Search Results

Should the Knesset move forward with its proposal, it remains to be seen how the state’s diverse actors will reconcile their differences within a system that uniquely caters to a political majority that does not mirror the heterogeneity of Israeli society. < Back Is Netanyahu’s Supreme Court Proposal: Reform or Regime Change? By Magdalena Offenbeck January 31, 2023 Only weeks after its inauguration, Israel’s right-wing government under returning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has set out to severely curtail the powers of the Israeli Supreme Court. The current legislative proposal by Justice Minister Yariv Lavin will revoke the influential Israeli Supreme Court’s veto rights on government legislation and regulation, and place the judicial appointment panel under government control. This has sent shockwaves through Israeli society which, as the countless failed coalitions in the last years have shown, is already deeply divided. On Jan. 14, 80,000 protesters took to the streets of Tel Aviv to demonstrate against what many consider a step to dismantle Israeli democracy. However, the controversy reflects a tale as old as democracy itself: the intrinsic tension between the counter-majoritarian mechanism of judicial review and the will of popularly elected representatives. Under the reform proposal, government bills could be struck down by the Supreme Court with only a majority of 80 percent of judges in a panel of 15. Even if the Court reaches this supermajority, the Knesset could re-legislate the bill for a period of four years with a simple majority of just 61 Knesset members — a figure lower than the number required to form a coalition government. After that four-year period, any newly elected coalition could re-legislate the statute, making it immune to further judicial review. Additionally, the government could appoint seven of the 11 members to the judicial appointment panel. This would de facto end any possibility of independent judicial review. Israel’s Supreme Court is known for its wide powers and active role in reviewing government legislation. It has historically taken a liberal stance on controversial issues such as Israeli citizenship and settlements in the West Bank and offered an effective counter mechanism to the ongoing shift to right-wing party dominance in the country. However, its mandate and legitimacy are far from unequivocal. Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence mandated the drafting of a national constitution; but this was never fulfilled. Instead, the Basic Law, 14 laws adopted since 1958, has served as a growing body of constitutionalism in Israel. Judicial review was only progressively constitutionalized. In 1995, famous ex-Chief Justice Aharon Barak fundamentally altered the balance of power by asserting in the landmark case “United Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal” that the lack of a constitution did not prevent constitutional supremacy. Instead, laws considered fundamental Basic Law enjoy the status of legal supremacy, and the Israeli Supreme Court has the power to adjudicate on the conformity of legislation within this hierarchy of norms. The Court has since used this power to apply controversial principles such as “reasonableness,” whereby it can invalidate government legislation if it finds it unreasonable. Barak has called the proposal “ the beginning of the end of the modern state of Israel ,” outlining that it would leave citizens defenseless against the abuse of their rights. In a lengthy televised interview shortly after the proposal’s announcement, Barak warned of a possible tyranny of the majority and emphasized the importance of a thick conception of democratic principles, including minority rights protection. His comments were met with severe criticism by Justice Minister Lavin, who, like Netanyahu himself, portrays the measure as essential to restore democracy. The coalition government has continuously portrayed the Supreme Court as an instrument of the left and illegitimate due to its power to trump the will of democratically elected lawmakers. In a Jan. 16 Tweet, Netanyahu stressed that his government will not be “deterred by the attacks of the left and the media.” In recent years, the rise of left-wing governments has seemed like a sheer impossibility and cleavages between the left and the right have deepened on all social issues. This is accompanied by an increasing personalization of political power whereby anti- and pro-Netanyahu have become synonyms for left and right-wing political orientations. To the current government coalition, the Supreme Court is a tool the left uses to exert the influence it has lost in democratic elections. The politicization of the Court by the Israeli right is reflected in the stark divide in public opinion. In a recent survey by The Israel Democracy Institute, 54% of participants “agreed that the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down laws passed in the Knesset which conflict with the Basic Laws of the State of Israel.” This view was held by 76% of secular Israelis, while only 15% of Haredi Israelis agreed with the statement. Party alignment shows similar divides. Among the most prominent left-wing parties, 85% of survey participants expressed their support for the Court. Netanyahu’s more religious political base opposed the Court’s prerogative by no less than 95%. At the core of the issue lies a question of democratic legitimacy that has preoccupied constitutionalists since the idea of judicial review was first conceived. Proponents of the Supreme Court, such as Aharon Barak, highlight the essentiality of Constitutional Courts in providing a counter-majoritarian mechanism in societies, especially those as deeply divided as Israel’s. The country’s multiparty system of proportional representation with low thresholds to enter the Knesset has always allowed for diverse representation. Nevertheless, it has also made it possible for right-wing coalitions to overpower minorities in the government. It has been the role of the Supreme Court to assess the conformity of these coalitions’ actions with basic rights and freedoms. Yet, the proposal is hailed by many as a return to true democracy. Reform proponents believe the Court has an overly powerful role in politics as it inherently lacks democratic legitimacy, allowing judges to push an agenda that is not necessarily representative of the right-wing political majority in the country. Those considering democracy as the mere fulfillment of the will of the voting majority have long seen the Court’s powers as undemocratic by nature. Due to its lack of clearly enumerated constitutional powers, the judiciary has been able to take on an increasingly active and powerful role, establishing principles such as “reasonableness” that can be subject to broad application and interpretation. An opinion column by David M. Weinberg, vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, reflects these beliefs. He sarcastically outlines that “‘Reasonableness’ is authoritarian jargon that allows High Court justices to elastically apply their own sensibilities to socially re-engineer Israeli society in their enlightened image.” These contradictory perspectives leave little room for compromise and conciliation. The dismantling of the Supreme Court is by far not the only issue in Israeli politics that has seen extreme division and polarization, but to many, it is the most fundamental one yet. Should Netanyahu’s coalition succeed and pass the bill by March as announced, the political power balance is set to change drastically. Many fear that the Supreme Court’s dismantling will unravel the already limited liberal influence in Israeli politics and install a tyranny of the majority. To others, it is the return of true democracy. Whatever perspective one takes, Israel is a special case. Few democracies are forced to accommodate social diversity to this degree. Should the Knesset move forward with its proposal, it remains to be seen how the state’s diverse actors will reconcile their differences within a system that uniquely caters to a political majority that does not mirror the heterogeneity of Israeli society.

