The leader who has emerged in the months since the fall has been Ahmed al-Sharaa, a military commander who led the rebellion against Assad and former al-Qaeda member. His role in al-Qaeda is something that has raised concern on a global stage, though Sharaa cut ties with the group in 2016. The United States has designated Sharaa, previously known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, as a terrorist when, in 2011, he established a new Syrian branch of al-Qaeda called the Nusra Front. Sharaa refused to bring the Nusra Front into ISIS in 2013 and, in 2016, the group was renamed to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and broke off from al-Qaeda. Sharaa’s newest insurgent front is named Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and is ultimately the group that toppled the Assad regime.

In 2013, while still maintaining ties with al-Qaeda, Sharaa named his intent for Syria to exist as a fundamentalist Islamic state, stating that religious minorities would have no room in the country. Since then, however, Sharaa has appeared to pull back from this intent, announcing in 2015 that he does not wish to target religious minorities or to create conflict with Europe or the United States. In 2023 and 2024, Sharaa showed little understanding for dissenters and was not known to show mercy. Although this may bear similarity to the Assad regime, HTS has shown far less suppression of those with differing beliefs and Sharaa has since maintained his commitment to a freer Syria. With the signing of a new transitional Constitution, Sharaa remains committed to the freedoms of expression and media and remains steadfast in his commitment to a unified Syria.

In a 2021 interview with PBS, Sharaa spoke with a U.S. news outlet for the first time. Here, he re-emphasized that he does not wish to infringe upon the security of Europe and America and criticized his designation as a terrorist, asking, “Terrorism, how do you define it? Today, every country has a terrorism list. Any person or party that the country claims is opposing it is automatically added to the terrorism list.” Sharaa also urged people to ask the question of why people join al-Qaeda and to understand how U.S. policy has driven many to join al-Qaeda. Despite al-Qaeda’s attacks on civilians, such as those on 9/11, Sharaa claims that he does not, and never has, supported external attacks on civilians and that he has never killed an innocent person in one of his operations.

Regarding Sharaa’s plans for Syria’s future, he has highlighted the need for unity and democracy within the country. Sharaa has been named as Syria’s transitional president and HTS has also declared that the Constitution will be repealed and the army and parliament will both be terminated. HTS seems to be planning a complete upheaval of the existing Syrian government and Sharaa has announced his intention to create a constitution for this transition period and to hold a national dialogue conference to discuss the future of Syria. 

As a result of the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011, parts of Syria have been controlled by various militia groups. This civil war began with Assad’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests and did not end until the regime was overthrown. Sharaa has announced that all rebel militia groups will be absorbed into the government and that, to promote unity, all guns held by non-state actors should be surrendered to the new government. Regardless of whether Sharaa’s intentions are in earnest, this will likely be a difficult endeavor and possibly one that will never occur. After 53 years under the iron fist of the Assad regime, Syrians are their militia groups have faced constant terror and threat from their government and can be expected to be distrustful of a future government, especially one led by a former al-Qaeda member and a man who advocated for a fundamentalist Islamic rule. 

Due to the 14-year civil war, it has been incredibly difficult to obtain accurate data about Syria’s population statistics. The numbers vary by source, but it is estimated that Syria’s population is 70% Sunni Muslim, 10% Alawite and 3% Shi’a with a variety of other religious minorities, primarily Christian denominations.Sharaa is a Sunni Muslim, something that has worried many Syrians and even caused some Shi’a Muslims to flee the country for fear that Sharaa will lead religious persecution efforts. Conflicts between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims have defined much of the recent history of the Middle East and it remains to be seen how tensions between the two will play a role in Syria’s future.

Throughout early March 2025, the Alawites, a religious minority in Syria, have experienced a surge in violence against them. This has been a fear among Alawites since the overthrow of Assad as the Alawites have been politically dominant throughout the entirety of the Assad regime. Bashar al-Assad, along with his father, was an Alawate and installed Alawite leaders in his regime, suppressing other religious groups. Because of this, Alawites are often viewed as more sympathetic to the Assad regime. On Mar. 6, 2025, on the coast of Syria, a group of Assad loyalists attacked, killing hundreds of civilians and security forces. Security forces then provided a defense against these pro-Assad fighters. A number of unknown fighters then came in, killing Alawites in, presumably, a retaliatory action. As of Mar. 17, 2025, the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) has reported at least 639 deaths as a result of the fighting on the Syrian coast. Following these events, Sharaa has called for peace amongst Syrians and promises that those responsible for targeting civilians will be held responsible.

With the changing landscape of Syria and the chaos within the country, the future of Syria remains unclear. Many have hope for the rule of Sharaa and many others worry that this will only continue division within the country and that this new rule will be no better than that of Assad. Sharaa holds firm in his hope for a united Syria, however, and the future of Syria remains hopeful, though unknown.

The post Ahmed al-Sharaa and Hope for the Future of Syria appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Lebanese citizens’ opinions on Hezbollah are varied and many are quite critical of the organization. Throughout Lebanon, Shia Muslims look at the group relatively favorably while Sunni Muslims and Christians have a much more negative opinion of Hezbollah. However, despite disagreements on the stances and actions of the group, 99% of Arabs agree that all Arab countries must cease contact with Israel in response to Israeli military action in Gaza. Hezbollah as an ideological entity is not necessarily well-loved, but it is also one of few groups committed to resisting the Israeli occupation. This then becomes a difficult issue for many Lebanese civilians as Israel continues its attempt to expand into southern Lebanon, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. It seems that the only solution is the creation of an organization that will both have higher approval from Lebanese citizens and protect the country from Israeli occupation.

In this conversation of Lebanese support for Hezbollah, it is important to understand the religious makeup of Lebanon. While Lebanon recognizes 18 religious sects, there are three major factions, with 31.9% of Lebanese citizens identifying as Sunni Muslims, 31.2% as Shia Muslims and 32.4% as Christians. While all three groups are very close in size, it is interesting to note that Hezbollah is a Shiite group despite Shia Muslims being the smallest of the three largest religious groups. Shia Muslims are the largest group in Iran, however, which is the country responsible for the funding of Hezbollah.

Conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims has been a cause of division throughout the Middle East, with major clashes in both Syria and Iraq. Despite 85% of Muslims identifying as Sunni and 15% as Shia, Sunnis have not dominated militarily and there remains a great sectarian divide in countries like Lebanon. Fear of conflict is not limited to one group, though, with 67% of Lebanese Muslims believing that Shia-Sunni tensions are a big issue. The emergence of Hezbollah has certainly not aided this and, despite having governmental representation, Sunnis and Christians alike feel as though Hezbollah as a governing entity does not represent them.

Notably, in September 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah founder who led the group for over 30 years. Despite disagreements over Hezbollah’s existence, Nasrallah was relatively well-liked due to his resistance to Israel, including overseeing the end of Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

During an interview in September 1992, Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah is a resistance party that opposes the creation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Additionally, in their 1998 Statement of Purpose, Hezbollah says, “It should be clear that the kind of Islam we want is a civilized endeavor that rejects injustice, humiliation, slavery, subjugation, colonialism and blackmail while we stretch out our arms for communication among nations on the basis of mutual respect.” 

In the U.S. Counterterrorism Guide, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist group since 1997, a designation shared by the Arab League and the EU, among others. Since the group’s inception, it has been responsible for several terrorist attacks around the world. Hezbollah has bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut both in 1983 and 1984, with a total of 101 killed and at least 120 injured.

