Photo by Emma Quirk ‘26.
A flyer for the Middle East Crisis panel outside the McCulloch Center for Global Initiatives.
By Emma Quirk ’26
Photos Editor and Staff Writer
Significant tension filled the air as students, faculty and staff arrived at Hooker Auditorium to attend “Middle East Crisis: Implications for Israel, Palestine, and U.S. Policy in the Region,” a panel discussion on Oct. 24. A campus Public Safety and Service officer stood at the door, and as attendees entered they were greeted by large signs stating that no recording of any kind was allowed.
The event began with Kavita Khory, Ruth Lawson professor of politics, and Carol Hoffman Collins, director of the McCulloch Center for Global Initiatives, who read the Mount Holyoke College land acknowledgment and thanked those involved in organizing and sponsoring the panel.
Sponsors included the Office of the President, Office of the Provost, Department of Politics, Department of International Relations, Department of Jewish Studies, Department of Religion, Department of Asian Studies, McCulloch Center for Global Initiatives and the Weissman Center for Leadership.
President Danielle Holley then offered opening comments and explained that she had no intention of making an institutional statement on the ongoing violence in Israel and Palestine. Instead, she stated that she hoped to provide students with opportunities to become better informed so that they could come to their own conclusions.
In a signed statement posted to the College’s website on Oct. 24, Holley described three main reasons for not issuing many institutional statements. First, she stated that the primary focus for colleges and universities should be “on the care and support of students, faculty and staff.”
Second, she argued that “campus communities are uniquely positioned to combat misinformation, deepen understanding across differences and develop solutions to the world’s most complex problems,” which can be done through hosting panels and speakers and offering a wide variety of courses.
Holley concluded her letter by sharing her belief that an institution-wide statement would not represent all members of the Mount Holyoke community, meaning it would have the possibility to “shut down discourse” or alienate those who disagree.
After Holley’s remarks, Khory returned to the mic. She explained that the goal of this panel was to educate one another, learn together and engage in respectful conversation. She also emphasized that this was the first of many events on the ongoing international crisis in the Middle East and policy in the Middle East more broadly.
Khory then introduced the four panelists: Sohail Hashmi, professor of international relations on the Alumnae Foundation, as well as professor of politics and chair of international relations; Mara Benjamin, the Irene Kaplan Leiwant professor of Jewish studies and chair of religion and Jewish studies; Daniel Czitrom, professor emeritus of history on the Ford Foundation; and Omar Dahi, Hampshire College professor of economics. Each panelist was given 10 minutes to speak uninterrupted.
Hashmi was the first to present. He gave a historical overview of events leading up to the outbreak of violence on Oct. 7 and explained that the Israel and Hamas conflict began in 1987. He gave three guiding questions for his presentation: What are the origins of Hamas, and what does it want? Does Hamas represent the Palestinian people, especially the people of Gaza? And finally, why did Hamas attack Israel on Oct. 7?
In an interview with Mount Holyoke News, Hashmi reiterated his main ideas. “Hamas is not just a political and military organization, but a social movement that provides welfare services to the people of Gaza,” he said. The organization “garnered the plurality of votes” in the last election of 2006; however, the majority of individuals currently living in Gaza were not yet alive or eligible to vote.
Therefore, “there’s no credible way to assert that Hamas today represents [the people of Gaza] or Palestinians in general,” Hashmi said. In terms of the attack on Israel on Oct. 7, he believes that there are several motivating factors, including the intention “to show fellow Palestinians that [Hamas] … is their leader in the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation; to show the Israelis that the Palestinians have not given up armed struggle … and finally to show other Arabs that they can’t sideline or ignore the Palestinian issue.”
While Hashmi did not discuss the Israeli government much during the panel, he shared his perspective in the interview.
“The current Israeli government … is perhaps the most right-wing and hardline government in Israel’s history. It has faced months of protests by Israelis against its attempts to limit the powers of the judiciary,” Hashmi said. “The Hamas attack has played into Netanyahu’s hands by completely diverting the public’s attention from domestic issues.”
In terms of Israel’s objectives, “the stated goal [of Israel] is to eradicate Hamas from the Gaza strip,” Hashmi said.
Hashmi raised a critique of Israel’s military goals, pointing to a paradox. “The more Israel bombs Gaza, the more the people of Gaza will support Hamas,” he said.
“Long term, the right-wing in Israeli politics wants to annex the West Bank, thereby eliminating any chance of a Palestinian state,” Hashmi said. “They hope the Palestinian territories will be depopulated through attrition.”
