Wot? They didn't say they cheated, they said they kept a copy of the prompt at the top of their document while working.

Presumably the teacher knows which students would need that, and accounts for it.

...whose published work on the essay's subject you can cite?

...they were hard at work creating the state of Israel, directly denying Palestine their right to democracy and displacing a million of them.

There was no Palestinian sovereign state prior to Britain's decision to establish a Jewish homeland in the region. It was briefly under shared British and French control following a revolt against the Ottoman Empire during WWI; then the League of Nations assigned Britain control over the region as "Mandatory Palestine".

Mandatory Palestine was explicitly intended to be temporary, with Britain providing "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone". Additionally, it was always intended to provide a home for the Jewish people without displacing Palestinian Arabs. Of course, this didn't really work out. There was a lot of conflict between the Palestinian nationalists and the Jewish nationalists.

The UN's action in 1947 was to partition the region into separate Jewish and Palestinian sovereign states. The reason this didn't actually happen was because Arabic leaders both within the region and nearby rejected the idea of a sovereign Jewish state in the region. Israel declared independence anyway, and as the Palestinian Mandate expired, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war began as an effort to destroy the newly formed Israel. But of course Israel got support from other countries, and the war ended with Israel controlling most of Palestine and believing its neighbors to be a constant existential threat.

The Palestinians did not declare an independent, sovereign state until 1988, at which point they actually declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. There has never been a proposal for a two-state solution that Palestinian leaders have endorsed.

This seems completely counterintuitive to me, but there's at least one poll indicating that Stein actually draws more support away from Trump than from Harris: https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-hurts-donald-trump-more-kamala-harris-poll-suggests-1970765

Sorry, to be clear, you're saying that potential Trump voters would vote for Stein to protest our relationship with Israel?

If all third-party candidates had to vote for one of the two main candidates, I think nearly all of the Green Party votes would go to the Democrat, while the Libertarian votes would be much more of a split.

It's incorrect. Look at the NYT. The difference is that Politico's numbers weren't updated after the final votes were counted.

See how that says "99.8% reporting"? If you look at the NYT, it shows the results after counting 100% of the votes, and it matches what's in the picture.

The Green Party is far more left-wing than the Libertarian Party is right-wing.

Where are you getting those numbers? The ones in the photo match NYT and Wikipedia.

Why would someone who agrees with the Green Party platform prefer Republicans to Democrats? I'm sure such people exist, but I expect they're a tiny fraction of Green Party voters.