While Hezbollah was created to force Israel to cede its occupied Lebanese territory, the group has now morphed into a different sort of entity. Now, Hezbollah has transitioned from a military wing to a group with heavy influence in both Lebanese military action and politics. In addition, Hezbollah no longer solely targets the Israeli occupation. A prime example of this is the 1994 operation targeting a Jewish community center and killing 94 people in Buenos Aires. 
Since its inception, the United States has given Israel a total of $310 billion in aid, a vast majority of such being military. While the United States views the Hezbollah attacks as unprecedented, Hezbollah sees the United States as a proxy for Israel, funding the occupation of Palestine as well as southern Lebanon. As the United States continues to fund Israel’s attacks on Gazan civilians, a direct opposition to the goals of Hezbollah, it is difficult to see a future where Hezbollah’s terrorist designation is removed.

The post Formation and Impact of Hezbollah appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As of late February, Palestinian deaths surpassed 30,000 and the devastation has only worsened as the war progresses. Coming from a generation that has never known a world with a weak Israel, it seems illogical and unfathomable to continue supporting Israel as the death tolls increase. Despite protests, pressure from leftist democratic colleagues and international efforts advocating for more severe policies toward Israel, President Biden has barely budged on his stance. Furthermore, all of his statements toward Israel have come in the form of a written statement, phone calls or a statement read by a member of his staff. The only exception was during his State of the Union address where he stated, “Israel also has a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.” However, many are still pushing Biden to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and to stop sending military aid to Israel. In the eyes of many young democratic voters, President Biden is not doing nearly enough to stop Israel, and it’s difficult to understand why. 

While ending military aid to Israel and insisting on a permanent ceasefire may seem like a no-brainer for my generation, the reality is much more nuanced. Joe Biden’s stance toward Israel is not necessarily out of a lack of compassion or cowardice, but pure history and politics. Crediting his pro-Israel perspective to his father, Biden recalls that his father emphasized the undeniable justice of establishing Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948 following the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. His historic view of Israel is as a small country fighting for democracy in a region of instability, not the powerful, right-leaning and domineering country many people my age see today. Throughout his Senate career Biden also received $5 million from pro-Israeli groups, the chamber’s biggest recipient in history. This should not be surprising nor, arguably, worrying. For most of American history since the end of WWII, support for Israel has persisted, especially for democrats. Due to the historical context surrounding Biden’s tenure in the Senate, this is not abnormal. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state in 1949 and the country has been, and remains, America’s greatest ally in the Middle East and is praised as a symbol of democracy in the region. 

However, it is not 1949 anymore, and the gravity of the situation is becoming increasingly apparent. If Joe Biden does not reassess his pattern of nonconfrontation and passive diplomacy with Netanyahu, it may be too late to help the situation in Gaza and protect his base. President Biden won Michigan in the 2020 election but the results of the February Michigan primary, with a substantial number of undecided votes, suggest that his unwavering support for Israel could potentially be a deciding factor against him in a close general election. Key swing states like Michigan and young voters won Biden the 2020 election, but his support for Israel may jeopardize his 2024 chances, as young voters are less likely to vote in 2024 than in 2020. With such a close race, Biden cannot afford a low young voter turnout. 

That all being said, there is also the very real possibility that if President Biden takes back his support for Israel, Republicans may be quick to portray the president as anti-Israel. Republicans on the House Armed Service Committee have criticized initiatives to direct more aid into the region. Missouri Congressman Mark Alford said, “90 percent of [humanitarian]funding” ends up in the hands of Hamas. While the social media and political circles of my peers and I are skewed in favor of Palestinians, it can be easy to forget that the general public lacks a consensus on the level of support the United States should provide to Israel. Joe Biden is not the only one whose historical and personal experience with Israel deeply influences their political views. Older generations tend to view Israel as a refuge for the Jews after the painful, visceral memories of the Holocaust. One report shows that less than half (48%) of Gen Z and millennials believe the United States should publicly voice support of Israel compared with 63% of Gen Xers and 83% of baby boomers. 30 years ago, support for Israel was more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Today, many democratic Gen Z voters find it very difficult to wrap their heads around a world that sees Israel’s actions as justified and fair. Recognizing these generational divides is essential for navigating the broader discourse surrounding Israeli-Palestinian relations.

It is also valuable for my age group to understand the historical relevance of congressional and presidential support for Israel. There has never been a U.S. president to actively oppose Israel. Throughout Joe Biden’s long career, it has never been an option to withdraw support for Israel. It is also important to note that Biden’s stance is not unique nor should it be surprising: the mainstream political discourse has always skewed in Israel’s favor. As Jimmy Carter once put it, “It’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.” In summary, it is unrealistic to expect Joe Biden and other politicians to completely shift their worldview that has been shaped over decades of precedent. 

This does not mean that the American people should wait around for Joe Biden to change his mind while thousands of Palestinians die every day. The world is not the same as it was 80 years ago and neither are international dynamics. While these historical precedents should not be ignored, there needs to be some acknowledgment of the Israeli government’s role in Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. In a conflict that is so rooted in history, it is imperative to keep in mind the long history that the president and the country have had with Israel if there is any hope of ending the suffering, death and destruction in Gaza.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post The Discussion on Biden’s Support for Israel Needs More Nuance appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Regarding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 goals intended to provide quantitative data on each country’s development progress, Syria ranks 130th of 166 countries and territories. Syria particularly lags behind its regional counterparts in SDG 9 — “Industry, innovation and infrastructure” — and SDG 11 — “Sustainable cities and communities.” Overall, Syria’s progress is stagnant or worsening, with only 28.3% of the goals achieved or on track — however, even this figure is misleadingly positive, as the only improving indicators are misrepresentative of the country’s development as a whole.

Indicators dependent on economic prosperity inappropriately paint a success story; while decreases in import-related water consumption, fatalities and environmental hazards seem like progress, they are results of economic hardship. According to the WTO, Syria exported $12.2 billion a year before the war; in 2021, exports amounted to $739 million.

The only goals considered “achieved” or “on track” are SDGs 12 and 13, which relate to climate change. In 2021, Syria emitted carbon dioxide at a rate less than half of pre-war rates. Solid waste, sulfur dioxide emissions and nitrogen emissions have also decreased. While the UN describes SDG 13 as taking “​​urgent action to combat climate change,” this decrease is due to the war’s hindrance of industrial production rather than progressive policymaking. 

The most critical areas for Syrian development are SDG 8, “Decent work and economic growth;” SDG 9, “Industry, innovation and infrastructure;” and SDG 17, “Partnerships for the goals.” While other SDGs remain important, SDGs 8, 9 and 17 are more feasible to achieve while the war is still ongoing and develop symbiotically to achieve economic revitalization via regional reintegration – renormalizing relations with other Arab nations.  

While many indicators of SDG 8 lack data, it is noted that less than a fourth of Syrians have a bank account and unemployment has risen to 13.8%. Syria has yet to achieve any progress with SDG 9, with only 36% of the population accessing the internet and a mere 0.02% of GDP spent on research and development. Quality of transport and trade-related infrastructure is slightly better, ranking 2.51 on a scale of one to five, yet still behind the UN’s goal of 3.8. SDG 17 lacks data, with the only reported indicator being government spending on health and education which was 6.5% of GDP as of 2012, significantly lower than the UN’s goal of 15%.

