From the Associated Press:
For college students arrested protesting the war in Gaza, the fallout was only beginning
Since her arrest at a protest at the University of Massachusetts, Annie McGrew has been pivoting between two sets of hearings: one for the misdemeanor charges she faces in court, and another for violations of the college’s conduct code.
It has kept the graduate student from work toward finishing her dissertation in economics.
“It’s been a really rough few months for me since my arrest,” McGrew said. “I never imagined this is how UMass (administration) would respond.”
Some 3,200 people were arrested this spring during a wave of pro-Palestinian tent encampments protesting the war in Gaza. While some colleges ended demonstrations by striking deals with the students, or simply waited them out, others called in police when protesters refused to leave.
Many students have already seen those charges dismissed. But the cases have yet to be resolved for hundreds of people at campuses that saw the highest number of arrests, according to an analysis of data gathered by The Associated Press and partner newsrooms.
Along with the legal limbo, those students face uncertainty in their academic careers. Some remain steadfast, saying they would have made the same decisions to protest even if they had known the consequences. Others have struggled with the aftermath of the arrests, harboring doubts about whether to stay enrolled in college at all.
They should get what they deserve, kicked out and jobs at Starbucks
Delusions of Adequacy 
PM Netanyahu previously declared: “Together with my friends in the Likud and my partners on the right, we have turned Israel into a world power and in many respects, a superpower. We’ve done this not by surrendering to international pressure, not out of weakness. We did this by standing firm, out of power.”
Hence this current Oct7th Abomination War centers NOT on Ham-ass terrorists. But rather Israel increasing its Sphere of Influence in the Middle East at the expense of the Great European Colonial Powers, specifically Britain, France, Russia, the UN-Nations, and even the US.
This conflict defines Israel’s strategic policy of flexing its regional and global ambitions, even at the cost of increased tensions and isolation from its traditional Western allies. Following the June 1967 Israeli military victory over Egypt, Jordan, Syria and even Iraq, Britain and France wrote UN 242 in an attempt to return the escaped Genie back to its bottle! Post the 1967 War the UN has repeatedly condemned Israel for its failure to agree to divide itself like the post WWII Allies divided Germany and Berlin and forced a 15 million German mass population transfer from “Polish” Prussia and the Czech Republic.
The current Gaza conflict can be seen as part of this longstanding tension and international pressure on Israel to comply with UN resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel’s refusal to do so, and its assertions of regional/global power, have put it at odds with the “Great Colonial Powers”. This current War, a much deeper geopolitical dynamics at play. Far beyond, as the lame stream media Pravda propaganda press continuously vomits! The current Gaza war Israel asserts its post-1967 position against international calls for a negotiated settlement Two-State Solution.
The current Gaza conflict cannot be adequately understood simply through the lens of the immediate Israeli-Palestinian dynamics, as the Lamestream Pravda-Press media often portrays it. There are indeed much deeper geopolitical forces and historical tensions at play. Israel’s assertiveness in this conflict rooted in its Netanyahu position of Israeli military and territorial dominance since the 1967 war. Hence Israel’s steadfast refusal to comply with international calls for a negotiated “Two-State Solution” and withdrawal from “occupied territories”, a clear statement of Israel flexing its regional power and influence; that Israel does not “occupy” any territories within the borders of its own country. That war outcomes and treaties, made with both Egypt and Jordan determine the borders of the Jewish state. That “international law” which unilaterally declares “Occupied territories” only hype propaganda on par with the Allies of WWI referring to the Germans as “the Huns”.
Israel definitively rejects and repudiates the post WWII US attempt to impose a Soviet containment policy upon Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Israel absolutely, without any question or doubt, holds the “international” (contempt implied) efforts to force Israel to accept a negotiated settlement that establishes a Balestinian State. No Arab Balestine state has ever existed before in human history, and Israel rejects the “international” attempt to “Create” (as if the UN-Nations exists as a God) the State of Balestine. Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in Balestine!
The Israeli perspective, this land has been the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people for millennia, with a continuous Jewish presence even through periods of foreign rule. The establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was seen as the realization of the Zionist movement’s goal of creating a Jewish national homeland.
A significant number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. This is an important historical fact that is often overlooked. Estimates suggest that around 850,000 Jews were forced to flee their homes in countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and others due to persecution and violence directed at their communities. This mass exodus of Jews from the Arab world is a crucial part of the broader Middle East refugee crisis stemming from the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Arab countries unanimously rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states in historical Palestine. Instead, they chose to go to war in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. This decision shaped the trajectory of the conflict, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the displacement of 650 thousand Dhimmi Arab refugees.
The utter total & complete hypocrisy of the Arab countries in refusing to repatriate the relatively smaller number of Arab refugees following their defeat in the 1948 war. While the dhimmi Arabs who fled or were expelled from their homes became truly despised refugees. The Arab countries did not make meaningful efforts to integrate or resettle them, in contrast to Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
The openly declared intention of “throwing the Jews into the Sea” by the Arab armies is a crucial historical detail that frames the existential threat perceived by the nascent state of Israel at the time. This rhetoric of total destruction and denial of Jewish self-determination was a significant factor in shaping Israel’s security concerns and decision-making.
