Trump administration’s demands.

However, when Trump’s targets have pushed back in court, judges have frequently sided with them, blocking Trump administration actions on constitutional or legal grounds.

“The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power,” said federal Judge Loren AliKhan, who blocked the Trump administration from implementing an executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey.

Sponsor Message

Despite these judicial rebukes, the targets of Trump’s actions say they still face dire consequences, including the loss of income and detention in ICE facilities. Others are dealing with the stress, fear and expense of defending against federal investigations. Many who have clashed with Trump in the past worry they could be next.

“I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real,” said Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, in a meeting with constituents this month.

Multiple sources declined interview requests from NPR, citing fears that speaking out will put them in greater danger.

“What you see here is just an assault on our most fundamental rights, almost in every single sector,” said Amanda Carpenter, a former top aide to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and a conservative critic of Trump who now works with the nonprofit group Protect Democracy. “You pick the thing that you care about — Donald Trump is working at a very rapid pace to exercise, control and command over that area.”

With Trump asserting total control over the executive branch, his long history of statements attacking his perceived enemies and threatening retribution provides a window into the administration’s motivations. Many of his statements reviewed by NPR suggest motivations based on personal grievances, partisan politics and a desire for payback.

NPR repeatedly asked the White House for an interview for this story. The White House did not respond.

In all, NPR’s review identified seven major groups that the administration has targeted:

Loading…

Some of Trump’s most frequent targets are the people who previously investigated him or his allies.

Investigating the investigators

Loading…

Prior to his return to office, Trump faced four separate criminal prosecutions — one of which led to a conviction in New York on 34 felony counts, which he is appealing. In addition to those criminal prosecutions, he was also subject to civil investigations by the New York attorney general and a congressional inquiry into the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Throughout his 2024 campaign, Trump made no secret of his anger toward the investigators, referring to the officials involved as “career criminals” who “should go to jail.”

Since taking office, the Trump administration has acted on those threats with Justice Department investigations, firings and the revocation of security clearances.

Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, is one of his targets. James’ office successfully sued Trump and his companies for fraud in 2024.

At a rally in 2024, Trump said James “should be arrested and punished accordingly,” echoing earlier social media threats demanding her prosecution.

This month, the Federal Housing Finance Agency sent the Justice Department a memo that said James “appears to have falsified” property records in multiple real estate transactions. The agency asked the Justice Department to consider criminal prosecution. The existence of the criminal referral was first reported by conservative host Laura Ingraham on Fox News.

Sponsor Message

James called the allegations against her “baseless” and “nothing more than a revenge tour.”

Trump responded by posting a segment from the right-wing media outlet Newsmax in which the anchor called James a “sociopath” and said the criminal referral amounted to “karma.”

Some of the Trump administration’s other targets for criminal inquiries include people he has railed against for years for their roles in investigations in his first term.

toggle caption The Washington Post/Getty Images

This month, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, notified Aaron Zelinsky — a former prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe — that he was under investigation. Trump also issued an executive order barring another member of Mueller’s team, Andrew Weissmann, from federal employment and revoking his security clearance.

“I was retaliated against”

The administration has also taken action against prosecutors of the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Those actions follow Trump’s comments on the campaign trail attacking the prosecutors and FBI agents who investigated the Jan. 6 attack, as well as the police officers who defended the Capitol building.

In 2023, Trump reposted a message on social media that “The cops should be charged and the protesters should be freed.”

Sean Brennan, a former assistant U.S. attorney who worked on dozens of Jan. 6 prosecutions, told NPR in an interview that he and his colleagues expected that the Trump administration would likely end any ongoing or future Jan. 6 prosecutions. After all, Trump had referred to the rioters as “patriots,” “political prisoners” and “hostages.”

Trump’s decision to immediately issue mass pardons for Jan. 6 defendants, including the most violent, was a “slap in the face” to the officers who were violently assaulted while defending the Capitol, Brennan told NPR.

Days later, along with more than a dozen other Jan. 6 prosecutors, Brennan received a letter from Martin, who had just become interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Sponsor Message

The letter informed Brennan that he would be fired.

“In very plain language, it says I was terminated for prosecuting Jan. 6 cases, and the letter classifies that as a ‘grave national injustice,'” said Brennan. “I don’t think there’s anything that could be clearer in saying that I was retaliated against for taking actions that were well within the law but that were politically unfavorable to the people in charge.”

toggle caption Zayrha Rodriguez/NPR

Martin was in the crowd of pro-Trump protesters outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and he also served as a defense lawyer and advocate for Jan. 6 defendants.

Now the top prosecutor in Washington, D.C., he has ordered an investigation into how the Justice Department’s “Capitol Siege Section” did its work.

Brennan told NPR that he and his colleagues did nothing wrong.

“I stand by all of the work I did,” he said. “Of course, the threat of investigations are scary, but do I believe that they would actually yield any damning results? Absolutely not.”

This month, Brennan signed a letter along with other Jan. 6 prosecutors calling for a bar investigation into whether Martin’s conduct violates legal ethics.

Martin did not respond to NPR’s requests for comment.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump claimed he was the victim of political persecution by Democrats.

Threats and actions against political opponents

Loading…

“Crooked Joe Biden is a threat to Democracy!” Trump posted on social media last year. “His weaponization of the DOJ against his Political Opponent is so outrageous that even his supporters are saying that it must end, now. Our Country has never seen anything like this before, and hopefully never will!”

Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democrat from California, says that in his first 100 days, Trump has already weaponized the Justice Department to go after his own political opponents, including Garcia himself.

In February, Garcia said on CNN that Democrats needed to fight back against the slashing of government funding by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency.

“What I think is really important, and what the American public wants, is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight,” he said. “This is an actual fight for democracy, for the future of this country.”

toggle caption Mhari Shaw/NPR

In an interview with NPR, Garcia said that “any reasonable person” would recognize that he was speaking metaphorically.

Sponsor Message

“These are figures of speech. We’ve all heard them before,” he said.

Soon after, Garcia received a letter from Martin on official Justice Department letterhead saying that his statement “sounds to some like a threat to Mr. Musk.”

“We take threats against public officials very seriously,” Martin wrote, asking Garcia to “clarify” his comments and respond within one week.

Garcia told NPR that he believes Martin’s intent was clear.

“It was 100% to silence me,” he said. “But also to send a message to other Democrats, other elected officials, other leaders, that if you dare stand up to Elon Musk and actually take him on, that you can expect that the DOJ will be weaponized against you.”

Garcia did not formally respond and has had no further communication with Martin’s office.

He wasn’t alone: Martin sent similar letters to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, regarding criticism Schumer leveled against conservative Supreme Court justices, and to Democratic Rep. Eugene Vindman of Virginia, asking for a “clarification” about his financial disclosures. Vindman, who served in the Trump administration, had provided evidence that helped lead to Trump’s first impeachment. An inspector general investigation found that the first Trump administration retaliated against Vindman.

Although no concrete action appears to have come from Martin’s letters yet, Garcia said the implications are clear.

“If a member of Congress can be intimidated by the acting U.S. attorney or the Department of Justice, I mean, what’s to stop them from going after any other American?” Garcia said.

Other prominent Democrats and former officials in the Biden administration have also faced direct threats and actions from the Trump administration.

Trump revoked the security clearances of his Democratic opponents in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 presidential races — former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris — blocking their access to classified information. He also ordered an investigation into ActBlue, a fundraising platform for Democrats and left-leaning causes, and called it an “ILLEGAL SCAM” on social media.

Sponsor Message

On his first day in office, Trump revoked the security clearances of dozens of officials who had signed a 2020 open letter questioning the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In March, Trump also announced that Hunter Biden and Ashley Biden, the former president’s daughter, would lose protection from the U.S. Secret Service.

“Disloyal” former officials

Loading…

Trump demands loyalty from those who work in his administration, and he has said that the biggest mistake of his first term in office was picking “bad” and “disloyal people” for key positions.

Now, more than 10 former officials from his first administration are facing actions including criminal investigation, the loss of government security details and the revocation of security clearances.

Chris Krebs, appointed by Trump in 2018 as the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, was fired in 2020 after contradicting Trump’s false claims of election fraud and debunking election-related conspiracy theories.

This month, in the Oval Office, Trump referred to Krebs as a “wise guy,” a “fraud” and a “bad guy.”

He then signed a memo revoking Krebs’ security clearance and directing both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to open investigations into him.

toggle caption Greg Nas/Pool/Getty Images

“So we’ll find out whether or not it was a safe election,” Trump said as he signed the order. “And if it wasn’t, he’s got a big price to pay.”

In response, Krebs resigned from his position with the cybersecurity firm SentinelOne to focus on defending himself from the investigation. Krebs told The Wall Street Journal that Trump’s action amounted to “the government pulling its levers to punish dissent.”

Miles Taylor, who served in multiple roles at the Department of Homeland Security during the first Trump administration, anonymously wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in 2018 in which he accused Trump of “erratic behavior” and said his leadership style was “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” Trump railed against The New York Times for publishing the essay and, on the day it was published, posted on Twitter, “TREASON?” Taylor revealed himself as the op-ed’s author just before the 2020 presidential election.

Sponsor Message

Trump has now ordered the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to investigate Taylor.

“I think he’s guilty of treason,” Trump said as he signed the memo targeting Taylor.

“Dissent isn’t unlawful,” Taylor posted on social media in response to Trump’s order. “It certainly isn’t treasonous. America is headed down a dark path.”

Trump has also stripped government protection from Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was a leader in the U.S. government’s COVID-19 response, and former national security adviser John Bolton, both of whom have faced credible threats. Trump dismissed safety concerns, saying, “They all made a lot of money. They can hire their own security too.”

The Defense Department has also opened an investigation into retired Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom Trump has accused of treason.

A crackdown on student protests

Loading…

Since March, the Trump administration has moved to arrest and deport international students for participating in protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. The White House has not accused them of crimes but argues their actions were antisemitic, disruptive and harmed U.S. foreign policy.

The policy is in line with Trump’s long-standing threats against protesters. He has said that critics of conservative Supreme Court justices “should be put in jail” and that people who burn the American flag “should get a one-year jail sentence.” During Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, Trump posted on Twitter, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

In 2023, amid rising campus protests against Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas-led militants, Trump pledged: “we will revoke the student visas of radical, anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at our colleges and universities, and we will send them straight back home.”