Syria Today: Conflict, Weak Institutions and Economic Decline

The situation in Syria has been deteriorating, with the UN special envoy for Syria stating that the “needs of the Syrian people have reached the worst levels since the conflict began” due to sanctions, COVID-19, the Ukraine-Russia war, destroyed infrastructure, earthquakes and losing control of oil fields. 

Syria remains engrossed in a war of attrition amongst over a dozen militant groups and international actors. While violence has considerably reduced, a formal conclusion has yet to be reached and sporadic fighting remains. The government is highly fragmented as the official Syrian government only controls 70% of Syrian territory, with extremist groups commanding regions in the northwestern region of Idlib.

The war has destroyed nearly all of Syria’s infrastructure — roughly 90%. Since the beginning of the Assad regime, Syria has been dependent on oil, relying upon the state-owned Syrian Petroleum Company for much of its revenue. Because of the civil war, Syria has lost its oil fields to U.S.-backed Kurdish militants and now must import oil from Iran, imposing an extreme financial burden. 

While technically a presidential republic, the Syrian government operates as a highly authoritarian regime. The single ruling party, the Ba’ath Party, dominates Syrian politics with President Bashar al-Assad as chief of state and Prime Minister Hussein Arnous as head of government. According to Transparency International, Syria is the second most corrupt nation in the world. The civil war has presented opportunities for low-level corruption, as humanitarian aid is often misappropriated or used as leverage to manipulate recipients. 

Freedom House considers Syria “not free” and “one of the world’s most repressive regimes” due to corruption, forced disappearances, torture, arbitrary detainment and a near complete lack of civil society. There are neither fair elections nor legitimate opposition parties, and the government maintains a strong surveillance apparatus to punish dissenters. 

Syrian political institutions are weak, corrupt and secretive, neither conducive to democracy nor development and reflect a low quality of government that deploys systemic deprivation of human rights. The national legislative branch, the People’s Council, consists only of Ba’ath Party members. Legally, women hold the same political rights as men; however, they only fill 11.2% of the People’s Council seats and are excluded from actual decision-making. 

The judicial system is not impartial as both judges and prosecutors are required to belong to the Ba’ath Party. There is no due process, as military officers can try citizens in field courts outside the realm of legal standards, and many men, women and children are detained arbitrarily and in secrecy. There is no enforcement of equal treatment under the law as party members and affiliates receive preferential treatment.

The government maintains a centrally-planned economy, controlling key sectors such as energy, telecommunications and transportation. The banking system consists of state-owned and private banks led by the Central Bank of Syria, currently sanctioned by the United States. In July 2023, the central bank devalued the Syrian pound from 4,522 pounds to the dollar at the beginning of the year to 9,900. On the black market, the rate is now 15,000 pounds to the dollar, an acute increase from the pre-war rate of 47 pounds to the dollar. 

Syria’s currency has completely collapsed with inflation reaching 800% since the beginning of the war, leading many regions to use the Turkish lira instead. Because there are no minting facilities in rebel-controlled regions of Syria, the bills in circulation are physically falling apart and each merchant decides their value based on how intact they are.

In 2018, the World Bank (WB) reclassified Syria as a low-income country as its GDP shrunk to only 4.4% of its pre-war figures. Before the war, extreme poverty was “virtually nonexistent.” Now, 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line. The WB attributes this decline to mass deaths, destruction of physical capital, sanctions, the dissolution of economic networks and the rise of a black market – Syria exports illegal weapons and drugs, which have reportedly become Syria’s most valuable products. 

The International Community’s Response

The UN demands the Assad regime take accountability for its war crimes, allow humanitarian aid to reach vulnerable populations and institute reforms in the criminal justice system. This includes releasing unlawfully detained individuals, implementing due process, disclosing information on forcibly disappeared persons, holding those responsible for abuses accountable, ensuring legal protections for the internally displaced and halting the use of lethal force on dissenters. The ICC recommends other nations continue suspending relations with Syria until these requirements are met, while HRW calls on the UNSC to investigate and prosecute those responsible for war crimes and to sanction high-level Syrian officials. 

Syria addressed these recommendations at the 2020 UN High-Level Political Forum with a series of demands, most significantly the lifting of all economic and diplomatic sanctions, which, according to Syria, obstruct its legal “right to choose development paths” and are “preventing Syrian institutions from fulfilling its [sic] role in providing citizens with the necessities of living.” In response to its lagging SDG progress, Syria blamed “terrorism and external military interventions.” In return, Syria promised to uphold international law and encourage private sector, academic, civil society and media freedom. However, the OHCHR’s July 2023 findings of systemic rape, torture and forced disappearances discredit Syria’s pledged commitment, with the Human Rights Council declaring there is “no end in sight” to Syria’s international law violations.

At its core, the crisis in Syria is so deeply connected to systemic corruption, international meddling and a flawed economic system that approaches such as naming and shaming, financial aid and international ostracization do not address the systemic nature of the issue at hand. While violence has drastically decreased, the situation has worsened, which substantiates the idea that the war has revealed and exacerbated pre-existing structural issues, not created them. 

Echoing the UN, “the only sustainable solution” is a regime change. However, it is unlikely the Assads’ dynastic rule will be challenged anytime soon due to financial support from powerful nations like Russia and Iran, concession-free reentry into the Arab League and a lack of any political opposition.   

The post Examining Syrian Human Development 13 Years After the Start of the War appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

During the early 20th century, the movement witnessed several key historical events, including the Balfour Declaration of 1917, where Britain declared its backing for creating a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Britain’s support for the Balfour Declaration was influenced by a combination of strategic interests, Zionist lobbying, complex wartime alliances and conflicting promises. Underlying antisemitic and pro-Zionist sentiments and religious and historical motivations also played a role. 

During World War I, securing the Suez Canal and British imperial interests in the Middle East was paramount, and the establishment of a friendly Jewish state in Palestine was seen as beneficial. Prominent Zionists, such as Chaim Weizmann, effectively lobbied British policymakers, arguing that support for Zionism could garner Jewish support in the United States and Russia. Britain’s wartime diplomacy involved making conflicting promises to Arabs and Jews, with the Balfour Declaration attempting to balance these. Pro-Zionist views and the belief in fulfilling biblical prophecy also played a role. With the end of World War I in sight, British post-war strategic planning aimed to reshape the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape, prevent French dominance, and ensure a friendly presence near the Suez Canal. This era saw the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire post-World War I. The mandate period experienced a rise in Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine.

Following World War II, many Jewish survivors resided in Displaced Persons Camps across Europe, often under poor conditions, and sought to emigrate. Western countries, including the United States and Britain, denied Jewish refugees and were hesitant to substantially increase their Jewish immigration quotas due to reasons such as antisemitism, economic concerns and geopolitical situations. However, the British were open to directing these Jewish immigrants to Palestine, where they were welcomed by the Palestinians. As per the Palestine Passport Regulations of 1920, anyone wishing to enter Palestine needed a visa from either the Palestinian government or British consulates. The Immigration Ordinance of August 26th, 1920 empowered the Palestinian government to regulate entry. 

Palestinian nationality came into existence or started developing with the post-1917 period. This de facto nationality was formed locally, in line with the domestic law applicable to Palestine and British practices. Concurrently, the inhabitants of Palestine continued to be de jure (according to public international law) Ottoman citizens, albeit in a nominal sense. Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate, which was a unique provision not found in other British mandates, outlined the structure for Palestinian nationality:

“The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

The primary aim of the nationality regulation in this article was to facilitate immigrant Jews as Palestinian citizens. This was a logical extension of the overarching goal of Britain’s Palestine Mandate: establishing a Jewish national home within Palestinian territories.