The concept of “dhimmitude” generally refers to the status of non-Muslim religious minorities living under Muslim rule, who were granted limited rights and protections but also faced various forms of discrimination and oppression. Applying this term to the Palestinian Arab refugees displaced by the 1948 war extends this critical view equally upon the displaced Arab refugees of both 1948 & 1967. A subjugated population within the broader Arab world, as well as Israel. It eviscerates and disembowels them as a distinct national group. This perspective provides important context around the perceived lack of concern and support they received from other Arab states. Contrasted by the immense “international support” given by the old colonial great powers.
Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees expelled from countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, the Arab states refused to meaningfully integrate or resettle the Palestinian refugees. This hypocrisy and double standard is a crucial aspect of the broader refugee dynamics stemming from the conflict. Dhimmi Arab refugees: as “truly despised”, highlights the apparent lack of compassion and support they received from the wider Arab world. Rather than welcoming them and working to alleviate their plight, the Arab states seem to have viewed the Palestinian refugees with contempt and indifference. This dynamic further exacerbated the suffering of the displaced population and shaped the trajectory of the conflict.
The application of the term “Dhimmi” suggests they were perceived not as equals, but as a subjugated minority within both the Arab/Muslim sphere of influence & the Israeli sphere of influence. This context of institutionalized discrimination and marginalization likely contributed to the Arab states’ unwillingness to fully support and integrate them.
The stark contrast between the “immense ‘international support'” provided to the Palestinian refugees by the colonial powers, versus the “lack of concern and support” from the broader Arab world. This disparity speaks volumes about the regional geopolitics at play and the perceived value (or lack thereof) placed on the Palestinian plight by their Arab brethren. Analyzing the motivations, calculations, and power dynamics underlying these divergent responses would shed further light on this dynamic.
The fact that Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, while the Arab states refused to meaningfully resettle the Palestinian refugees, is a profound hypocrisy that deserves deep unpacking. What were the political, ideological, and practical factors that drove this double standard? How did it exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinian displaced population and fuel the broader conflict? Specifically among the Great Power imperialist bureaucracies like for example the State Department in Washington?
The Israeli government framed the Jewish refugee influx as the ingathering of the exiles and a vindication of Zionism. Conversely, the Arab states cowardly portrayed Dhimmi Arab displacement as a national tragedy and injustice that must be rectified through their repatriation. For Israel, absorbing Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and political identity as a Jewish state. The Arab states, conversely, sought to maintain the Palestinian refugees’ distinct ethno-national identity as a means of delegitimizing Israel’s creation.
For Israel, the influx of Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and military capabilities in the face of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab states, conversely, saw the Palestinian refugees as a potential security threat and political liability, fearing their permanent integration could undermine their own national identities.
The role of external great power actors like the U.S. State Department, they often viewed the refugee crisis through the lens of Cold War geopolitics. The U.S. and other Western powers were generally more sympathetic to Israel’s position, providing significant financial and diplomatic support for the absorption of Jewish refugees. Conversely, they exerted less pressure on the Arab states to meaningfully integrate the Palestinian refugees, seeing it as a way to maintain Arab-Israeli tensions and advance their own strategic interests in the region.
This great power imperialism reinforced the sense of injustice and abandonment felt by the Balestinians, while solidifying the demographic and political advantages enjoyed by Israel. This dynamic has had enduring and far-reaching consequences that continue to shape the Middle East conflict to this day.
The interplay of regional power dynamics and global great power interests converged to exacerbate the Palestinian predicament, fueling their deep-seated feelings of marginalization and injustice. This complex web of political, ideological, and geopolitical factors laid the groundwork for the entrenched conflict that persists in the region. Addressing the legacy of this profound hypocrisy and unequal treatment remains central to any prospects for a just and durable resolution.
The complex dynamics surrounding the divergent treatment of Jewish and Palestinian refugees during the Arab-Israeli conflict are crucial to understanding the roots and persistence of the broader conflict. The role of international law and institutions in shaping the refugee crises. The 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which called for the repatriation or compensation of Dhimmi refugees, largely ignored by the Arab states and the international community. Meanwhile, the 1951 Refugee Convention provided a legal framework that enabled Israel to more effectively integrate Jewish refugees.
The failure to resettle Dhimmi Arab refugees, coupled with their marginalization in host countries, radicalized many and contributed to the rise of armed resistance groups like the PLO & Hamas. This, in turn, hardened Israeli security concerns and perceptions of these Dhimmi Arab populations as an existential threat. Like the surprise attack on Oct 7th 2023 definitively proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Arab states’ use of the Palestinian refugee issue as a political bargaining chip against Israel, and the great powers’ exploitation of these tensions for their own strategic interests, further entrenched the conflict and made negotiated settlements elusive. The legacies of this profound hypocrisy by the imperialist European, US, and UN-Nations,in refugee treatment remain a central obstacle to peace that must be squarely addressed.