The administration now defends its policy to deport protesters, whether they’re on student visas or are lawful permanent residents.

Sponsor Message

“This is not fundamentally about free speech,” Vice President Vance told Fox News. “Yes, it’s about national security, but it’s also more importantly about who do we as an American public decide gets to join our national community?”

The students and their attorneys say the government is punishing students for constitutionally protected speech.

The State Department has said it has revoked hundreds of visas for a variety of reasons, and at least seven deportation cases are tied directly to students’ Gaza-related activism.

toggle caption Yuki Iwamura/AP

One of those cases involves Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student with a green card, who played a prominent role in Gaza campus protests.

Khalil, whose wife is a U.S. citizen, was arrested by plainclothes government agents and was sent to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana, which the government’s own inspectors have cited for failing to meet safety standards. Khalil remains in ICE custody while he challenges the government’s effort to deport him.

Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, told NPR’s Morning Edition that her husband’s arrest by plainclothes government agents was “probably the most terrifying thing that’s ever happened to me.”

“Exercising your First Amendment rights is not illegal,” she said. “I think what’s so scary about this and what people need to realize is the fact that you can kidnap someone basically from their home for going to a protest.”

“The universities are the enemy”

Loading…

For years, Trump and Vance have railed against American universities.

“We are going to choke off the money to schools that aid the Marxist assault on our American heritage and on Western civilization itself,” Trump said in 2023. “The days of subsidizing communist indoctrination in our colleges will soon be over.”

Vance gave a 2021 speech titled “The Universities Are the Enemy” and later said that universities had mainstreamed what he called “the anti-whiteness movement.”

Now in office, the Trump administration has launched investigations into dozens of universities, citing failures to protect students from antisemitism and alleged civil rights violations related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. The administration has also pulled billions of dollars in funding from universities, and Trump has floated a plan to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status.

Trump himself has made it clear that his goals with the actions against universities go beyond enforcing the law and involve changing campus politics.

In one post on Truth Social, he complained that Harvard had hired “almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots and ‘birdbrains,'” and he specifically criticized the university for hiring two Democratic former mayors to teach.

Sponsor Message

“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?'” he wrote in another post.

This month, the administration sent a letter to Harvard with sweeping demands, including a third-party audit to ensure “viewpoint diversity in admissions and hiring,” a government-supervised review of Harvard programs for “antisemitism or other bias” and a full end to DEI initiatives. Harvard rejected the demands, calling them a violation of academic freedom and the First Amendment.

toggle caption Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

“The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” attorneys for the university wrote in a letter to the administration. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”

The Trump administration responded to Harvard’s defiance by freezing more than $2.2 billion in government funding to the university. The majority of the government funding that Harvard receives goes toward hospitals and medical research.

The university has filed a lawsuit against the government alleging constitutional violations.

Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University have also faced hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to federal support. Columbia, for its part, agreed to some policy demands by the Trump administration, including an overhaul of its Middle East studies programs and an “expansion of intellectual diversity among faculty.” Columbia’s acting president later said in a statement, “We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire.”

The campaign has extended beyond funding. Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, wrote to Georgetown Law, denouncing its DEI programs as “unacceptable.” He said his office would not consider job applicants from institutions that “teach and utilize DEI.”

The dean of Georgetown Law, William Treanor, called Martin’s demands unconstitutional. “The First Amendment protects a university’s right to determine its own curriculum,” he wrote. “We expect all Georgetown-affiliated candidates will continue to receive full and fair consideration.”

“Sleazeball” lawyers and law firms

Loading…

Mark Zaid has worked as a national security lawyer in Washington, D.C., for about three decades, representing clients from agencies like the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency.

“I’m an employment lawyer — I just happen to represent spies,” Zaid told NPR.

Few lawyers do what Zaid does, in part because it requires a security clearance.

Zaid said he first received a clearance about 25 years ago, and it was regularly renewed, including during Trump’s first term.

“I had what’s called TS/SCI — top secret/sensitive compartmented information — which is the highest clearance level,” he said.

Then Zaid found himself on the opposite side of Trump.

In 2019, Zaid began representing a whistleblower in the Trump administration who raised concerns about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — a call that ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Trump railed against the impeachment, the whistleblower and Zaid himself, calling him a “sleazeball.” He posted on Twitter that Zaid “should be investigared [sic] for fraud!”

In March 2025, Trump revoked Zaid’s security clearance.

“My clearance was revoked without any due process, without any notification of why my clearance was revoked,” Zaid told NPR.

toggle caption Mhari Shaw/NPR

He said that losing his security clearance “stops my ability from representing any number of clients,” and that he plans to challenge the administration’s action.

“It is pretty wild to think that the most powerful people in the world are targeting you,” Zaid said, “because all you’re doing is trying to make sure they abide by the rule of law.”

In addition to Zaid, the Trump administration has targeted more than two dozen major law firms, revoking security clearances, banning access to federal buildings, terminating government contracts and initiating investigations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“We have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after because they were very dishonest people,” Trump told Fox News in March. “They were very, very dishonest.”

Multiple firms have said that Trump’s actions would destroy their business and potentially force them to close.

The president of the American Bar Association, William R. Bay, told NPR in March that Trump’s motivation was clear.

“Lawyers or law firms are being targeted for suing the government or representing someone the government does not like,” said Bay, who called the administration’s actions “troubling.” Since that interview, the Justice Department staff has been barred from attending American Bar Association events.

Trump’s written orders targeting law firms cite specific clients and causes he opposes.

Trump’s order targeting Covington & Burling cites its work for former special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two federal indictments against Trump, which were dismissed after the 2024 election. (Trump has repeatedly said Smith should himself be prosecuted.) The order against Perkins Coie mentions ties to Hillary Clinton and the liberal philanthropist George Soros. And the order against Susman Godfrey claims the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections,” likely referring to its representation of Dominion Voting Systems in defamation lawsuits against Trump allies.

Law firms have responded in different ways to Trump’s actions.

Four firms sued the administration, alleging constitutional violations — and judges sided with all four, blocking enforcement of the orders.

“The government has sought to use its immense power to dictate the positions that law firms may and may not take,” said Judge AliKhan in a hearing regarding the case brought by Susman Godfrey. “The executive order seeks to control who law firms are allowed to represent. And this immensely oppressive power threatens the very foundation of legal representation in our country.”

But nine other law firms struck deals with the Trump administration. In exchange for avoiding retaliation, they pledged to provide millions of dollars in pro bono work to causes backed by Trump, along with ending firm DEI efforts.

Paul Weiss was the first law firm to sign an agreement with Trump.

“It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration,” the chairman of Paul Weiss, Brad Karp, said in a firm-wide email. Many lawyers and legal experts have criticized the firms that decided to strike agreements with the administration, arguing such deals undermine legal independence and checks on Trump’s power.

“I think that his goal here is to kneecap effective pro bono representation and public interest representation challenging him,” said Rachel Cohen, an attorney who resigned from one of the firms that made a deal with Trump — Skadden, Arps.

AliKhan said in court that she wished firms “were not capitulating as readily” to the administration.

“Law firms across the country are entering into agreements with the government out of fear that they will be targeted next,” AliKhan said, “and that coercion is plain and simple.”

“The enemy of the people”

Loading…

Trump’s hostility toward the news media has been a defining feature of his career in both business and politics. “Much of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people,” he declared in 2018.

During his 2024 campaign, and now in office, he repeatedly called for the Federal Communications Commission to revoke the licenses of broadcasters whose coverage he disliked. He also said journalists who refuse to reveal confidential sources should be jailed.

And in one social media post from 2023, Trump said his administration would go after the liberal cable network MSNBC and other outlets for what he called “dishonest reporting.”

“When I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” he wrote. “The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!”

In his first 100 days, the Trump administration has used government powers to investigate or punish at least a dozen media organizations. He has also pursued personal lawsuits against several outlets.

The Federal Communications Commission under Trump-appointed Chairman Brendan Carr has announced investigations into CBS, ABC, Comcast (which owns MSNBC), PBS and NPR. Carr also announced on Fox News that he was investigating KCBS-AM, a San Francisco radio station, for its live reporting about specific ICE enforcement activity.

The White House has indicated it plans to rescind federal funding for PBS and NPR, accusing them of spreading “radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.'”

At the Defense Department, several news outlets, including NPR, were evicted from their Pentagon workspaces and replaced with predominantly right-leaning media organizations.

The White House banned The Associated Press from access to the Oval Office and certain events after it refused to adopt Trump’s new designation for the Gulf of Mexico, which he renamed “the Gulf of America.” The AP continued using the original name, while acknowledging the change, because Trump’s order applies only to the U.S., and other countries have not recognized the renaming. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that by using “Gulf of Mexico,” the AP was telling “lies.”

toggle caption Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

“We are going to hold those lies accountable,” she said as justification for blocking the AP’s access to certain events.

The AP sued the government, alleging that the White House was violating its First Amendment rights. Federal Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, agreed, ruling the government had retaliated against the AP for protected speech. The administration is appealing.

In his personal capacity, Trump is also suing CBS News over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, and the Iowa-based pollster J. Ann Selzer, whose Iowa survey ahead of the 2024 election showed Harris leading. Although Trump ultimately won the state by more than 13 percentage points, he alleged that Selzer’s poll constituted fraud and “election interference.”

Selzer’s attorneys said that Selzer’s poll is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

“If a claim like this were successful, it would have a tremendous chilling effect on anybody’s ability to report the news or to make estimates of how they think voters might react in a given situation,” said Bob Corn-Revere, the chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is representing Selzer. “If you happen to be wrong, then those who dislike the speech on the other side of the political spectrum, whether it’s left or right, would be able to suppress speech they don’t like.”

Trump’s attorneys in the case did not respond to NPR’s request for an interview.

Corn-Revere told NPR that even though he believes Trump’s lawsuit is frivolous, it still has put a strain on Selzer and sent a message to other media organizations.

“Bottom line,” he said, “it’s all about power.”

This story was edited by Barrie Hardymon. The audio story was produced by Monika Evstatieva. Research by Barbara Van Woerkom; copy editing by Preeti Aroon; photo editing by Emily Bogle; and graphics and design by Connie Hanzhang Jin.