Subsequently, Israel’s founding generation and its initial leaders entered Palestine on Palestinian visas. David Ben-Gurion, considered the country’s founding father, emigrated from Poland to Palestine. David Green was born in Płońsk, Poland. Like many immigrants to Israel, Green later changed his name to a Hebrew one, David Ben-Gurion, in a process called hebraization of surnames. Many immigrants to Israel have hebraized their names as part of integrating into Israeli society. In 1906, Ben-Gurion landed in Jaffa at Ahuzat Bayit, modern-day Tel Aviv.

Additionally, the citizenship request papers of 20-year-old Szymel Perski, who would later become the Prime Minister of Israel, had a special request: to change his name to Shimon Peres. In his citizenship request, Shimon included declarations in his own handwriting that he was employed in agriculture at a Jewish settlement, and the request to change his first name to Shimon came with the explanation that “Szymel is a corrupted Polish version of the name Shimon.” The request was stamped in October 1943 in the British Mandate of Palestine.

Over the years, there have been various grassroots initiatives, such as petitions and debates, urging the UK government and Parliament to formally apologize to Palestinians and take a leading role in peace initiatives. In 1923, Britain expressed “regrets for their aloofness” for ignoring Palestinian Arabs while continuing its mandate. On the centennial of the Balfour Declaration in 2017, a petition with over 13,500 signatures called for the UK Government to issue a public apology to Palestinians, citing that Britain’s colonial policy led to “mass displacement” and injustice. In 2021, more than a century after supporting the Balfour Declaration, The Guardian expressed regret for its initial endorsement. The newspaper included this stance in an editorial, listing the “worst errors of judgment” the British daily has made since its founding in 1821.

The effects of the Holocaust during World War II, which led to the extermination of six million Jews, added an urgency to the Zionist cause. The world’s failure to prevent this genocide underscored the necessity of a Jewish homeland. Some modern critics say that Zionists and Israel use arguments relating to the Holocaust as a tactic to keep Germany, Europe and the West locked into a state of eternal debt, and swiftly deeming anyone who criticizes the state of Israel an antisemite. 

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the independence of Israel, which was immediately met with war, as Arab countries invaded the new settler colonial state. Weeks before, underground Zionist militia groups — the Stern Gang and Irgun — orchestrated a massacre that was key to terrorizing Palestinian Arabs to leave their villages. Terrorism continued to be the modus operandi of settler Zionists. 

The Deir Yassin massacre was one of the many massacres that paved the way for the establishment of the state of Israel by repeatedly attacking Arab Palestinians and British personnel. They believed that by getting rid of British patronage, Zionists would become the sovereign masters of the country. These groups called themselves “Lohamei Herut Israel Lehi,” or fighters for the freedom of Israel. They ripped through Palestinian villages, causing a bloodbath among its inhabitants and forcing the survivors to leave. It is estimated that around 15,000 Palestinians lost their lives, and several hundred thousand were displaced, seeking refuge in different parts of Palestine or nearby countries. Palestinians refer to this tragic event as the Nakba, meaning “the catastrophe.” 

Thus, on burnt Palestinian villages, the new State of Israel was formed. 

The Deir Yassin massacre and the subsequent exodus of Palestinians in terror played a significant role in persuading the initially hesitant leaders of neighboring Arab nations to engage in military action following the declaration of the state of Israel, thereby initiating a sequence of regional conflict. The establishment of Israel marked a significant triumph for the Zionist movement but also set the stage for the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict, including the deeply rooted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has been involved in several conflicts which have resulted in changes in its territorial boundaries. Upon the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, neighboring Arab states invaded. The war resulted in Israel expanding its territory beyond the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. Many Palestinians fled or were expelled from these areas, leading to a significant refugee issue. In 1967, the Six-Day War took place. This war had a profound impact on Israeli and Palestinian territories. Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. This marked the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, which continues to be a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

In the 2000s and onwards, the Second Uprising (“Intifada”) and subsequent conflicts took place. The Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, and subsequent Gaza conflicts from 2008-2009, 2012, 2014, etc. have seen further entrenchment of territorial disputes. Israeli settlements in the West Bank have continued to expand, which are considered illegal under international law.

Since its founding, Israel has experienced an influx of immigration from Jewish communities from around the world. The Zionist movement continues to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel (Aliyah) and maintains strong connections with the Jewish diaspora worldwide. Israel’s Law of Return, enacted in 1950, allows Jews to immigrate to Israel and grants them immediate citizenship upon arrival. However, Under the Absentees’ Property Law of 1950, Palestinian refugees who were displaced following Nov. 29, 1947, are classified as “absentees” and are not entitled to any rights, let alone allowed to return to their homelands. Their properties, including land, homes, apartments and bank accounts (both movable and immovable assets), are seized by the state. Because of this, Palestinians are the largest stateless community in the world. 

The Zionist movement, while achieving its goal of establishing a Jewish homeland, has sparked regional unrest and severe humanitarian concerns for the last 75 years. The future remains dark and escalation is bound to increase and worsen. 

The concept of a “Greater Israel,” according to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, is a Jewish State stretching “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates” and includes historic Palestine as well as other parts of Arab-majority countries. Some Zionists even believe that Greater Israel should span from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, covering areas such as Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey. Some historians and observers of international relations suggest that this is the reason behind Israel’s gradual expansion into neighboring territories, particularly Palestine. However, it is noteworthy that the concept of Greater Israel is not exclusively a Zionist endeavor. Recent discussions among some scholarly circles speculate on its potential role in U.S. foreign policy, aiming to expand U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and potentially leading to the region’s fragmentation and fracture.

Zionism as a movement gained momentum in the early 20th century, leading to the establishment of Jewish communities in Palestine, then under Ottoman and later British control. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, a statement by the British government, supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, further legitimizing the Zionist movement. 

Zionism has evolved over time and has faced various challenges and controversies, including opposition from some Jewish communities and conflict with the Arab population of Palestine.

However, Zionism has been central to the founding of Israel. It has provided the ideological and practical framework necessary for the Jewish people to establish a national homeland in Palestine. The movement’s determination directly led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. However, the creation of Israel also precipitated a profound and lasting impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations, laying the groundwork for a conflict that persists to this day. The displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the Nakba and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel has been central to the enduring strife between the two peoples. 

Zionism’s legacy is thus twofold: it achieved its goal of establishing a Jewish state but also contributed to a deep-seated conflict characterized by territorial disputes, political tensions and cycles of violence from both sides. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most complex and challenging issues in international relations, with Zionism’s historical role continuing to influence perceptions, policies and peace efforts in the region.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post The Balfour Declaration to the Nakba: Zionism and Its Impact on Palestine appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

These reactions came after Saudi Arabian clubs made recruit after recruit during the transfer season. It wasn’t a matter of a singular move, like Christiano Ronaldo’s move to the country in January. This was a matter of nine or ten big names from Europe (among them players such as Neymar, Ngolo Kante and Karim Benzema) announcing their leave within the span of several weeks.