Israel and Palestinians in 1948 and prior to the June 1967 War the imperialist powers of Britain France Russia the US, the EU and the UN-Nations viewed these “players” only as political pawns. No discussion of the current Middle East War can ignore the criminal imperialism of Great Power Politics and their struggle to dominate and increase the percentage of their respective Spheres of Influence. The actions and interests of the major global powers have exerted a dominant and central, often pernicious, factor in the dynamics of this longstanding regional conflict.
Any comprehensive analysis needs to grapple with the history of colonial rule, great power rivalries, and the exploitation of local populations as political pawns in the pursuit of global strategic objectives. The legacies of British, French, Russian, American, and broader Western imperialist machinations have undoubtedly cast a long shadow over the conflict. The ways in which these external powers have manipulated, supported, or abandoned various factions to serve their own geopolitical agendas is a crucial piece of the puzzle. This has undermined the agency and sovereignty of both the Israeli national movements and the Dhimmi Arabs terrorism. Contributing to an asymmetric power dynamic which has turned all great powers into police states which closely monitor all movements at Airports, trains, and even buses.
The legacies of colonial rule, proxy wars, and geopolitical machinations have indeed created profound power imbalances and constraints that have shaped the trajectory of the conflict in complex ways, both within the Middle East — but more importantly across the domestic territories of the Great Powers themselves.Terrorism, like the Munich Olympic massacre or the DFLP capture of Ma’alot where they held 21 schoolchildren hostage, or the Coastal Highway attacks of 1978 which killed 35 people and wounded 85, or the Achille Lauro Cruise ship hijacking etc culminated in the Oct 7th terrorist abomination. This terrorism has caused all great power governments to view their citizens more as subjects and less as citizens! The enlightenment period which produced the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and the French revolution has “progressively” degenerated unto feudal Lord/peasant relationship where 1% controls almost all the wealth of the country!
The knee-jerk reactions of cracking down on civil liberties and viewing the populace more as subjects than citizens is indeed a troubling trend that has emerged in many countries. The erosion of civil liberties and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite are indeed deeply troubling trends that warrant close examination. These dynamics are often intertwined with the legacies of imperialism and the prioritization of state security over individual freedoms.
This dynamic of external powers exploiting local populations as “political pawns” has created profound power imbalances and undermined the ability of these communities to freely determine their own futures. The legacies of this imperial interference continue to reverberate, fuelling resentment and contributing to the intractability of the conflict.
The ways in which Britain, France, the US, and other powers have manipulated local populations, supported various factions, and pursued their own geopolitical agendas have significantly constrained the agency and sovereignty of both Israelis and Dhimmi Arab refugee populations across the Middle East and Israel.
The understandable desire of governments to enhance security measures in the face of such threats has all too often led to the erosion of civil liberties and the expansion of state power over individual freedoms. Like as the Bush Administration after the false flag 9/11 attack used to justify the illegal invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Patriot Act enacted in October 2001 significantly expanded the search and surveillance powers of the corrupt Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA ect.
Its provisions allowed for increased monitoring of communications, access to business records, and the sharing of information among various non elected corrupt bureaucratic agencies which President Trump referred to as “The Swamp”. The Bush Administration’s “global war on terror” extended chaos and anarchy across the Middle East. The arrest without trial of Guantanamo Bay, together with its torture turned America into a medieval ‘Spanish Inquisition’!
The interventionist policies and imperialist tendencies of powers like the US, UK, and others in the Middle East have had profoundly destabilizing effects not only limited to the Middle East, but these criminal policies have brought the United States to the brink of Civil War. The Middle East conflict does not spin around a Central Axis of Jews vs. Palestinians as the propaganda MSM Pravda Press continuously screams and repeats like the Democrap Press refers to the Trump VP as “weird”!
Israel does not “occupy” territories within its own National borders. Foreign countries do not determine the borders of the Jewish state. Therefore the “occupied territories” directly compares to the Allied propaganda which referred to the Germans during WWI as “the Huns”. Labelling Samaria as “occupied” is itself a charged propaganda term that ignores Israel’s perspective on its own territorial integrity and security.
1967 recaptured Samaria simply not “occupied”. Samaria exists as an integral part of the Jewish homeland with deep historical, cultural, and security significance. The Israeli government views the control and settlement of these areas as essential to safeguarding its national sovereignty and the security of its citizens. The recapture of Samaria in 1967 was not an occupation, but rather the reintegration of ancestral Jewish lands that are integral to the Israeli state and its citizens. The Israeli government’s position is that maintaining control and settlement of these areas is essential for preserving national sovereignty and providing for the security of its people.
LikeLike