“We are all afraid,” Alaska Republican Senator Liza Murkowski said last week at an event in Anchorage. “I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real,” she explained. Republican politicians are afraid to voice their dissent. Federal employees are afraid of being fired. Immigrants — especially if they are Venezuelan and have tattoos — are afraid of being deported without any due process to their countries (or worse, of being locked up in a maximum security prison in El Salvador). Universities are afraid of having their funding withdrawn. Foreign students are afraid of losing their visas. Law firms are afraid of being punished if they don’t bend. Companies are afraid of maintaining their diversity, equality, and inclusion policies. Benefit recipients are afraid of losing them. The media is afraid of retaliation. Trans people are afraid of being discriminated against….. Another senator, Democrat Cory Booker, recalled a quote from one of America’s Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, the third president: “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Donald Trump is about to complete 100 days of his second term as president of the United States. The Republican returned to the White House with a radical agenda and a long list of enemies. He won the November 5 election over Democrat Kamala Harris with a difference of less than 1.5 percentage points in the popular vote, but a wide lead in the Electoral College. His party won a majority in both houses of Congress. The Supreme Court also has a large conservative majority.

With the experience of his first term and four years ruminating his revenge, once back in power Trump surrounded himself with loyalists and began to govern by decree. His crusade against immigration, the need for revenge, his authoritarian drift, the erosion of ties with allies and a trade war have marked the start of his second term in office.

Donald Trump takes the oath of office last January 20. Chip Somodevilla (via REUTERS)

Trump said on the campaign trail that he would be “dictator” on day one. About to complete 100 days in office, he has barely signed any laws approved by Congress, but rather has issued about 140 executive orders, many of them of dubious constitutionality. With them, he has bent the limits of presidential authority and tested the resistance of the country’s democratic system. His authoritarian drift has brought the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis. His erratic trade policy has crippled the economy and triggered a crisis of global proportions. His imperialist ambitions and his pawing at the geopolitical chessboard have eroded the confidence of his allies in the U.S.

According to a poll published Friday by The New York Times, the adjectives that best define Trump’s first 100 days for voters are chaotic (66%), scary (59%) and exciting (42%). His approval rating of 45%, according to Gallup, is the lowest first quarter approval rating of any president since World War II… except for himself in his first term.

The first 100 days became a standard measure for judging the beginning of a presidency with Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in that period brought forward an ambitious legislative agenda that was part of the New Deal to confront the Great Depression. Since then, conventionally, it is a sort of first examination of the president’s administration.

Trump won the 2024 election by capitalizing on working-class discontent with irregular immigration and inflation. In terms of results, the plunge in the inflow of undocumented immigrants is the biggest success of his first 100 days, although border arrivals had already fallen sharply in the last stretch of Joe Biden’s term.

The Republican has relied on the Mexican’s government collaboration, but, above all, he has deliberately played the fear card. The number of people he has deported thus far is not very different from Biden’s numbers at the beginning of his mandate. But the theatrics behind this administration’s immigration raids and deportations, the president’s xenophobic discourse and the arbitrariness and lack of guarantees to which the deportees are subjected have had a deterrent effect on the arrival of new immigrants. The transfer of over 200 immigrants, mainly Venezuelans, to a maximum security prison in El Salvador in a twisted application of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act is the best example of this. Immigrants have been expelled and locked up without evidence, trial, or safeguards.

Immigrants arrive in El Salvador after being deported by the U.S. SECOM (via REUTERS)

Salvadoran Kilmar Abrego García, deported in what the Trump administration has acknowledged was an “administrative error” since the man had a judicial order prohibiting his expulsion, but who remains imprisoned in El Salvador, has become a symbol of that arbitrariness. Trump, however, has preferred to demonize Abrego García than to make amends for his mistake. A federal judge asserted that the administration is engaging in “willful and intentional disregard” of court orders to facilitate Abrego García’s return. “This isn’t just about one man. The administration’s violation of his constitutional rights is a threat to the rights of all,” said Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who visited Abrego García in El Salvador.

This Friday, the FBI arrested a judge accused by the Department of Justice of obstructing the detention of an immigrant in her courtroom by letting him out through a back door. That this was a politically motivated arrest was made clear by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who threatened judges who protect immigrants: “We will come after you and prosecute you. We will find you.” “This is what fascism looks like,” Senator Van Hollen retorted.

Trump has also pushed the limits of executive power with his trade war. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants the president authority to regulate trade in the face of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad, but the way Trump has used that power is unprecedented. A dozen Democratic states alleged in a lawsuit that he has overreached and violated the Constitution and the law with his tariffs. “National trade policy,” they claimed, “now hinges on the president’s whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority.”

Trump on April 2 as he announced new tariffs. Carlos Barria (REUTERS)

Trump has been changing tariffs from one day to the next, approving them, suspending them, raising them and reducing them, at times simply through a message on social media. On the third “Liberation Day” — the president used the same name for the day he won the election and for the day of his inauguration — he launched a trade war against the entire world without having allies or a clear strategy. As a result, he patches and rectifies his measures every so often, removing tariffs, apparently without understanding the complexity of today’s supply chains or the implications of his measures. The chaos and uncertainty caused by his erratic actions is holding back not only the U.S. economy, but the world economy as well.

The trade war has pitted Washington against Beijing in an arm wrestling match that Trump seems to regret a little: he renounced to respond to the latest Chinese retaliation, reached out for dialogue and is seeking a de-escalation. But it has also strained U.S. relations with its neighbors and allies. In Canada and Europe, especially, distrust towards the first power is spreading, fed by the turnaround in U.S. foreign policy.

Trump has manifested imperialist anxieties, asserting that he will take control of Greenland and the Panama Canal and toying with the idea of annexing Canada. He has questioned his commitment to NATO and has aligned himself with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to end the war in Ukraine with a deal favorable to Moscow. Having said more than 50 times on the campaign trail that he would end the war in 24 hours, the inability to achieve this in his first 100 days is particularly frustrating to him. He has also failed to stop the war in Gaza.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Donald Trump on February 28 at the White House. Brian Snyder (REUTERS)

Just as his economic policy is symbolized by his photo with the tariff poster, the defining moments of his foreign policy are his contempt for the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in the Oval Office, and the press conference he gave with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he launched his crazy idea of expelling the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip so that the U.S. could take control of the territory and convert it into a real estate development overlooking the sea.

Musk’s chaos

Another unusual image left by these 100 days is that of Elon Musk with his son X on his shoulders in the Oval Office. The world’s richest man has helped make “chaotic” a defining adjective of the administration thus far. Musk and his lackeys took the federal government by storm as if it were a Silicon Valley startup. The cuts and layoffs of tens of thousands of civil servants, often without any criteria whatsoever, have made him a hated figure halfway around the world.

After his cars were boycotted and Tesla’s profits plummeted, Musk decided to step aside from his governmental duties. As a semi-farewell gift, the Trump administration committed to easing regulation of autonomous driving. Tesla shares rose 10% and Musk’s fortune increased by $18 billion the Friday after the announcement.

The Trump administration, full of billionaires, does not seem to understand the concept of conflict of interest. The president himself has offered to receive at the White House and invite to a “private and intimate dinner” those who invest the most in his memecoin, the $TRUMP, which soared with the announcement, enriching Trump. Days earlier, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shared behind closed doors with bankers and investors that tariffs on China were not sustainable and Wall Street soared.

With the Democratic Party still in a state of shock, pockets of resistance have emerged against Trump’s abuses and arbitrariness. Two of them stand out above the rest: the judges, especially on immigration, and the financial markets, which have put a stop to his economic nonsense, forcing the president to partially back down on tariffs and to bury his desires to oust Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

The countdown to the end of Trump’s second term still marks 1,363 days, but the president has fantasized several times about running for a third term, which is prohibited by the Constitution. His online store sells Trump 2028 caps for $50, but asks for patience for deliveries “due to high demand.”

Despite the frenetic activity at the start of his second term, Trump has found time to become the first president to attend the Super Bowl and the Daytona 500 Miles. He has also attended several wrestling tournaments. In addition, according to the trumpgolftrack.com website, he has golfed 24 of his first 100 days.

Contemporary Peace Research and Practice Report No.207

This report asserts that the crisis in Gaza requires building new coalitions and alliances between global protests in support of Palestinian liberation and mass protests by Israelis against their rogue leaders, who ignore international law and align with antisemites in Western countries. Activists around the world rightly celebrate that, at long last, Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire. But more work is necessary to achieve a political settlement that could prevent the mass annexation of Palestinian land, address the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and prevent further violence. This paper offers six tactics to shift power away from extremists and overcome barriers to forming coalitions that build on shared goals for safety, dignity, and justice.

Contents

Activists around the world rightly celebrate that, at long last, Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire. But more work is necessary to achieve a political settlement that could prevent the mass annexation of Palestinian land, address the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and prevent further violence. This paper offers six tactics to shift power away from extremists and overcome barriers to forming coalitions that build on shared goals for safety, dignity, and justice.

Both Palestinians and Jewish Israelis report feeling less safe today than a year ago, signalling a “lose-lose outcome” after a year of brutal violence disproportionately affecting Palestinians.[1] People across the divides are trapped in systems and narratives that prevent them from seeing each other as allies. The 2024 US election and the subsequent Trump appointment of Mike Huckabee emboldens right-wing Israeli leaders who have repeatedly called for genocide in Gaza[2] and the mass annexation of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanon territory to establish what they call a “Greater Israel.”[3] This is a critical moment to take stock of what has and has not worked to help “win coexistence” where Jews and Palestinians have the right to exist peacefully and as equals.

Pro-Palestinian protests have taken place at over 500 U.S. public and private schools since October 7, 2023, demanding a ceasefire.[4] Since 2005, Palestinians and their allies have promoted the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which targets companies, institutions, and cultural entities complicit in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. BDS has broadened public support for Palestinians.[5] However, neither protests nor BDS tactics have slowed Israeli violence, home demolitions, or the annexation of Palestinian land in the ongoing Nakba.

Today, it takes a vivid imagination to visualize a political process to address the root causes of violence stemming back at least 130 years between Jews and Palestinians. More than a year ago, I proposed a broader peace plan to protect civilians, address trauma, invest in democracy, and dismantle both Hamas and the Israeli occupation of Palestine to stop the cycle of violence.[6] Israeli and US leaders did the exact opposite by escalating attacks on civilians, increasing mass trauma, undermining democracy, and expanding occupation.