Perhaps what set it off completely, though, was the offer placed for star Kylian Mbappé to join the club Al-Hilal: a whopping $332 million, an amount that would have set the record for the largest transfer fee in football history. This was different from the other deals, aside from its sheer valuation, because Mbappé is within his prime athletic years. Though the other names moving to Saudi Arabia were big deals, they made more sense: they were older players who had their time in the European spotlight and were now choosing a lucrative way to see out their career. However, Kylian Mbappé is a 24-year-old superstar who nearly led his national team, France, to victory at the World Cup in December. A move to Saudi Arabia would, to the football community, mean a loss of one of the best active players away from the competitive center of Europe.

It was then that cries started to be heard about Saudi Arabia “ruining” soccer. But did they, or was the game already poisoned? 

Flashing back 15 years ago, the club Manchester City was acquired by the Abu Dhabi United Group, which has a net worth of approximately $17 billion. Since, the company has spent about $1.57 billion on transfer fees and have won seven league titles, their most recent helping to make up the “Treble”, which means the team won the English league, the FA Cup Championship, and the Champions League in the same season. It is an incredible feat that is likely attributable to many factors. However, the glaring one to observers is that $1.57 billion was spent to put together such a team. Within the last 15 years, the club has been accused of breaching over 100 financial fair play rules, which are in place to ensure a certain degree of fairness in situations like these; however, such accusations clearly have not significantly impacted their spending nor their success. 

However, at least Manchester City spends money and gets results. The other big name club that often comes up in these conversations is Paris Saint Germain, or PSG, which has spent comparable money without the same results. Or, rather, without the one specific, coveted result: the UEFA Champions League. When the club was bought by Qatar Sports Investments in 2011, the promise was to bring a Champions League victory to PSG. That was 12 years and $1.4 billion in transfer fees ago. In that time, they bought superstars and big names like Kylian Mbappé, Neymar and Sergio Ramos, and ran through seven different managers, all to no avail. The club stands out as an epitome to this new, big money way of approaching the transfer market—with less intelligence and more brute strength, paying any price for a big name. 

But as we have seen with PSG, big names do not always mean success. Even with Manchester City, which proves it sometimes does, it is not a necessary path to success. Other clubs have been hugely successful via tactics and strategic recruiting instead; for example, the club SSC Napoli. This is a club that rose from bankruptcy in 2004 to champions of the Italian league in 2023. They did not have billions of dollars and squads of big name players backing them. Instead, they relied on smart, analytical moves in the transfer market and creative coaching. In the summer before they won the league, they spent just $58 million on transfers. They did so by scouting effectively for players who would fit best into their squad. A forward, Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, that they bought for $10 million and helped them win the league, is now valued at about $85 million.

Another success story is that of Brighton FC, who qualified for European football for the first time in the club’s history earlier this year. They did so by relying on unique data analytics, an ever-evolving style of play and, again, clever scouting. Their current buzz player, Kaoru Mitoma, was signed from Japan for $2.5 million; he is now worth close to 40. Success does not always come from money, and perhaps having money at your disposal, like PSG does, not only harms organic success on the field, but becomes a crutch rather than an aid. 

Aside from its effects on the field, the money flowing into the game also has human rights implications. The owner of PSG is also the leader of Qatar, Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, a country with a host of controversial human rights issues against migrant workers, women and people in the LGBTI community. Qatar also hosted the FIFA World Cup in 2022, exploiting and abusing workers in order to prepare for the event. The issue lies wherein the benefits the Qatari government sees from these harms fund Paris Saint Germain via Qatar Sports Investments. 

There are also concerns with Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. In 2022, Saudi Arabia targeted individuals for peacefully expressing their beliefs, issuing unfair trials that led to lengthy prison sentences and in some cases the death penalty, even to those who were children at the time of their accused crime. 

Additionally, there is the consideration that the majority of the Saudi Arabian and Qatari economies are dependent on and driven by petroleum and other fossil fuels. This adds a climate element to the equation, in which clubs, players, and the overall game are being run by “oil money.” 

As such, the concern for this entrance of money into the sport is not just a matter of concern for the quality or fairness of the game. While of course there are arguments to be made about financial fair play or the merits of winning a championship after spending heaps of money versus in more “organic” ways, the issues extend beyond that to the source of the money itself. The money funding these clubs comes from problematic governments that commit human rights abuses and exploit the people under them in order to earn it. 

It is for this reason that I argue that the Saudi Arabian influx this summer should not be reviled for “ruining football.” Because in the context of dirty money directing some of the biggest players and clubs in the sport, this is a phenomenon that has been occurring for the past decade. The other facet for why people claim these moves have hurt the sport is that it pulls stars away from the main European stage. However, to me this argument has less merit. Sure, people are upset because they can’t watch these players as easily, or perhaps their perceived view of the quality of the games or their team may seem worse without certain players, but I do not think this is bad in and of itself. Other leagues, such as Major League Soccer in the United States and Canada, are growing. Having big name European players, even those on the verge of retirement, is a sign of a league’s growth and the sport’s potential in the country. 

So, people might be upset that their favorite players are leaving. But I argue there is more of an issue with the source of the money drawing them away than with their simple departure. The money drawing the players away comes mostly from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, one of the world’s top ten largest sovereign wealth funds. They own the majority of four of the league’s biggest clubs and are the ones who made the record $332 million offer for Kylian Mbappe. 

In all, it can be pretty widely agreed upon that the influx of Saudi Arabian money in football isn’t something people like to watch happen, whether for its human rights implications, effects on the European market, or its sapping of big names away from center stage. But this phenomenon is not new, and perhaps part of a larger transition in football into a climate where such money holds the most influence and dictates the movements in the sport. This summer’s Saudi Arabian transfers are the product of a more comprehensive event and should be attributed and evaluated as such.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post Saudi Arabian Money Isn’t Ruining Football – It Was Already Corrupted appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Alice Walker, in her poetry book Sent By Earth, reminds us that murder is murder and that it is personal. Regardless of “if it is done in war. It is very intimate,” Walker says. “The beings we kill become, somehow, ours for life.”

I believe Walker is correct. 

The thousands of Palestinians  — who have been killed at the hands of the U.S.-funded bombs, and the settler colonial apartheid state of Israel — are not guilty. Americans are guilty.  At this point, with a death count of over 20,000 people and displacement of 1.5 million people, Israel’s violent ethnic cleansing campaign has officially surpassed that of the 1948 Nakba. And this terror campaign is that of U.S. citizens to face. 

PTSD isn’t an acronym long enough to describe what we have inflicted. The women in Gaza have no water to tend to their menstruating bodies, and they have no water for their daughters either. Over a million people in Palestine are displaced, many of them living under tents and tarps, and they spend hours of their days trying to obtain food and water. 

Hospitals — which are supposed to be protected by International Law — have been relentlessly destroyed. Less than 30 percent of Hospitals in Gaza are functioning.  “Not enough beds, not enough doctors, not enough space”, said Palestinian photographer Motaz Aziaza when describing the situation at Al-Aqsa Hospital. 

 “I miss my uni friends, I miss my life”, writes Plestia Alaqad who is a Palestinian journalist.

As we read and see these gut-wrenching and gruesome accounts, it is important not to desensitize ourselves to Palestinian suffering. There are actions we can take every day. Many of us in the U.S. have given far too many tax dollars to genocide. We let our media dehumanize Palestinians through their war-mongering lies. 50 days later and there is no end to this madness in sight. 

And now we must divest from the systems that sponsored this. We will divest from corporate media. I will not watch.  We will continue to boycott Starbucks, McDonalds and Disney. Ethnic cleansers do not get our business. 