Hashmi shared his stance on a long-term solution. “The only way forward is strong international pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to end this dispute,” with the first step being “an immediate cease-fire.” In Hashmi’s view, “the only viable solution for the foreseeable future is the so-called two-state solution.”
Benjamin was the second panelist to present. She discussed the personal connections that many American Jews — including herself — have to Israeli hostages and people murdered on Oct. 7. She also spoke about the importance of recognizing the pain of violence and grief in a particular moment, even if it is part of an ongoing conflict, especially in the context of intergenerational trauma in Jewish communities.
“I am deeply troubled by the inability of many people to simply sit with the horror, or to condemn as evil the brutal acts committed against civilians when those people are Jews,” Benjamin said in an interview with Mount Holyoke News. “It is possible to be totally committed to Palestinian self-rule, dignity and freedom; to believe the occupation to be an ongoing nightmare for generations of Palestinians. … while also mourning and standing side by side in grief” with those directly impacted by violence enacted on Oct. 7.
“It’s critical to acknowledge the internal diversity of the Jewish people and of Israelis (especially that of the Israeli Left, which has been calling for the end of Netanyahu’s government for a long time),” Benjamin said.
The third panelist was Czitrom. During his 10 minutes, he condemned the Oct. 7 attack and also stated that there is no possibility of peace or security until a just resolution for the Palestinian people is achieved — which he sees as a two-state solution.
Czitrom highlighted the debates that have occurred in Israel surrounding this conflict and emphasized the importance of U.S. citizens having this same critical lens. Finally, he explored the role of the United States in the Israel-Palestine conflict and policy in the Middle East more broadly.
“I was disturbed by what I thought were too many efforts to sort of excuse what happened on Oct. 7. … I don’t see anything politically progressive, radical or emancipatory about the slaughter of innocent children,” Czitrom said in an interview with Mount Holyoke News. “Having said that … there is no military solution to the Palestinian issue, and for many years, I’ve been protesting not only Israeli policy but American foreign policy because I think American foreign policy has been too uncritical of what Israel has done.”
He also explained his concern about what he deemed “political religious fundamentalism.”
“I am not opposed to anybody being an Orthodox Jew, or a devout Muslim, or an Evangelical Christian,” Czitrom said. “The problem becomes when people with those beliefs project them onto the political world and then become partnered to or implicated in what I find to be horrible policies.”
Czitrom argued that what “these [religious] groups have in common, it seems to me is invoking … their own religious beliefs as a way to justify. Whether it's killing innocent people or expelling Palestinians and denying them their right to self-determination. … all in the name of the god they believe in, and I think that that’s very troubling.”
Czitrom does not deny that there is a connection between Jews and Israel.
“I think that Jews have some claim to that land as much as other groups,” Czitrom said. “While I do support that, ever since the 1967 [Six-Day] War and the conquering of … Gaza, I think Israel has become something else. It has become an imperial power.”
The historian expressed his discontent with the conduct of the Israeli state.
“It’s become an occupying state, and I do not support that. I have worked against that for many, many years, and I’ve worked against American policies that support that,” Czitrom said.
Dahi was the final panelist to speak and began by stating that an immediate cease-fire is crucial. He then explored the evolution of the region, the role of the United States and the ongoing structural violence against Palestinians. He also argued that militarization and increased surveillance are not the solution to this crisis and that the American government’s unconditional support to one side is divisive and only causes more harm.
After this, the floor was opened to the audience for a Q&A moderated by Khory. At this point, the energy in the room began to shift, with many students vocally expressing their discontent.
“I chose to attend this panel because I wanted to hear what professors and students had to say about the genocide happening in Palestine,” Lia Di Lisio ’26 said.
However, they expressed dissatisfaction with the panel. “There was a large focus on the events of Oct. 7 and on Hamas, which was not comprehensive and not what the flier advertised. Genocide was not mentioned until a courageous student did so during the Q&A.”
The student that Di Lisio spoke about asked panelists why they began by condemning Hamas but not the Israeli government; however, the panelists did not originally address this. “I felt shocked when Professor Khory mentioned ‘two questions’ when three had been asked,” Di Lisio said.
Amanda Weber ’26 shared similar sentiments. “It was … deeply upsetting to watch [the panelists] ignore fellow students. When Palestinian students spoke up … they should’ve been who [the panelists] were listening to. Instead, the [Palestinian students] were ignored,” Weber said.