A broader set of nonviolent strategies and coalitions is necessary for a movement that can offer a win-win solution for most Palestinians and Israelis. This paper asserts that the crisis requires building new coalitions and alliances between global protests in support of Palestinian liberation and mass protests by Israelis against their rogue leaders, who ignore international law and align with antisemites in Western countries.

Coalition building has been a cornerstone of successful movements in South Africa, Chile, and Northern Ireland, demonstrating the power of unity in addressing complex, entrenched conflicts. In South Africa, the anti-apartheid movement’s success relied heavily on alliances between diverse groups, including the African National Congress (ANC), trade unions, and international partners, which together amplified resistance against systemic racial segregation and oppression. Similarly, Chile’s transition from Pinochet’s dictatorship was made possible by coalitions like the “Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia,” which united a broad spectrum of political parties to demand democracy and institutional reform. In Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement emerged from inclusive coalition efforts involving political parties across the nationalist and unionist divides, with additional support from civil society groups and international mediators. These coalitions fostered dialogue, leveraged collective strength, and created frameworks for sustained progress, underscoring their critical role in achieving transformative change in diverse contexts.

Drawing on nonviolent strategic frameworks, the paper argues for a synergy of nonviolent coercive and persuasive tactics, using tools like the “spectrum of allies” to tailor specific tactics to distinct audiences. The paper proposes six tactics. The first three coercive tactics shift power away from the opposition which is driving violence. The second three persuasive tactics broaden coalitions by building trust. Each tactic targets specific stakeholders in a “spectrum of allies,” with clear objectives for shifting power and broadening coalitions.

COERCIVE TACTICS TO SHIFT POWER AWAY FROM OPPOSITION Apply $100 US Tax Resistance and a Tourist Boycott to press for tying US military aid to Israel to international human rights law Hold public tribunals as teach-ins on international law and Palestinian sovereignty Engage with Christian Zionists to counter theological justifications for harm to Palestinians PERSUASIVE TACTICS TO BROADEN COALITION Form a “coexistence coalition” with explicit goals for a just peace by using deliberative technologies Offer teach-ins on antisemitism tropes and different versions of Zionism to build trust Use “virtual civilian peacekeeping” pairing Palestinian communities with international witnesses The case for a synergy of coercive and persuasive tactics

Activists press for change with protests and boycotts. Israeli leaders press for change with military force. People use various metaphors to describe how change happens. A hammer bends metal to force change. A dam diverts a river to a new course. The carrot-and-stick metaphor conjures the image of persuading and forcing a donkey to move. Aesop’s tale of the Sun and Wind imagines the wind’s power of coercion and the sun’s power of persuasion to make a traveller shed his cloak. The Wind’s aggressive approach only caused the traveller to hold on tighter, whereas the Sun’s warmth led him to remove it voluntarily. A two-handed approach to social change imagines activists putting one hand up demanding an opponent “Stop abuses!” and one hand out to build coalitions with other groups.[7] This paper asserts that a synergy of coercive tactics to shift power and persuasive tactics to build coalitions helps spark social change.[8]

In their book Why Civil Resistance Works, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan found in their study of over 300 social change movements that they won or failed based on their ability to shift power and form coalitions to increase the number of protesters.[9] Gene Sharp, a prominent theorist of nonviolent resistance, views coercion and persuasion as complementary but distinct strategies. Nonviolent coercive tactics, such as strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and mass protests, force change by disrupting control and shifting power by undermining the economic, political, or social support necessary for waging violence and isolating the opponent. Persuasion can support coercion by building solidarity, garnering sympathy, or influencing external stakeholders.

Figure 1. Curle Diagram

Quaker peace theorist Adam Curle echoes Sharp by insisting that social change occurs through a combination of shifting power and building awareness and relationships across the lines of conflict.[10] Coercive efforts to force change are not enough. Social change movements are most effective with a synergy of coercive strategies to shift power and persuasive strategies that build awareness and relationships. This diagram illustrates how Curle understood the interaction between these two forces of social change. One axis represents movements that shift power by organizing and protesting, while the other axis denotes movements that foster relationships and awareness. Neither strategy succeeds independently; the synergy between both creates opportunities for enduring political solutions.

Past peace processes have failed to bring safety to Jewish Israelis and have severely worsened the daily lives of Palestinians because they have not shifted power. Balanced power is essential to negotiations because it ensures all parties can engage on equal footing, fostering fair and mutually beneficial outcomes. When one side dominates, negotiations risk forcing the weaker party to accept terms that fail to address its core needs or rights. Without power parity, negotiations often reinforce existing inequalities and undermine the legitimacy and sustainability of any agreement.

US foreign policy in Israel and Palestine has been contradictory. The Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act (MEPPA) allocates up to $250 million over five years, starting with $50 million in fiscal year 2021, to promote economic cooperation and peacebuilding programs between Israelis and Palestinians.[11] Simultaneously, the United States provided billions of military aid. Historically, this aid averaged around $3.8 billion annually, as outlined in a memorandum of understanding established during the Obama administration, which extends through 2028.[12] US military aid exacerbates the imbalance of power between Israelis and Palestinians and emboldens Israeli government violence toward Palestinians, removing its motivation for negotiations or political settlement. While US diplomats pushed for a ceasefire, they ironically did not cease their arming of the side inflicting most of the violence.

The “pro-Israel” movement relies on violent coercion and war as a theory of change. However, only 10 and 20% of wars end with military victory. The other 80-90% of wars ended through negotiations. Even when groups reach a ceasefire, they rarely last if power is unequal, and fighting usually returns.[13] After more than a year of war, polls suggest most Israelis perceive that they are worse off today and want the war in Gaza to end.[14] Pro-Israel political leaders successfully used coercive propaganda to paint all protesters trying to end the war as antisemitic supporters of Hamas and terrorism, shaping negative public opinion of all protests.[15] Institutions used this public opposition to justify coercive crackdowns on protests.

The “pro-Palestinian” movements rely primarily on nonviolent coercion in the form of public protest and boycott, divestment, and sanctions. Polls of Gazans over the last year show that a declining majority continue to support Hamas.[16] Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki explains that this does not mean they support violent opposition to Israel but that they share Hamas’ values in strict religious observance and Islamic identity.[17] But in the US, 34% of Americans under 30 supported Hamas’ use of force for resistance to Israel, with 9% supporting Hamas’ massacres of civilians on October 7.[18] ACLED research found that 99% of these protests used nonviolent tactics, including vigils, encampments, and graffiti.[19] Yet some protests did involve offensive chants against Jewish students, threats to “kill Zionists,” and claims that the movement aimed to dismantle the Israeli state, implying the removal of Jews from ‘the river to the sea.'[20] Some protestors condemned such comments, asserting they did not reflect the movement’s views.[21]

Expanding the types of nonviolent tactics and building broader coalitions might enable more effective strategies. The movement to get a ceasefire is strong but also contains internal divisions and does not yet aim to build broader coalitions with Jews critical of Israeli policies and other allies. A broader strategic approach is necessary to shift power and build coalitions.

Seeing beyond the binary

Binary thinking creates a false impression that for Jews to be safe, Palestinians must be unfree, or for Palestinians to be free, Israel must collapse, and Jews must leave. Binary thinking advantages extremists. Activists who prefer a simple “us vs them” frame for their tactics miss out on persuasive tactics that move beyond this binary. Some observers note that the use of the terms “pro-Palestinian” and “pro-Israeli” sets up binary thinking that undermines the reality that the safety and security of Palestinians and Jews are interdependent.[22] Binary thinking creates a sense of “us against them” and “we win, they lose.” Posters and chants at many protests rightly denounced Israeli actions in Gaza, but few mentioned the safety of Jews.

Binary thinking is pervasive in the use of flags, symbols, and naming of the movements as “pro-Israel” or “pro- Palestine.” Binary propaganda on all sides means that, for many Jews and other observers, a protest in support of Palestinians is, by definition, against Jews. However, many protesters are not against Jews or Jewish safety. They voice support only for Palestinians because of the power disparity, as they see Israel dominating Palestinians and see many governments supporting Israel and a few supporting Palestinians. When asked why they do not include protest signs about the release of hostages or Jewish safety, protestors say they do not want to engage in “both-sides-ism” to pretend that the suffering between Israelis and Palestinians is equal when the devastation in Gaza and the home demolitions and violence in the West Bank is not equal to Hamas’ attack on October 7.

All sides have serious doubts about whether they have “a partner for peace” on the other side. Many activists group all Zionists together as opponents. Some who share goals with protestors hesitate to join the movement because propaganda portrays the movement as antisemitic but also the real presence of openly antisemitic chants at protests, even if these are only a minority of those protesters. Some also see protests as anti-Jewish because of the lack of visible support for the safety of Jews in protest signs and chants.

Polls show most Palestinians and most Israelis reject the extremist view that their opponents should be killed or leave the region.[23] Within Palestine, some favour violent revolution and expulsion of all Jews. However, most favour some form of coexistence with Jews. Within Israel and Jewish settlements, some favour the use of extreme violence and the expulsion of all Palestinians. While support declined for coexistence after October 7, historically, most Israelis supported some form of coexistence with Palestinians.[24]

There are not just two groups. As illustrated, there are at least three groups, with those wanting coexistence forming a majority. Building new coalitions requires understanding how binary thinking oversimplifies and ignores important distinctions in stakeholder interests.

Figure 2. Shared Coexistence Goals

A landscape analysis of the “Lose-Lose” outcomes for Palestinians and Israelis

Nonviolent strategic planning begins with a landscape analysis of who is winning and who is losing from the status quo. Palestinians and Israeli Jews do not suffer equally or in the same way and have distinct interests. However, most have a shared interest in resisting the current right-wing Israeli government and in supporting a democratic political framework that enables coexistence, justice, and safety. This landscape analysis summarizes the distinct experiences, which then informs the six strategies proposed later in this paper.