Moreover, we must bear the burden of this violence, facing it entirely. Palestinians who have died did so with honor. They died in resistance to their violent occupation. Heartbreakingly, courageous journalists like Motaz Azaiza, Plestia Alaqad, and Hind Khoudary have become heroes of our generation, showing us what it means to be a warrior of resistance in the face of trauma and oppression. 

These heroes — and the burdens they have taken on — should bring us both hope and shame. As they brazenly call out the hypocrisy of Western Media, they have carved paths for us to speak truth to power. But isn’t it sad that our heroes never wanted to be heroes? Isn’t it sad that young adults (many of them our age) had to extort gruesome images of death and terror to make us care? 

Our privilege, as students in the West, means we must continue their work. Our activism will grow to be as relentless as the bombs that displaced and murdered our brothers and sisters. 

As artists, writers, historians, archivists and journalists, we have to tell the truth.  We should show images that maintain both the truth and the integrity of the Palestinian people. We will fight against this gruesome occupation for as long as it takes, and we will understand more than ever that this struggle is not insular. America’s longtime desire to Kill extends everywhere; nobody is safe. 

With our teeth sunk into the military-industrial complex, we have a long road ahead of us in resisting Israel and U.S.-led war crimes — along with further development of potentially catastrophic military developments, which could certainly lead to a disastrous nuclear war. 

Palestinians are wrongfully treated as tokens in the U.S.’s foreign policy agenda. You don’t need to be Arab or Muslim to see that this is wrong. Palestinians are not tokens, and neither are the people of Sudan, Congo & Armenia. These countries have all experienced genocide, ethnic cleansing, and gross human rights violations in recent months. Where has the mainstream media been? Reporting on Barbie. 

Truth is bleak these days. But to stand with the other, the group being marginalized and oppressed, will always be a part of the struggle for liberation. When I feel tired and hopeless, I remember that every action I make matters — that movements have always been built by ordinary people taking both small and large acts. I remember what Angela Davis said: “Freedom is a constant struggle.”

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post The Genocide of Palestinians is Ours to Face appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While this apartheid regime has existed for the past 75 years, and these atrocities for even longer, it has failed to gain adequate coverage by the mainstream media. The main reason for this is that of Israel’s creation, where a UN resolution gave Israel its own state, disregarding and displacing the Palestinian people who resided on the land. Israel is much richer than Palestine, and, however disheartening it may be, standing by Israel is more advantageous for governments across the world for many reasons, including the power of Israel’s financial allyship. Because of this, it is far more uncommon to see a major publication or news outlet throw its support behind the Palestinian people, who have been subject to ethnic cleansing for the past 75 years.

Now, as the world begins to understand the gravity of the genocide that is occuring in Palestine, governments are also beginning to crack down on any criticism of the state of Israel. 

While governments have expressed unwavering support for the Israeli government, despite the war crimes that are being committed daily, it becomes clearer every day that these countries’ populations do not agree. From Yemen to the United Kingdom and the United States, pro-Palestine protests have garnered millions to support their cause. However, as people begin to express their discontent with government support for Israel, these governments are limiting the right to protest and free speech. 

For example, in Germany, a country which outlines that, “every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech writing and pictures … There shall be no censorship,” the government is directly opposing what is stated in the country’s legal code. Currently, Germany is banning a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, with police attacking citizens for simply wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Palestinian scarf. These are not only horrifying attacks on free speech, but in direct opposition of what the German government claims to stand for. Germany has justified its actions as combating antisemitism, but it is abhorrent and dishonest to Jews and Palestinians alike to claim that standing up against Israel’s apartheid regime is an antisemetic act.

Germany is not the only country where this is happening, though. Austria, Hungary and Switzerland have all attempted to enact similar bans, while France continues to ban these protests on a case-by-case basis. 

Unsurprisingly, protest is also being heavily suppressed within Israel. In a country that is often lauded as the only democracy in the Middle East, its government is restricting the right to express any disagreement with its current actions. Not only is Israel arresting dozens of its Arab citizens for suspicions of terrorist sympathy, but is also treating social media posts with the Palestinian flag as hate speech. 

Seeing this, a clear act of anti-Arab sentiment and proof that Israel does not see Palestinians as equals, makes me wonder if Israel really has “the most moral army in the world” as it claims. If a global power who arrests citizens for sympathizing with innocent civilians is considered moral, the state of the world is worrisome.

The United States, a country that constantly boasts about its First Amendment rights and the right to free speech, is certainly not exempt from this hypocrisy. Some of the most elite universities in the country, which often pride themselves on being free-thinking and allowing of political speech, are among the harshest opposition to pro-Palestinian speech. 

Columbia University has suspended both JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) over claims that both groups are supporting hate speech. The idea that JVP, a Jewish activist organization with over 700,000 members, is antisemetic is not only laughable, but an insult to every Jewish person who stands against Israel’s crimes. Brown University is yet another example of this, arresting 20 Jewish students for asking that Brown consider a divestment resolution.

It is important to note that free speech within the United States is limited to the prohibition of government retaliation, meaning that groups not associated with the government are free to respond to speech as they wish. This is a bit of a difficult area to navigate, but it is crucial to remember that free speech does not signify speech without consequence. Speech that one simply disagrees with should not be a punishable offense, but speech that is hateful in nature and threatens violence must be addressed. Free speech does have consequences and it has limits, yet the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues to prove that governments will only acknowledge the right to free speech when it suits them. 

A prime example of this within the United States is the censorship of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib was censured for defending the use of the slogan “from the river to the sea,” which is not violent, despite what Zionists may claim. What this statement means is that Palestine will be a free state for all to exist in, regardless of religion — it is not calling for Jewish genocide as many Zionists choose to believe. While Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, faces a completely unjust censure for this statement, government officials who have called for violence against Palestine have not faced similar repercussions. 

Representative Max Miller has gone so far as to say “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot.” 

This statement is unquestionably violent and does not begin to acknowledge the fact that Palestine is made up of innocent civilians, with half of Gazans being children. Yet, he has not faced any repercussions while Tlaib is censured for speaking on behalf of a country that endures genocide. The double standard here is astounding, and I am ashamed to be represented by those who silence voices advocating for equality while simultaneously failing to condemn others who wish violence upon innocent civilians.

The other side of the coin here is the individuals who are not receiving any repercussions for their actions. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and something that must not be taken away, it is important to consider that the right to free speech includes the ability to retaliate. 

While people are free to express themselves in a manner that you choose, they are equally able to respond, whether in agreement or not. And, as explained by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Everyone should unequivocally condemn the vitriol that is being spewed, that which is antisemetic as well as that wishing violence on Palestinians. The University of Southern California has its own issues with this, specifically regarding Professor John Strauss, who was taped on video saying, “I hope they all are killed,” as he walked passed an event held to mourn the thousands of Palestinian lives lost to Israel’s genocide. Not only is his speech not protected from consequence by the First Amendment, but it is in direct contrast with USC policy against hate speech. 

I must add that I do not have faith that USC will uphold what it claims to stand for and unequivocally condemn this violent speech, but I hope that I am wrong. 

Globally, we have been subject to a media campaign to support Israel and suppress any opposition to the Israeli government, labeling the fight for Palestinian liberation as antisemitic. However, it is clear that people across the world do not stand with our respective governments, and it is crucial that we continue to oppose Israel’s violent settler-colonial apartheid regime by using our right to free speech, regardless of the attempt to take it away from us.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post The Meaning of Free Speech During Genocide appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On a more contemporary note, it similarly pains me every time I read an article or hear a quote from a politician that insinuates that the genocide happening in Palestine is a complicated issue that requires an international relations degree or a doctorate in political science. 

