Seeds of change: Pro-Palestine encampments will shift power and policy
7 Min Read
The success of pro-Palestine encampments like divestment by several universities indicates the movement's impact is tangible. As protests continue, they challenge existing power dynamics and potentially influence future U.S. policy and international support for Palestinian rights.
-
Seeds of change: Pro-Palestine encampments will shift power and policy (Illustrated by Ali Al-Hadi Chmeis to Al Mayadeen English)
Another school year has dawned, and the pro-Palestine encampments have sprung anew like seedlings of resilience and hope that break through the toughest soil.
When the encampments began last spring, the war on Gaza had been raging for a painful 6 months, long enough for activists to be fed up with US complicity and the ties between universities and the occupation's government.
Today, that duration has nearly doubled, and next month, the crippling war will have burned in the minds and hearts of those unfortunate enough to have witnessed it forever.
Despite the passage of time and the feeling that little has changed, students have regrouped and reconnected, while university administration officials have begun to take precautions to keep the new protests limited and enforce a preemptive crackdown.
Days ago, the president of the University of California announced new bans on encampments and face masks in response.
Ahead of the new semester, Michael V. Drake clarified the policies regarding prohibitions on encampments, unauthorized structures, and the use of masks to conceal identities or avoid identification by university officials. He also instructed university leaders to enforce these rules strictly and consistently.
Looking back: a timeline
Last April, what started as one pro-Palestine encampment in New York's Columbia University swiftly turned into a global phenomenon.
Universities across the US saw a historic surge in student protests in support of Palestine and Gaza, calling for ending all agreements with "Israel" and divesting from the occupation entity, and most importantly, an end to the US support to "Israel."
Nemat Minouche Shafik, Columbia's President, had issued an ultimatum to student protesters: either negotiate an agreement with the administration to disband the encampment or the school would pursue alternative measures to dismantle it. However, the demonstrators remained steadfast in their demands, with new supporters swelling their ranks.
She faced increased pressure over her response to the protests and ultimately resigned in what she attributed as "a period of turmoil where it has been difficult to overcome divergent views across our community."
The movement continued to spread like wildfire, igniting in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and even as far as Antarctica.
Police presence turned violent and in many cities and campuses students were arrested, beaten, attacked, and threatened with expulsion.
The US government's fury over the practice of free speech in criticizing Israeli actions went so far that senators began to suggest legislation that slammed any critics of antisemitism.
The bill, dubbed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would adopt the definition of antisemitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). If enforced, the definition would mark a grave turn of events for American citizens and residents opposing the Israeli occupation. The IHRA has spread dangerous rhetoric in which any action against the "state of Israel" would be considered anti-semitism.
Former US president Harry Truman once expressed that a government committed to silencing opposition will continue down the path of repression until it becomes a "terror" to all citizens and fear prevails.
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."- Harry Truman
As we have observed, the words of Truman were ever true. Could Truman have ever imagined that America, the alleged land of the free, become one of the only countries in the world, save Germany, with such negative consequences to befall those who dared utter criticism of an apartheid regime?
These encampments pose a significant challenge, not to Jewish students as some media narratives misleadingly suggest, but to the dominance and control over ideas and freedom of expression, and the fear prevails.
False claims of antisemitism detract from a real problem. Being accidentally hit by a passerby waving a small plastic flag is not the same as being “stabbed in the eye” as Sahar Tartak put it. A video and Tartak’s own account contradict her claims.🧵 pic.twitter.com/Sd36RA3iTc
— Oct7factcheck.com (@nickburbank710) May 2, 2024
The attempt to derail the effort and paint it as an anti-'Israel' effort rather than a pro-Palesine and anti-war effort is the key to delegitimizing the movement altogether.
Many times, such claims of Jewish hatred are easily debunked. When Minouche Shafik was cornered by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar during a Congressional hearing after dozens of students were arrested. Omar asked Shafik if she had seen a protest that was specifically targeted against Jewish people
The Congresswoman questioned Shafik on how many of the students involved in canceled pro-Palestine events were Jewish, to which Nemat admitted that one of the groups was Jewish Voice for Peace, essentially proving Omar's point that such protests were not anti-Jewish, but rather anti-war.
During a recent debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, although both fiercely competed over who was more supportive of the occupation, Trump vowed to crack down on the pro-Palestine movement, explaining he would set it back decades and vowing to deport students who engaged in it.
This revelation is an even bigger attack on US voters' civil liberties and a slap in the face of Palestinian rights. Such a promise could also impact the U.S.'s international reputation and relationships while fostering public mistrust and disillusionment among those concerned with democratic values and freedoms which seem to be sinking further in the collective West.
Victory is inevitable
Some of the encampments have been successful, despite the heavy crackdown. Late last month, San Francisco State University (SFSU) announced it had withdrawn its investments from four firms aiding "Israel's" ongoing genocide in Gaza, a move celebrated by pro-Palestinian activists and considered a "major victory" for the divestment movement.
In May, the University of Copenhagen announced that it would cease investing in Israeli companies conducting business in the occupied West Bank.
In Australia, the University of Melbourne has agreed to some of the divestment demands.
The Senate of the University of Barcelona (UB) approved a motion in support of Palestine on May 8, calling on the university to cut all institutional and academic ties with "Israel", including centers, research institutes, companies, and other institutions in the country, until the Israeli genocide against Gaza stops.
What is to be anticipated
Since the war on Gaza has made many citizens question where the loyalty of their elected leaders lies, there is a renewed fierceness to be expected for delayed justice. To see students gathering yet again despite the mass campaigns of arrests, censorship, and irrational retaliation by administration officials only ensures that they are undeterred in their efforts.
The longer the protests are in the limelight, the more people will be drawn to wonder what they are fighting for, allowing them to possibly gain more popular support.
The lasting physical presence will only amplify the voices of those advocating for Palestinian rights and continue to highlight issues otherwise overlooked.
This itself is a form of resistance, students risking their futures, like the people of Gaza risking their lives, for freedom.
The encampments will continue to foster community among students and other activists to strengthen networks and create lasting partnerships between various activist groups.
Amidst this, policymakers are sure to feel the strain. This engagement, particularly on the eve of a presidential election, can have long-term consequences, and policymakers may (hopefully) reconsider their stance on 'Israel.'
Despite the Israeli lobby pumping money into government organizations, the encampments will allow Palestinian advocates to challenge this influence and Palestine will continue its path at the forefront of global discourse, possibly contributing to a shift and ultimately shaping the future dynamics of international support and lasting liberation.