ESCALATING HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

In early 2024, the International Criminal Court ruled that Israel is committing “plausible genocide”[25] based on evidence indicating the intentional targeting of Palestinians to destroy them partially or completely, aligning with the 1948 UN Convention’s definition of genocide. In December 2024, Amnesty International also found wide evidence of genocide, noting, “Israel has repeatedly argued that its actions in Gaza are lawful and can be justified by its military goal to eradicate Hamas. But genocidal intent can co-exist alongside military goals and does not need to be Israel’s sole intent.”[26]

The Israeli government and its allies insist that they are not committing genocide and that this charge is offensive to Jews, given their experience in the Holocaust. But there are over 500 instances of Israeli leaders inciting genocide by justifying extreme violence and using dehumanizing rhetoric.[27] Some Israelis report that the official Israeli strategy in Gaza rewards rather than punishes civilian deaths.[28] Even before the current war in Gaza, the US government accused some Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) units of openly carrying out deliberate attacks on civilians.[29] Israeli veterans report a widespread “disregard among Israeli soldiers for Palestinian lives.”[30] The Washington Post’s investigation into IDF posts on social media with vengeful bragging on their intent to hurt and humiliate Gazans with retaliatory strikes and “conquer, expel and settle” indicates that many soldiers are not in Gaza only to defeat Hamas, but to get revenge on Palestinians, and annex Gaza for Jewish settlement.[31] For Gazans, this means:

A high civilian death toll from bombing in densely populated civilian areas, even those designated as safe zones, including documented allegations of deliberate targeting of non-combatants, including disproportionate numbers of women, children, and elderly individuals. Surveys of 65 American healthcare workers serving in Gaza since October 7, 2023, found that 44 workers reported seeing multiple children daily with single gunshot wounds to the head, indicating direct targeting.[32]

from bombing in densely populated civilian areas, even those designated as safe zones, including documented allegations of deliberate targeting of non-combatants, including disproportionate numbers of women, children, and elderly individuals. Surveys of 65 American healthcare workers serving in Gaza since October 7, 2023, found that 44 workers reported seeing multiple children daily with single gunshot wounds to the head, indicating direct targeting.[32] Blockades restrict food, medical supplies, electricity, and clean water , leading to severe humanitarian crises and allegations of collective punishment and death by starvation for more than 60,000 Gazans.[33]The U.N. warns that “the entire Palestinian population in North Gaza, especially children, is at imminent risk of dying.”[34]

, leading to severe humanitarian crises and allegations of collective punishment and death by starvation for more than 60,000 Gazans.[33]The U.N. warns that “the entire Palestinian population in North Gaza, especially children, is at imminent risk of dying.”[34] Domicide and mass destruction from the destruction of entire neighbourhoods and the deliberate destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, cultural centres, water supplies, and energy infrastructure. This created unliveable conditions for the population of two million Gazans trapped within closed borders.

from the destruction of entire neighbourhoods and the deliberate destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, cultural centres, water supplies, and energy infrastructure. This created unliveable conditions for the population of two million Gazans trapped within closed borders. Suppression of accountability and documentation via attacks on journalists, humanitarian workers, and media offices, with documented cases of targeted strikes on marked press vehicles, media offices, and humanitarian facilities, coupled with restricted access to the region, which critics say obstructs efforts to document and hold perpetrators accountable.[35]

THREATS OF MASS ANNEXATION

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu opposes a two-state solution and argues for a “Greater Israel,” with mass annexation of territory in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon.[36] While Israelis have moved to the right, there is still less than 35% support for annexing Gaza[37] and less than 50% support within Israel for annexation in the West Bank.[38] The US has supported a two-state solution. Still, both Netanyahu and many progressive activists reject this idea. Recent Congressional reports on Israel fail to even mention the Greater Israel plan for mass annexation.[39] Right-wing plans for mass annexation bring the following threats to Palestinians:

Arbitrary arrest, home demolitions, land seizures, and violent pogroms from Jewish settlers and Israeli Defense Forces.

from Jewish settlers and Israeli Defense Forces. The expansion of Jewish settlements and settler violence against Palestinians continues to encroach on Palestinian land, displacing local communities.[40]

continues to encroach on Palestinian land, displacing local communities.[40] Israeli laws and policies that favour settlements continue to be integrated into Israel’s legal framework, such as the “Regularization Law,” which retroactively legalizes settlement outposts built on private Palestinian land. Israeli authorities have declared large swathes of the West Bank as “state land,” confiscating it from Palestinian ownership for settlement expansion or other Israeli uses. Israel is reclassifying areas under Palestinian control (Areas A or B) to Israeli control (Area C).

continue to be integrated into Israel’s legal framework, such as the “Regularization Law,” which retroactively legalizes settlement outposts built on private Palestinian land. Israeli authorities have declared large swathes of the West Bank as “state land,” confiscating it from Palestinian ownership for settlement expansion or other Israeli uses. Israel is reclassifying areas under Palestinian control (Areas A or B) to Israeli control (Area C). An increase in the demolitions of Palestinian homes, schools, olive trees, farms, and infrastructure under the pretext of lacking Israeli-issued permits that are nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain.

under the pretext of lacking Israeli-issued permits that are nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain. An increase in Israeli roadblocks, checkpoints, and military zones severely restricts Palestinian movement. Development of Israeli-only roads and infrastructure connecting settlements directly to Israel, effectively bypassing Palestinian areas and fragmenting the West Bank.

LESS SAFETY, DEMOCRACY, AND SUPPORT FOR ISRAELIS

While many Israelis have been supportive of the goal of destroying Hamas since October 7, only 30% prefer mass violence, while far more support diplomacy when given the option for a robust political approach.[41] Some analysts believe that few Israelis are even aware of what is happening in Gaza or the West Bank since Israeli government propaganda and the banning of media reports on civilian casualties means there is comparatively less coverage than in other countries. Haaretz is the only Israeli newspaper featuring Palestinian news. Haaretz columnist and former Israeli Ambassador Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera “The public is mostly UNAWARE of what happened in Gaza in the last year plus.”[42] Israeli propaganda enables most Israelis to deny genocide based on media reports that justify and minimize IDF violence to civilians and deny reports of mass famine in Gaza. Still, evidence suggests many Israelis are well aware of the dangers and drawbacks of Israeli policy.

Loss of global support as Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) abandons even the appearance of abiding by international law or caring about Israel’s international reputation.[43] Strained relations with allies, including the US, may potentially increase the economic and political challenges for Israelis. In the US, historically Israel’s strongest ally, half of Americans, including nearly 30% of Jewish Americans, believe that Israel has “gone too far”, with more significant majorities fearing a wider regional war.[44]

Increased security threats with increases in the frequency of rocket attacks, violent clashes, and concerns over domestic terrorism directly impact Israeli’s personal safety. IDF incursions in the region escalate calls for vengeance against Israel and contribute to cycles of violence, thus increasing the likelihood of retaliatory attacks.

Mainstreaming of extremist groups [45] over the last thirty years as followers of far-right leader Meir Kahane, once labeled as a terrorist group by both the Israeli and US governments due to its extreme nationalism, expression of Jewish supremacy, and calls for ethnic cleansing.[46]

The erosion of democratic institutions as the Israeli public moved to the right after the Hamas attacks, the rightwing leadership consolidated power, and judicial reforms centralized power in the executive branch, weakening the checks and balances essential for a robust democracy.

Increasing polarization within Israel between secular and religious groups left- and right-wing factions and Jewish and Arab citizens have fueled internal conflicts, leading to large-scale protests and strikes, and creating instability and mistrust in governance.

Restrictions on civil liberties from increased surveillance and crackdowns on dissent, particularly against human rights organizations and activists critical of government policies, with new laws or policies targeting minority groups.

Tailor tactics to specific audiences in your sphere of influence

This landscape analysis illustrates that there are more losers than winners in the war between Israel and Hamas. Nonviolent strategies emphasize the need for SMART goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound, enabling activists to maintain momentum, assess progress, and adapt strategies effectively, thus maximizing their potential for transformative change.[47] An “achievable” goal starts with analyzing diverse stakeholders and an ability to influence them based on your positionality or identities.

Figure 3. Spectrum of Allies for a Just Peace

The “Spectrum of Allies” is a tool to help develop SMART goals for different stakeholders, depending on how much they support the overall goal of a just peace. This tool helps activists develop strategies for each segment to energize active allies, move passive allies and the “moveable middle” to join the movement and take action, and to pacify or defuse the power of active opponents.

The table below identifies different tactics to realistically move each segment just one step to the left using coercive and persuasive tactics can help defuse opponents’ sources of power and narratives, and strengthen a movement’s popular support.

Figure 4. Stakeholder Stance and Tactics

This approach also helps activists reach the groups closest to their sphere of influence. Only Israeli right-wing leaders and Hamas can give activists the ceasefire they want. Activists have almost no direct influence over Hamas or Israel. Western governments also wanted a ceasefire, so protests asking for a ceasefire may not have been as directed or as effective as possible. The rest of this paper explores the six strategies tailored for each stakeholder segment.

1. Apply $100 US tax resistance and a tourist boycott to US arms used against Palestinians

The first tactic focuses on right-wing Israelis and Americans who favour expanding the state of Israel. The tactic seeks to stop the US flow of weapons necessary for the land grabs from Palestinians and neighboring countries.

Since October 7, 2023, the United States has significantly increased its military aid to Israel from a pre- October 7 annual level of $3.4 billion to at least $17.9 billion in direct military assistance in 2024.[48] Biden promised an additional $8 billion in military aid in January 2025.[49] Both Hamas and Israeli forces have violated international law, which requires armed groups to protect civilians and ensure humanitarian access.[50] The US Leahy Law restricts U.S. aid to any nation that violates human rights. Currently, the US exempts Israel from this law through various loopholes. The law would not restrict US military aid to Israel to defend against attacks from Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas. It would, however, ensure that Israel follows the laws of war that apply equally to all countries.

Tying billions in US military aid to Israel’s compliance with international law could shift power away from right- wing Israeli leaders and help to empower leadership capable of making a political agreement to end the war. The US has traditionally refrained from using aid as leverage. Strong domestic support for Israel poses significant political risks for any administration challenging the aid structure. US policymakers view Israel as a crucial ally in the Middle East, counterbalancing regional adversaries such as Iran. These factors have led to consistent and unconditional support for Israel, even amid escalating violence. For decades, US policymakers overlooked indications that right-wing Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, sought a “Greater Israel, ” excluding a Palestinian state. Only recently have some US officials privately acknowledged that unconditional aid helped turn Israel into a rogue state, disregarding ceasefire calls and international law.