“As a Jewish American, it has upset me to see people weaponize Jewish suffering to justify what is happening to Palestinians,” Weber said. “Genocides, such as this one, have happened to the Jewish people before. We know what it feels like … I felt that the panel disregarded this,” Weber added.
“It was so hard for so many students of color and me to sit through … this panel, I cannot imagine how much harder it must have been for students directly affected by this genocide to hear our professors say such absurd and biased statements,” one student in the Class of 2026, who did not wish to be named, wrote in an email to Mount Holyoke News. “Our institution could’ve used this panel to show that they stand with their students of color and their fight against oppression. … Instead, they played the neutral card and actively ignored history, yet we wonder why it keeps on repeating itself.”
After the panel, a group of students organizing under the name MHC for Palestine shared a statement through a post on their Instagram page, @mhcforpalestine, that gained more than 130 likes. The first post on the page is from Oct. 18, and the account now has over 580 followers. The press release, which referred to the panel as “appalling,” was then printed and posted around campus.
“This panel that centered around Hamas’ attack instead of the 75 years of terrorism that Palestinians have endured was utterly disturbing to many students,” the statement read. Within hours, several students had reposted the statement in support.
The panelists agreed with the dissatisfaction regarding the Q&A; however, their reasons differed. “The first 80 minutes of the 90-minute panel accomplished what we had set out to do: to offer some perspective and some information informed by our fields of research. MHC’s mission is to educate; we are educators,” Benjamin said in an interview with Mount Holyoke News. “Unfortunately, the last 10-15 minutes were not conducive to learning. Some of the ways the panelists’ words were recapped or glossed by questioners were quite different from what we had actually said.”
Czitrom shared his thoughts regarding student activists in an interview with Mount Holyoke News.
“I believe that students who are activists at their colleges and universities do have a right and do have some real precedent for exploring and exposing and opposing institutional connections to these policies,” he said. “Don’t wait for the approval of the College. Do what you think is right. That’s the tradition … of activism that needs to be remembered. Stop worrying about what the College president is saying and not saying, stop worrying about whether you’re being supported enough or … your emotions are being listened to, do what you think is right to get people to your side.”
Not every student was critical of the panel.
“While I understand that the conflict entails a lot of grievances, I wish students treated the panel as a classroom discussion rather than a town hall. Yelling at the speakers isn’t going to do anything productive for the Palestinian cause,” Lela Gallery ’24 said. “To be honest, it seems like students don’t want to learn more but get their opinions validated, and that’s unfortunate. Going to college isn’t about being in an echo chamber. It’s an opportunity to learn more so that you can grow as a person.”
Gallery expressed pleasure with the way the panelists conducted their presentations.
“I thought the professors did a good job summarizing their expertise on the conflict and sharing their perspectives,” she said. “There honestly isn’t anything that I would change [about the panel].”
However, other students shared opposing sentiments.
“From this panel, I realized that it is up to the students of Mount Holyoke to make change on our campus and in the world as a whole,” Weber said. “We cannot rely on the administration, who refuse to take a stance. We need to be the change that we wish to see.”
The location was another factor some students took issue with. “From an accessibility perspective, the stairs in Hooker Auditorium are extremely inaccessible, and to have students speak they needed to go down said stairs,” Ella Sloss ’26 said. “How can students be able to share their voices if the physical environment is unaccommodating and difficult to navigate?”
The lack of a virtual option or an ASL interpreter was also concerning. “For an event of this importance, [ASL interpretation] should have been a priority. There wasn’t captioning, a Zoom option or an ability to record the event,” Sloss said. “To have a full auditorium with students spilling out of the building, the very least that could be provided would be an online option.”
For similar events held in the future, students hope to see some modifications. “I hope that [future panels] are more focused on student opinion, more thought-out and prepared and more careful in selecting their staff participants,” Weber said.
“If this college were to host future panels like this, they should invite more diverse speakers,” another student said. “I think this panel could’ve gone way better.”
Despite feeling dismayed by the panel, students are finding hope in one another. “One thing I am taking away from this conversation is that I can feel there is a large student body that is against genocide and that they will not be complicit in it,” the student continued.
“I find hope in the fact that the students of Mount Holyoke care so deeply about making change happen. …” Weber said. “I am hopeful when I see my fellow students attending these talks and attending walkouts.”
Staff Writer Brie Foster ‘27 contributed interviews to this story.