If my fifteen-year-old sister can understand the history and gravity of this genocide, so can you. 

The current conflict is really quite black and white: Israel is a nation ranked 18th globally in military firepower, 25th globally in overall economic prowess, and 3rd globally in military spending per capita. They have not only been colonizing and terrorizing Palestine, a poverty-stricken nation with no formal military or government for the past several decades, but have also been relentlessly bombing Palestine for the past month under the guise of self-defense after Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, carried out a terrorist attack against Israeli civilians on Oct. 7.  

In the immediate aftermath of the fateful Oct. 7 attack, it was reasonable for people to empathize with Israel after an estimated 1,200 of its citizens were mercilessly killed and 240 were kidnapped by Hamas. But Israel’s response to this terrorist attack has long surpassed brutal. The world’s complacency in this continuous act of terrorism and genocide will be remembered long after we’re gone as one of the greatest humanitarian failures of human history. 

In less than one month since Hamas’ initial attack, Israel has slaughtered over 10,000 Palestinians, almost half of which have been children. The fact of the matter is that there are other ways to eliminate Hamas, if that really is the sole intent of Prime Minister Netanyahu, with minimal civilian casualties. With a military and intelligence branch as powerful as Israel’s, their special operations units should be one of the most advanced in the world, capable of weeding out and selectively targeting militants. And yet, for some reason, this isn’t the approach Israel’s choosing to take. It’s suspicious to say the least. 

Supporters of Israel will relentlessly cite the hostages that Hamas is still holding. Although I feel great empathy for those families whose loved ones are still being held captive, it has become blatantly obvious that retrieving those hostages is not Netanyahu’s main objective. If it was, he would have accepted the prisoner-hostage trade deal proposed in late October. His failure as an elected official was reflected as family members of the hostages gathered in the streets in Tel Aviv to protest his inaction. Netanyahu knows that if the hostages are returned, he won’t have an excuse to obliterate the entirety of Palestine.

As videos show the IDF bombing hospitals, schools, refugee camps, ambulances and schools, destroying families and dismembering children, my hope for humanity evaporates. As Biden announces undying support for the Israeli government solely due to the fact that they are the United States’ strongest ally in the Middle East, my faith in American democracy crumbles. As Zionists ask me “it’s sad, but what else are they supposed to do?” about their government killing entire families in a single blast, my faith in an empathetic humanity dissipates. As my peers naively and unabashedly support a nation whose sole objective is to commit genocide, I grow numb. 

To me and others who are a part of the Pro-Palestine movement at USC, the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Zionist movement are separate entities. When I criticize the Israeli government, I do not criticize the Jewish religion. I have met people of the Jewish faith who have claimed that Zionism both is and isn’t an integral part of the religion. But regardless about the credence of Zionism, it is an indisputable fact that the Palestinian peoples inhabited the land that is now Israel-Palestine for centuries before the influx of Jewish refugees in 1948. It is also an indisputable fact that Israel then colonized more than half of what was meant to be set aside as Palestine in the decades following the division of the land, forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their homes during the Nakba and beyond. 

I am not sure when condemning genocide became a politicized opinion — it should be black and white. Watching the continuous influx of videos of wailing parents and shell-shocked infants in Gaza at the same time that I see affluent people in America making this issue about themselves has been one of the lowest points of my life. I implore those, especially the wealthy and privileged at USC, who struggle to remove the spotlight from themselves to move it to those who live every day not knowing if they’ll make it to the next. Condemning the Israeli government as someone of the Jewish faith doesn’t reflect badly on you as a person, rather, it shows strength in being able to receive criticism.

Those who support Israel are wrong. Those who refuse to “pick a side” are wrong. Those who refrain from uttering the word “ceasefire” are wrong. Those who ignorantly equate the loss on both sides are wrong. This issue of genocide is absolutely black and white. 

There is no justification for the atrocities that Israel has committed. This is not an eye for an eye, but an eye for an entire generation of Palestinians. 

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post Israel-Palestine Is Much More Black and White Than Gray appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As a Jewish student at USC, I am extremely fortunate to be surrounded by a vibrant campus Jewish community, which is over 2,000 undergraduates strong, in these difficult times. On Oct. 10, we came together for a vigil to mourn the victims of the attack in a ceremony that included songs, prayers and speeches. Through the tears, we created a beautiful moment of togetherness and solidarity. Yet, as I stood in silent prayer, I could not help but notice the small group that had gathered to “protest” our vigil, holding up Palestinian flags and signs. Seeing other USC students deliberately protest our community’s sorrow was deeply disturbing. It felt as though we had come together to create a sacred space of mourning, and they had come to desecrate it.   

In the days since the attack, college campuses across the country have seen a wave of both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine vigils, marches and protests, illustrating the stark divide on the issue among college students. Many in the U.S. Jewish community were disturbed to see that the attack drew apparent praise from campus organization Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters across the country, leading dozens of national Jewish groups, campus organizations and state legislators to sign a letter demanding universities withdraw their schools’ recognition of and funding for SJP.

SJP’s activities, according to the letter, included hailing the terror attacks as a “historic win” and distributing materials with images of paragliders, which were used by Hamas members in an attack on the Nova music festival, on U.S. college campuses. The letter concludes with a demand for “moral accountability and official punishment for SJP and its chapters for their campaign to glorify the Hamas attacks on Israel of October 7.” 

SJP was not the only major political organization to seemingly justify the attacks. Black Lives Matter Los Angeles called the events on Oct. 7 an “act of self-defense” in a statement posted on Facebook, even while news emerged of the murder of a number of Black Israelis.

The letter also comes in the wake of several reports of antisemitic incidents, some violent, on college campuses. A Cornell University professor called the Hamas attacks “exhilarating” and “energizing,” while a Yale professor dubbed Israel a “murderous, genocidal settler state.” At Columbia, an Israeli student was assaulted outside the main campus library, and a Jewish student’s door was set on fire at Drexel University in Philadelphia. An NYU student even admitted to ripping down posters of kidnapped Israeli children that were hanging on campus.

Both the attack in Israel and the troubling reaction have deeply impacted the mental health of many young American Jews. Nearly all of the people interviewed for a New York Times article on the topic spoke about a kind of aloneness, and a sense that “a chasm had appeared between their network of Jewish friends and family and the non-Jewish world around them.”

“A lot of Jewish students are really struggling when they see their peers or their classmates celebrating, not just condoning, but celebrating what’s happening as a form of resistance,” says Julia Jassey, a recent college graduate and the CEO of Jewish on Campus, an advocacy group for Jewish and Zionist students.

In an interview with Ted Deutch, former U.S. Representative (D-FL) and current American Jewish Committee (AJC) CEO, CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer reflected on his sadness regarding the tense situation the American Jewish community has been facing for the past few weeks: 

“What is so depressing, when I drive around here in Washington, […] and I drive by a Jewish center or a Jewish synagogue and I see cop cars […] right in front, I say ‘Is this the United States? Do you need cop cars in front of synagogues like this?’ It’s so depressing to see that.”

Moreover, antisemitism resulting from the conflict in the Middle East is impacting far more Jews than just those in the United States and on its college campuses. Around the world, various Jewish institutions have faced attacks. 