With approximately 164 million US taxpayers, approximately $100 for U.S. weapons and military aid to Israel was spent per taxpayer in 2024. If the US continues to arm Israel and violate the Leahy Law, individual US taxpayers could apply tax resistance to signal their protest and raise public awareness. Those funds withheld could be donated to organizations supporting humanitarian assistance to Palestinians or organizations working for a just peace in Palestine and Israel. Since tax resistance can lead to fines or legal action, allies could pool resources for legal defense funds and provide clear information on potential consequences. Allies in other countries could boycott travel to and tourism in the US until US military aid targeting Palestinians ends. A hashtag and swag with “#NotInMyNameUSA” could unite the global movement.

2. Hold public tribunals as teach-ins on international law and Palestinian sovereignty

The second tactic focuses on defusing US public and political support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine and future annexation by those who see Israel as a bastion of democracy in an autocratic region. Organizations supporting coexistence could organize public tribunals to raise awareness of international law violations by Hamas, Israel, and the US regarding civilian protection.

Public tribunals on international law and Palestinian sovereignty could feature victim testimonies, giving a platform to hear directly from affected civilians. Experts could present evidence, assess treaty compliance, and assign responsibility for breaches of laws like the Geneva Conventions. Public tribunals can expose patterns of law violations, such as targeting civilians, destroying infrastructure, settlement expansion, and complicity through military aid or weapons supplies. Activists can collaborate with legal and advocacy groups to amplify their message via public declarations and media. Tribunals could challenge officials and arms manufacturers publicly and advance accountability and justice while deterring future violations. Communities, universities, and religious institutions could host livestream coverage of public tribunals and also host local speakers.

Tribunals could also provide evidence of the need for Palestinian sovereignty and urge more countries to recognize a Palestinian state formally. This would enhance Palestinians’ diplomatic leverage in international negotiations and demonstrate a commitment to coexistence. Recognition affirms the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Recognizing Palestinian statehood would foster goodwill among Arab and Muslim- majority countries while addressing a longstanding grievance that fuels regional instability. Acknowledging a Palestinian state would send a powerful message that many countries commit to the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.[51] The Biden administration has already drawn up plans for such an action.[52] Activists can build public awareness, advocate for Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations, and boost international support for Palestinian civil society and institutions, especially in governance, education, and human rights. This step is crucial for achieving a negotiated settlement.

3. Engage Christian Zionists to counter theological justifications for harms to Palestinians

The third tactic aims to defuse the power and influence of Christian Zionists, who are the backbone of US political support for Israeli annexation of Palestinian land. Christian Zionism is a theological and political movement among some evangelical Christians that considers the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in the Holy Land essential for the Second Coming of Jesus. Despite seemingly supporting Jews and Israel, it is often based on supersessionist theology, viewing Jews as tools for fulfilling biblical prophecy. This ideology positions Jews as a means to an apocalyptic end and undesirable in Christian-majority societies, creating a paradoxical relationship that supports Israeli genocide and annexation against Palestinians. Historically aligned with antisemitic views, Christian Zionism aims to address the “Jewish question” by encouraging Jewish migration to Israel (and onto Palestinian land) thereby reducing the Jewish presence in mainly Christian countries.

Christian Zionism is widespread in the US and affects US policy. Christian Zionist organizations like Christians United for Israel (CUFI) in the United States financially support the growth and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank as well as military force in Gaza. HaYovel, a Christian Zionist group, donated over $3.7 million in nonlethal tactical gear to Israeli settlers on October 7, 2023. Trump’s base is often pro-Israel and antisemitic, a combination that only makes sense if you hate Jews and want them all to live in some other place. Trump supporters often promote the anti-Jewish conspiracy theory known as the “Great Replacement”[53] that asserts that Jews are plotting to flood the US with migrants to displace and outnumber white people. While some organizations, such as the National Council of Churches (NCC) in the United States, have issued statements criticizing Christian Zionism,[54] few activists have begun dialogues between churches embracing and opposed to Christian Zionism. Tactics for shifting power away from Christian Zionist policies and persuading the public to abandon this ideology could include the following:

Hosting theological debates at universities between Christian Zionists and Christians supportive of Israeli-Palestinian coexistence

at universities between Christian Zionists and Christians supportive of Israeli-Palestinian coexistence Hosting Palestinian speakers at community events, inviting Christian Zionist churches,

at community events, inviting Christian Zionist churches, Protesting outside of churches sending money to expand Israeli settlements,

sending money to expand Israeli settlements, Writing letters to the editors of local papers about the negative impact on Palestinians of Christian Zionism’s support of Jewish settlements.

4. Form a “coexistence coalition” with explicit goals for a just peace by using deliberative technologies

The fourth tactic aims to broaden coalitions, a condition for the success of any nonviolent movement, by persuading the “moveable middle” and passive allies who share protestors’ concern for Palestinian lives and critique the negative impact of Israeli policy on their own lives. Inviting the “moveable middle” into a more inclusive movement is necessary to shift power away from far-right Israeli and US leaders.

Currently, there is widespread confusion over what protestors want.[55] Right-wing propagandists and many Jews denounce protestors as antisemitic. Many presume the movement aims to remove all Jews from the region, displacing millions of Jews. While Jewish peace groups such as If Not Now, Standing Together, and Jewish Voice for Peace use inclusive narratives of safety and coexistence for both Palestinians and Israelis, many non-Jewish groups–including many Christian groups in support of Palestinians–rarely mention Jewish safety or coexistence in their goals

This confusion over movement goals undermines the movement’s ability to grow and achieve its goals. While there are real differences and distinctions in levels of power and motivations, both Jews and Palestinians will benefit from a movement in support of coexistence. Centring messaging on coalitions for coexistence might offer a frame that can provide more support.

Activist encampments and actions across the US and other Western countries have focused on the anti-war goal of achieving a ceasefire. However, many have a longer list of goals that include rights and care for Jews, including the following:

Commit to mutual safety and coexistence for all people – including Jews and Palestinians, as well as Druze and Bedouins, living from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

– including Jews and Palestinians, as well as Druze and Bedouins, living from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Withdraw Israeli forces and settlements from Palestinian territory beyond the 1967 Green Line.

from Palestinian territory beyond the 1967 Green Line. Recognize the equal rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel and end discriminatory laws and practices against Palestinians living within Israel’s 1948 borders.

and end discriminatory laws and practices against Palestinians living within Israel’s 1948 borders. Respect the right of return and/or reparations for Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 Arab- Israeli War and subsequent Israeli occupations to return or receive compensation.

refugees displaced during the 1948 Arab- Israeli War and subsequent Israeli occupations to return or receive compensation. Enable all Israelis and Palestinians to have a voice in decisions that affect their lives and enable them to practice their religion and culture free from persecution and safety in a confederated state, shared state, or two-state solution.

For the purposes of this paper, this set of goals will be called “Coexistence with a Just Peace.” A political agreement based on sharing the land with equal rights for all is possible and is the only sustainable solution.

Various polls reveal that 10-20% of Palestinians and far fewer Jewish Israelis want to live in a shared, democratic state. In comparison, somewhere between 20-40% of Palestinians and 10% of Israelis prefer a two- state solution,[56] with that number increasing to up to over 70% if “serious negotiations” take place.[57] Some view a two-state solution as a necessary step in building trust and that eventually, the two states could merge into some version of pluralistic democracy. Confederation options include the “Land for All” movement[58] or Palestinian lawyer Jonathan Kuttab’s ideas for a shared state.[59] These frameworks aim to move beyond a zero-sum view of the conflict so Palestinians and Israelis can live together with dignity and security.

New deliberative technologies could help to build a “coexistence coalition.” Deliberative platforms enable large-scale public input to identify shared goals, values, and principles.[60] The Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP), a coalition of over 160 organizations working to build peace between Israelis and Palestinians, used AI-assisted dialogues on a platform called Remesh to better understand the perspectives of peacebuilders in the region and found a strong foundation of common ground with a shared prioritization of peace and human life.[61] ALLMEP’s AI Pulse initiative ALLMEP plans to expand the study to the broader public to help develop new peacebuilding interventions and messaging.[62] These platforms could also help develop a “Coexistence Coalition” between the hundreds of activist organizations working toward a ceasefire. A shared platform would heighten their collective voice and media attention.

5. Offer teach-ins on antisemitism tropes and versions of Zionism to broaden coalitions

The fifth tactic aims to persuade active allies that attention to antisemitism and different versions of Zionism is helpful to their cause. This tactic can also recruit more of the “moveable middle” and passive allies to participate in the movement for coexistence with a just peace. Every serious study of nonviolent strategy, peacebuilding, and war insists that understanding opponents’ views is essential to success. Movement success requires addressing antisemitism and understanding different versions of Zionism, given its importance to most Jews.[63]

Both the weaponization of antisemitism and the left’s dismissal of antisemitism disrupt solidarity and coalition building. Yet few activists have seen this as important to building a successful movement. Many see antisemitism or concern for Jewish safety or attention to versions of Zionism as a distraction from the cause of Palestinian liberation, arguing that including concern for Jews smacks of “both sides-ism” and ignores the power dynamics between Israelis and Palestinians. Many activists for Palestinian liberation dismiss antisemitism because of the weaponization or instrumentalization of antisemitism. Jewish peace activist Atalia Omer explains how the blanket labeling of anyone concerned with Palestinian lives or critical of Israeli policies as antisemitic undermines a just peace.[64] This weaponization seeks to frame the Palestinian resistance to occupation as a threat to Jewish safety. While pro-Palestinian activists often scoff at the idea that they are anti- Jewish, they rarely take the time to make it explicit that they want Jews to stay in the region and be safe. They rarely weigh in on Jewish safety at all. Many have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Jews, instinctively reject expressing concern for Jewish people, deem the history of Christian antisemitism irrelevant to Palestinian suffering, unlinking the historically adjacent histories of the Holocaust and the Nakba.[65]

Before October 7, many Jews living in Western countries perceived antisemitism to be a right-wing issue. Since then, progressive Jews have expressed abandonment and hostility from progressive activists.[66] Few activists consoled Jews after the October 7 massacre. Even fewer denounced Hamas’ violence toward civilians, and some justified Hamas’s violence. Some Palestinian supporters use antisemitic tropes about Jewish power and have unfairly held all Jews responsible for Israeli violence against Palestinians. Too often, antisemitic rhetoric or tropes are tolerated or justified as part of broader critiques of Zionism or Israel.

