He came from an area that has been referred to as “Palestine” by a variety of rulers for almost two millennia, so whilst it is somewhat anachronistic to call him “Palestinian” it is no more so than calling Christopher Columbus “Italian” when no state called Italy existed in his time.
He was from the Middle East and so would look pretty much like the people who live there today, Arab and Jew, swarthy, dark-eyed with black hair (certainly not the pretty boy, blue-eyed, blond Jesus I saw in pictures in my youth), “brown skinned”? I would say that might be a reasonable description of such a man, especially as he spent so much time in the outdoors, preaching and working along with his fishermen followers.
Did he understand the need to resist? Well he certainly wasn’t a docile believer in the status quo. He didn’t like a lot of what he saw, he wasn’t interested in leading a Jewish rebellion against the Roman occupiers, whom he regarded as something of this world and not relevant to the important message about the next world he was promoting.
He had a lot of problems with Jewish authority, of that we can be certain, he wanted to shake things up. He had no compunction about using violence against the money-lenders in the Temple. Jesus was no wilting violet, he was no wimp, he was a tough guy.
All in all, you can quibble with some of this woman’s statement and choice of terminology but not the essential point she is making.
Whether she is correct in then trying to attach Jesus to the modern, leftist, anti-Christian, statist, pro-abortion message she is perhaps trying to align Jesus with is a different matter altogether.