On Oct. 18, two hooded men threw molotov cocktails at a central Berlin synagogue. In Tunisia, hundreds of rioters were filmed setting fire to and heavily damaging a historic synagogue, which is an important pilgrimage site that houses the grave of a prominent 16th-century rabbi. In Australia, a pro-Palestine rally devolved into chants of “Gas the Jews.” 

If anti-Israel sentiment is truly only about protesting the Israeli government’s policies in Gaza, why are Jews around the world under attack?

Social media, and the ease with which people can repost thoughts, tweets and infographics, can largely contribute to the feelings of fear, frustration and isolation that many in the Jewish community have been experiencing. 

In recent weeks, I have seen a barrage of posting and reposting of unverified information disguised as fact on my own social media feed, influencing the opinions of numerous followers on various platforms. One example that I observed was the reaction to the Oct. 17 Al-Ahli Arab hospital explosion in Gaza. While the explosion was without doubt a horrific tragedy, many were quick to express outrage by reposting unverified reports that an Israeli missile had been the cause of the devastation. As the U.S. intelligence community and other experts assessed the situation and determined that Israel “was not responsible” for the blast and it was most likely a rocket fired from Gaza, not only did the incessant outrage disappear into thin air, but few bothered to apologize and correct themselves after spreading dangerous misinformation. 

Pro-Palestinian Protests, Antisemitism and Zionism

I stand unconditionally in favor of the freedom of speech and protest. At the same time, I feel it is my duty to call out misconceptions and speech that directly threatens my community.  

Let me be clear: Not all pro-Palestine protest is antisemitic. Standing against Israeli government policies in the West Bank and Gaza and calling for improved humanitarian conditions for Palestinians is perfectly legitimate. Yet, some common slogans being chanted at recent protests around the country must be both properly contextualized and called out for what they are: calls for violence against Israel and the Jewish people. 

The commonly heard chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” advocates for a Palestinian state that stretches from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. The establishment of such a state would mean the complete eradication of Israel, a UN member state, and the ethnic cleansing of the over 7 million Jews that call Israel home. The chant denies the Jewish connection to Israel and labels Israel’s entire Jewish population as “occupiers” or “settlers,” therefore legitimizing them as targets for violence. It also immediately shuts down any discussion of a two-state solution to the conflict. One can imagine the outcry that would occur if a protest publicly called for the destruction of any other UN member state and the elimination of the majority of its population. Yet, in the case of Israel, slogans like these are seen as a legitimate form of protest.

Another frequently heard message is a call to “Globalize the Intifada.” To many in the Jewish community, the chant threatens a new wave of violence against Jewish people, business and places of worship around the world, and triggers painful memories of a series of attacks in Israel including bus explosions and cafe bombings during the First Intifada (early 1980s) and the Second Intifada (2000-2005).  

Similar to “From the River to the Sea,” another common protest chant, “There is only one solution,” also identifies the elimination of Israel as the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not only does that statement shut down any productive discourse for finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, it also apparently makes terrifying allusions to Hitler’s “Final Solution” to the “Jewish Question” during the Holocaust. 

The normalization of chants like these as legitimate protest and appropriate language stems from a widespread misunderstanding of important concepts related to Israel’s history and existence, as well as the conflict as a whole. Calling for the destruction of the state of Israel and thus denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, also known as antizionism, is antisemitism.

In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a working definition of antisemitism, a definition constructed by experts in the IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial and based on international consensus. The IHRA definition is seen as the “gold standard” definition of the term, and Jewish organizations in the United States and around the globe have worked tirelessly to persuade both governments and the private sector to adopt it as official policy. 

According to the definition, the following constitute antisemitism: 

• “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

• “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.” 
• “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

• “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

However, the IHRA definition emphasizes “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Similar to IHRA, other definitions of antisemitism, such as the Nexus Definition, also agree that “opposition to Israel’s policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the state of Israel and/or its policies should not, as such, be deemed antisemitic.” Thus, legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and its policies is both possible and common.

Zionism is another concept that has been misunderstood and demonized. Zionism is the movement for self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, Israel. For many, it is an integral aspect of practicing the Jewish religion and identity. 

Contrary to common misconceptions, Zionism as a concept originated far before the Zionist Congresses of late 19th century Europe, an assertion made by those who falsely argue that Zionism is a settler colonial, racist movement. The yearning to return to Zion, the biblical term for Israel and Jerusalem, has been a cornerstone of Jewish life since the Roman Empire colonized the land, sending Jews into exile in 70 CE. For 2,000 years, Jews have prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, wished “next year in Jerusalem” during holidays like Passover, and made pilgrimages to ancient sites in the area. 

In the mid-19th century, Modern Zionism emerged, modeled after the other widespread national liberation movements of the time across Europe. It was in response to a long history of intense hatred, persecution and discrimination in countries across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa where Jews lived. The early Modern Zionists believed that a modern Jewish state would provide a safe haven from the bigotry and endangerment suffered as a marginalized minority. 

It is important to note that the definition of Zionism does not involve Palestinians nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Equally important, Zionism and identifying as a Zionist does not preclude support for Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

Zionism has often been described as a “settler colonialist” ideology. The term “settler colonialism” conjures historical memories of exploitative white European empires militarily invading lands in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, implanting their citizens in colonies through the use of force, subjugating the native and indigenous populations and stealing their natural resources. But using the term “settler colonialism” to describe events since the late 19th century paints an incomplete and inaccurate picture. It fails to acknowledge that both Jews and Palestinians are native and indigenous to the land. 

The Europeans who settled in colonies in the Middle East and North Africa were not indigenous or native to the land, nor held any religious and cultural connection to it in any way. The return of large numbers of Jews to Israel also resulted in the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language. No true colonialists came to a homeland and revived the ancient tongue they had spoken there. Unlike British, French and other European colonialists, there is no “motherland” to which the Jewish population in Israel may otherwise go back to. Many Jews in Israel, including many who fled persecution, have no other country to go to.

According to the “settler colonialism” narrative, Israel was established by oppressed white European Jews who in turn became oppressors of people of color, the Palestinians. Israel would then be an extension of privileged and powerful white Europe in a non-white Middle East. 

The problem with this narrative is that it does not reflect the reality on the ground. Over 21% of Israel’s population are non-Jewish Arabs. Among the 73.6% that are Jewish, Mizrahis, Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent, are the majority. Only about 30% of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi, or the descendants of European Jews. Thus, the “settler colonialism” narrative erases the stories of the descendants of the over 850,000 Middle Eastern and North African Jews that were forced to flee their homes due to antisemitism in Muslim-majority countries and settled in Israel, and also those of the over 160,000 descendants of Ethiopian Jews who were threatened by political destabilization in the early 1990s and airlifted to Israel.

As the current conflict drags on, I continue to hope and pray that all the hostages that were taken by Hamas are returned safely and the ongoing violence and civilian loss of life on both sides comes to an end. 

As college students, independently of what you stand for, I urge you to acknowledge the complexity and historical roots of this conflict, and to verify the sources of the information you receive, especially when reposting on social media. Even unintentionally spreading misinformation promotes hatred and isolation and endangers the lives of both Jews and Muslims around the world. Diversity of opinion should always be welcomed on our college campuses, but hatred and defamation should not.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post The Israel-Hamas Conflict Has Ignited a Wave of Anti-Semitism on U.S. College Campuses and Around the World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.