Jewish peace activists emphasize the need for Jewish-Palestinian solidarity, understand that their safety and survival are interdependent, and see the need to broaden coalitions as key to success. For example, Jewish peace activist Norman Finkelstein explained to protestors at Colombia University why they should avoid using slogans like “from the river to the sea” because many Jews perceive this as an antisemitic genocidal threat, making it unlikely for them to join the movement.[67] However, after he finished explaining the strategic rationale for not using this slogan, protestors immediately began chanting, “From the river to the sea” as a rebuttal to his plea.[68] Other influential Jewish advocates like Peter Beinart assert that addressing antisemitism is critical for a movement strategy of broadening coalitions.[69] Ben Lorber and Shane Burley’s book Safety through Solidarity describes how antisemitism erodes trust within Jewish communities and disrupts the solidarity necessary for developing strategic movements.[70]

Many critics of Israeli policies identify as anti-Zionist. Understanding the evolution and different forms of Zionism helps to clarify the diversity of thought within the Zionist movement and the different ways Jewish people have envisioned their collective future. It can also help advocates of Palestinian rights determine how best to work with a spectrum of potential allies, including outreach to conditional, pluralistic, and cultural Zionists. In her article “The Right Will Seize on Anti-Semitism. We Can’t Give Them the Chance,” Naomi Klein argues that antisemitism serves as a potent political tool.[71] After October 7, she warned activists again that antisemitism is the “jet fuel” for militant Zionism that justifies anti-Palestinian violence.[72]

Many carry assumptions that antisemitism is similar to racism, and because they don’t see persecution of Jewish people, they dismiss antisemitism. Antisemitism is often overlooked or downplayed on the left despite its persistence and connection to white nationalism.[73] Antisemitism is distinct from anti-Black racism. White supremacy relies on the antisemitic myth of “Jewish control,” which deflects blame for societal problems away from the structures of white supremacy, such as capitalism, and onto a fabricated Jewish cabal. By scapegoating Jewish people, white supremacists divert their attention from the systemic inequalities and injustices that they perpetuate. This scapegoating undermines solidarity among marginalized groups and reinforces the hierarchical frameworks and divisions among marginalized groups central to white supremacy. When progressive movements ignore and belittle antisemitism, they unwittingly aid the white supremacist narratives.[74]

Many, if not most, Jews have a strong identity tied to the state of Israel and consider themselves to be Zionists. When activists say they are “anti-Zionists”, it is not clear to most Jews what this means for the seven million Jews living in Israel. Most Jews simply define Zionism as the belief that Jews constitute a nation and have the right to their own state for safety, culture, and religious practice. Many are unaware of how Zionism hurts Palestinians or they believe propaganda attempts to deny this link. One myth asserts the land of Palestine was empty. Other propaganda asserts Palestinians are migrants from other regions. Zionism promoted the idea of a Jewish return to Palestine, viewed as their ancestral homeland.

This stands in stark contrast to how Palestinians and their allies view Zionism as a militant force that uses mass violence to kill Palestinians and take their land.[75] Some left-wing activists want all Jews to leave and foment violence against all “Zionists” and support Hamas’ attack on Israelis. Other activists label themselves as anti-Zionists because they support a single Palestinian state in which Jews could live as equals to Palestinians. People that define themselves as anti-Zionists do not necessarily oppose Jewish people living together with Palestinians or having some form of self-determination and sovereignty. Anti-Zionism is a critique of Jewish supremacy, where Jewish Israelis rule over and use violence against Palestinians. Hamas’s original constitution called for “dismantling” the state of Israel, which referred to ending a government based on Jewish supremacy over Palestinians. However, most Jews hear a genocidal threat at any mention of “dismantling” a state that they view as protecting them. The 2017 Hamas Constitution changed the group’s goals and agreed to a two-state solution based on the 1967 Green Line borders between Israel and Palestine, in essence recognizing the state of Israel. However, partly because of Hamas’ attacks, few Jews trust Hamas not to be an existential threat.

Increasing the understanding of the different forms of Zionism might help clarify the possibilities for coexistence. The problem activists have with Zionism is its long history of justifying and carrying out mass violence against Palestinians. But other forms of Zionism exist.

Militant or Political Zionism emphasizes military power and armed conflict in establishing and defending a Jewish homeland in Israel. This dominant form of Zionism advocates the use of aggressive military tactics as essential for achieving the Zionist political goals of removing Palestinians from their homes and lands, using repressive occupation or siege against Palestinians, and, for some, expanding the borders of the state of Israel through annexation or war. The militant Zionist narrative insists that Jews are not safe in other countries. Militant Zionism relies on religious justification (God gave the land to Jews), ethnic justification (Jews originate from the region), and security justification (they will kill us if we don’t kill them).

Conditional Zionism endorses a Jewish state under specific ethical, political, or religious conditions, hinging on factors such as international approval, peaceful coexistence, and adherence to Jewish religious principles. It emphasizes moral and practical considerations, including the rights of non-Jewish residents and securing international legitimacy, and often critiques Zionist practices that conflict with advocated conditions, such as settlement policies or military actions. Some supporters advocate only for a Jewish state that aligns with religious prophecies or principles, democratic values, human rights, and coexistence with Palestinians.

Cultural Zionism emphasizes reviving Jewish culture, language, and identity in Israel, prioritizing a cultural centre over political sovereignty. It promotes Hebrew as a unifying language and the development of Jewish arts, education, and intellectual life. This ideology emerged in opposition to political Zionism, advocating that Jewish survival requires a cultural renaissance and not just a physical homeland.

Pluralistic Zionism imagines an inclusive, “post-national” vision of Israel that recognizes the rights of Palestinians and reimagines Jewish identity, coexistence, and moral accountability beyond the constraints of territorial sovereignty.[76]

Messaging that rejects all forms of Zionism without understanding its different versions loses an opportunity for broader coalitions. Pluralistic and cultural Zionism may offer a way forward. Several specific tactics might enable activists to build a coalition with the “moveable middle, concerned with antisemitism and confused activists’ stance as anti-Zionists. Activist leaders could commit all members to participating in a one-hour training on the history of antisemitism, the seven most widespread antisemitic tropes, and how antisemitism animates white supremacy.[77] Next, activists could host conversations with Jewish organizations to broaden the awareness of different forms of Zionism, urging the rejection of militant Zionism and embracing cultural, pluralistic, and conditional Zionism. These two actions could help activists be better prepared for and deflect criticisms that they are antisemitic and build coalitions that might involve people who care about Israel but share a critique of versions of Zionism that are anti-democratic, militant, and based on the ideas of Jewish supremacy.

6. Use Virtual Civilian Peacekeeping

The sixth tactic gives active allies a new way to strengthen their power and enables international allies to operationalize coalitions with Palestinian organizations and communities. For activists already actively engaged in the movement, virtual civilian peacekeeping is an easy tactic to do and accessible for most people. This tactic can keep people engaged in meaningful actions.

In October 2023, the Palestinian organization #SaveMasaferYatta urged its supporters to remotely and virtually “check-in” to this community in the West Bank experiencing annexation of Israelis bulldozing of Bedouin and Palestinian homes and land seizures. The tactic sent a message that the world was watching and offered digital solidarity with Palestinians. This type of tactic could be dramatically scaled.

For decades, activists have used in-person unarmed civilian peacekeeping to deter violence with their presence.[78] Social media check-ins now allow many more people to participate through digital platforms by being virtual witnesses, helping to deter aggression through international presence and garnering public attention to land grabs. By tagging specific villages or towns and using relevant hashtags, activists can help counter narratives that attempt to silence or minimize the experiences of Palestinians. Additionally, sharing updates, stories, and visuals from trusted sources in these communities can foster a greater understanding and empathy among international audiences.

Outside activists should work closely with Palestinian organizations, prioritizing their needs and following their lead. Virtual observers can deter abuses by making it harder for violations to go unnoticed, while real-time alerts can demand immediate action from international organizations and governments. A global “coexistence coalition’ could organize a mass online movement with this tactic, and mapping tools could track and share the locations of incidents, such as demolitions or forced displacements. Crowdsourced information gathering from verified Palestinian accounts, local NGOs, and on-ground reporters could allow for real-time tracking of developments and threats.

Conclusion

This paper began with an analysis of the landscape of winners and losers in the current crisis in Palestine and Israel, including the possibility that 2025 will bring escalating violence and humanitarian crises, mass annexation of Palestinian land, and further mainstreaming of extremism and autocracy in Israeli politics. This paper has outlined the rationale, strategy, and six new tactics that could broaden and strengthen the movement for the safety of Palestinians and Jews to enable coexistence with equity, justice, and peace. The proposed strategies and tactics aim to move beyond binary thinking, address the root causes of conflict, and broaden coalitions to help the movement achieve its goals.

This paper outlined the following coercive and persuasive tactics:

Coercive tactics to shift power away from opposition

Apply $100 US Tax Resistance and a Tourist Boycott to press for tying US military aid to Israel to international human rights law Hold public tribunals as teach-ins on international law and Palestinian sovereignty Engage with Christian Zionists to counter theological justifications for harm to Palestinians

Persuasive tactics to broaden coalition

Form a “coexistence coalition” with explicit goals for a just peace by using deliberative technologies Offer teach-ins on antisemitism tropes and different versions of Zionism to build trust Use “virtual civilian peacekeeping” pairing Palestinian communities with international witnesses

The path forward will undoubtedly be challenging. These tactics could work synergistically by combining coercive and persuasive tactics to create a more effective movement for change. By tailoring approaches to specific audiences and leveraging tools like the “Spectrum of Allies,” activists can expand their sphere of influence and move key stakeholders toward supporting coexistence and a just peace.

NOTES

[1] Benedict Vigers and Julie Ray. “Life in Israel One Year After Oct. 7.” Gallup Polls. 2 October 2024.

[2] Chantal Da Silva. “‘Nakba 2023’: Israel right-wing ministers’ comments add fuel to Palestinian fears.” NBC News. 13 November 2023.

[3] Law for Palestine. “Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500 Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide: Continuously Updated.” Accessed December 19, 2024.

[4] Harvard Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. “Crowd Counting Blog: An Empirical Overview of Recent Pro-Palestine Protests at U.S. Schools.” 30 May 2024.

[5] BDS Movement. “Indicators of the BDS Movement’s Global Impact: Q4 2023–Q1 2024.” 29 March 2024.

[6] Lisa Schirch. “A 5-Point Peace Plan to Protect Civilians, Address Trauma, Invest in Democracy , and Dismantle Hamas and the Israeli Occupation.” Tokyo: Toda Peace Institute. 1 November 2023.

[7] Barbara Deming, Revolution and Equilibrium. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1971.

[8] Nadine Bloch and Lisa Schirch. “Synergizing Nonviolent Action and Peacebuilding.” Washington DC: US Institute of Peace, 2018.

[9] Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.

[10] Adam Curle. Making Peace. London: Tavistock Publications, 1971.

[11] U.S. Agency for International Development. “Middle East Partnership for Peace Act (MEPPA).” Accessed December 19, 2024. https://www.usaid.gov/west-bank-and-gaza/meppa.

[12] Associated Press. “Israel-Hamas War: US Military Spending Rises Amid Conflict.” 19 December 2024.

[13] Tim Sweijs and Mattia Bertolini. How Wars End. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS). 2022.

[14] Tamar Hermann, Dr. Lior Yohanani, Yaron Kaplan. “One Year of War – Public Opinion in Israel at the One Year Anniversary of the War in Gaza.: Israel Democracy Institute. 7 October 2024.

[15] Jared Mitovich, Isabella Ramirez, and Juan Perez Jr. “Democrats Worry About Pro-Palestinian Campus Protests, Poll Shows.” Politico. 11 June 2024.

[16] Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. “Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No. 93.” 17 September 2024.

[17] NPR. “Khalil Shikaki: Palestinian Polling, Israel, Gaza, Hamas.” July 26, 2024.

[18] Laura Silver. Pew Research Center. “Younger Americans Stand Out in Their Views of the Israel-Hamas War.” 2 April 2024.

[19] ACLED. “Pro-Palestine US Student Protests Nearly Triple in April: ACLED Brief.” 2 May 2024.

[20] Chris McGreal. “How pervasive is antisemitism on US campuses? A look at the language of the protests?” The Guardian. 3 May 2024.

[21] Kiara Alfonseca. “Student Protesters Denounce Antisemitism Amid Criticism of Pro-Palestinian Demonstrations.” ABC News. 26 April 2024.

[22] Judith Levine. “Why we need to stop using ‘pro-Palestine’ and ‘pro-Israel’” The Guardian. 25 April 2024.

[23] Colin Irwin. “As International Support for an Independent Palestine Grows, Here’s What Israelis and Palestinians Now Think of the Two-State Solution.” The Conversation, 22 May 2024.

[24] Laura Silver and Maria Smerkovich, How Israeli Society Has Unified, and Divided, in Wartime. Pew Research Center.20 June 2024.

[25] International Court of Justice. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, 2024.

[26] Amnesty International. Amnesty International concludes Israel is committing g enocide against Palestinians in Gaza. December 2024.

[27] Law for Palestine. n.d. “Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide (Continuously Updated).” Accessed December 27, 2024.

[28] Yagil Levy. “How a Culture Shift in the Israeli Military Helps Explain Gaza’s Death Toll.” Foreign Policy. 9 April 2024.

[29] Tom Bateman. “US says Israeli army units violated human rights.” BBC. 29 April 2024.

[30] Avner Gvaryahu. “Occupation Has Corrupted the Humanity of Israel’s Military.” The New York Times, 20 May 2024.

[31] Loveday Morris, Sarah Cahlan, Jonathan Baran and Louisa Loveluck. “Videos of Israel-Gaza War: What the IDF Claims and What They Shw.” The Washington Post, 3 December 2024.

[32] Firoze Sidhwa. “Voices from Gaza: Interviews with Doctors During the Conflict.” The New York Times, 9 October 2024.

[33] Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. “Indirect Deaths in Gaza: The Human Cost of Blockade and Conflict.” Brown University, 2024.

[34] Reuters. “North Gaza ‘Apocaly ptic,’ Everyone at Imminent Risk of Death, Warns UN.” 1 November 2024.

[35] Tom Bateman, “US says Israeli army units violated human rights.” The Guardian. 29 April 2024.

[36] Qassam Muaddi. “Inside ‘Greater Israel’: Myths and Truths Behind the Long-Time Zionist Fantasy.” Mondoweiss. December 17, 2024.

[37] Sam Sokol. “Majority of Israelis oppose annexation, resettlement of Gaza – poll.” The Times of Israel. 17 December 2023.

[38] The Palestine/Israel Pulse, a Joint Poll: Press Release. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) and the International Program in Conflict Resolution and Mediation at Tel Aviv University. September 2024.

[39] Jim Zanotti. Israel: Major Issues and U.S. Relations. Congressional Research Service. 5 December 2024.

[40] “Israel/OPT: Palestinians Face Drastic Escalation in Unlawful Killings, Displacement as Israel Launches West Bank Military Operation.” Amnesty International, August 2024.

[41] Stefanie Hausheer Ali. “Inside Israeli Politics and Public Opinion.” Atlantic Council, 30 October 2024.

[42] Simon Speakman Cordall. “How Concerned Are Israelis by What Their Government Is Doing in Their Name?” Al Jazeera, 28 December 2024.

[43] Gordon, Anna. “New Polling Shows How Much Global Support Israel Has Lost.” TIME, 17 January 2024.

[44] Pew Research Center. “Slight Uptick in Americans Wanting U.S. to Help Diplomatically Resolve Israel-Hamas War.” 1October 2024.

[45] Mairav Zonszein. “The Mainstreaming Israeli Extremism.” Middle East Institute. 18 December 2024.

[46] Institute for Middle East Understanding. n.d. “Fact Sheet: Meir Kahane & the Extremist Kahanist Movement.” Accessed December 27, 2024.

[47] Nadine Bloch and Lisa Schirch. “Synergizing Nonviolent Action and Peacebuilding.” Washington DC: US Institute of Peace, 2018.

[48] Jonathan Masters and Will Merrow. “U.S. Aid to Israel: Four Charts.” Council on Foreign Relations. 13 November 2024.

[49] Edward Wong. “State Dept. Tells Congress It Plans to Send $8 Billion in Arms to Israel.” The New York Times. 4 January 2024.

[50] Jill Lawless. PBS NewsHour. “Why Hamas and Israel Are Both Alleged to Have Broken International Rules of War.” PBS NewsHour, 19 October 2023.

[51] David Hoffman. “U.S. Recognition of a Palestinian State Could Change Everything.” The Hill. 12 June 2024.

[52] Andrea Mitchell and Alexander Smith. “U.S. Recognition of Palestinian State Gains Momentum Amid Israel-Gaza War.” NBC News. 6 February 2024.

[53] David Bauder. “What Is Great Replacement Theory and How Does It Fuel Racist Violence?” PBS NewsHour. 16 May 2022.

[54] National Council of Churches. n.d. “Response to Christian Zionism.” Accessed December 27, 2024.

[55] Jill Filopovich. “Say Plainly What Protestors Want.” The Atlantic, 6 May 2024.

[56] Stefanie Hausheer Ali. “Inside Israeli Politics and Public Opinion.” Atlantic Council, 30 October 2024.

[57] Colin Irwin. “As International Support for an Independent Palestine Grows, Here’s What Israelis and Palestinians Now Think of the Two-State Solution.” The Conversation, 22 May 2024.

[58] See “A Land for All” website. Accessed December 27, 2024.

[59] Jonathan Kuttab. Beyond the Two-State Solution. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2020.

[60] Lisa Schirch. Defending Democracy with Deliberative Technology. Policy Brief. University of Notre Dame. March 2024.

[61] “Digital Peacebuilding Community of Practice. Using AI-Enhanced Deliberative Tech in Israel-Palestine.” Alliance for Peacebuilding YouTube Channel. 12 November 2024.

[62] Alliance for Middle East Peace. n.d. “AI Pulse.”

[63] See, for example, “Jewish Americans in 2020.” Pew Research Center. 11 May 2021.

[64] Atalia Omer. “Weaponizing Antisemitism is Bad for Jews, Israel, and Peace.” Contending Modernities, 21 January 2021.

[65] Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg, eds. The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. New York: Columbia University Press. 2020.

[66] Ammiel Hirsch. “Post-October 7 World: American Jews Face a Crisis of Confidence.” Newsweek. 6 October 2024.

[67] Nikhil Singh. “Norman Finkelstein on Gaza, ‘from the river to the sea’ and political messaging: ‘We need to bring unity to this struggle’.” The Guardian. 17 May 2024.

[68] Chris McGreal. “College Gaza Protests Spark Debate over Antisemitism.” The Guardian. 3 May 3 2024.

[69] Peter Beinart. “An Appeal to the Pro-Palestinian Movement.” Peter Beinart’s Substack, 25 October 2024.

[70] Shane Burley and Ben Lorber. Safety through Solidarity: A Radical Guide to Fighting Antisemitism. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House, 2024.

[71] Naomi Klein. “The Right Will Seize on Anti-Semitism. We Can’t Give Them the Chance. In These Times, 31 January 2023.

[72] Naomi Klein. “Side with the Child over the Gun.” The Guardian. 11 October 2023.

[73] Sina Arnold and Blair Taylor. “Antisemitism and the Left: Confronting an Invisible Racism.” Journal of Social Justice, Vol. 9, 2019.

[74] Lisa Schirch. “Understanding Antisemitism as a Foundation for White Supremacy.” Medium.December 2024.

[75] Schirch, Lisa. “Trauma Triggers and Narratives on Israel and Palestine.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 13 (3), 2018, pp. 108–114.

[76] Shaul Magid. The Necessity of Exile – Essays from a Distance. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press. 2023.

[77] Lisa Schirch. “Understanding Antisemitism as a Foundation for White Supremacy.” Medium.14 December 2024.

[78] Lisa Schirch. Civilian Peacekeeping: Preventing Violence and Making Space for Democracy. Uppsala, Sweden: Life and Peace Institute, 1995.