< Back Liquid Gold: The Story of Palestinian Olive Oil Mariam Mahamid December 20, 2025 In Palestine, olive oil is more than a product—it’s a story pressed from the soil, the sun, and the hands of generations. Across the hills of the West Bank, the ancient olive tree stands as a symbol of endurance, hope, and belonging. Every October and November, as the air turns cool and golden, families return to their ancestral lands to harvest olives, turning the harvest into a time of labor, joy, and collective memory. My mother’s village, Deir Ghassaneh , one of the villages of Ramallah , is famous for its olive groves. Every year, my grandfather would wake us before sunrise to pick olives from our family’s trees. We would spread wide nets under the branches, climb up the ladders, and gently beat the branches with sticks until the olives fell like soft rain. The sound of olives hitting the nets created a rhythm—soft, steady, and full of memory. When the olives were crushed at the village press, the first oil that flowed was vibrant green, almost glowing, and its taste burned slightly on the tongue, a sign of purity and freshness. For Palestinians, the olive tree is not just agriculture—it is ancestry. In Arabic poetry and proverbs, the tree symbolizes patience, strength, and peace. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is said to have called olive oil "a blessed oil." Across the region, it lights lamps, heals wounds, and seasons bread. In every Palestinian home, you will find a glass bottle of oil kept with reverence—often from the family’s own trees. According to a 2019 study by Brito et al. , olive trees demonstrate remarkable tolerance to drought conditions by activating biological mechanisms that allow them to “store resilience in their wood,” a trait that has made them enduring symbols across Mediterranean cultures. During the olive harvest season, Palestinian villages come alive with a rhythm that blends labor and joy. Families wake up before sunrise, carrying woven baskets and metal rakes to the groves. The air smells of earth and crushed olives. Laughter carries throughout the hills as stories, gossip and folk songs fill the day. The harvest isn’t only about collecting fruit—it’s a moment of community renewal, where generations work side by side and children learn the meaning of patience and belonging. As described in This Week in Palestine , "olive picking is a social and cultural ritual where families come together to share food, sing, and celebrate their connection to the land." In some villages, these same traditions have continued for centuries, beneath trees that have stood since biblical times. Families harvesting olives in early 1900s Palestine—men, women, and children working beneath the same ancient trees that still bear fruit today. (Photo: Library of Congress ) Some of Palestine’s oldest olive trees—many over two thousand years old—still stand as living witnesses to history. In Jerusalem, farmers and caretakers have preserved these trees for generations, pruning and nurturing them through war, drought and displacement. Their survival is more than biological; it’s symbolic. According to Olive Oil Times , scientific analyses confirmed that the ancient olive trees in Jerusalem’s Garden of Gethsemane are around two millennia old and still capable of producing fruit today. Each trunk carries the memory of the land, its grooves etched by time and its roots reaching deep into the soil—a testament to endurance and belonging. Ancient olive trees in Jerusalem’s Garden of Gethsemane—cared for by Franciscan monks, living witnesses to Palestine’s deep-rooted heritage. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons ) Olive oil sits at the heart of Palestinian cuisine—a symbol of both flavor and identity. A drizzle of oil completes nearly every dish: from musakhan (a traditional Palestinian meal of chicken, onions, sumac, and bread soaked in olive oil), to maqluba (an upside-down rice and vegetable dish), to za‘atar (a thyme, sesame, and sumac mix) spread over taboon bread (clay-oven bread). It flavors both savory and sweet dishes and even acts as a natural preservative. During the harvest season, families gather to share meals under the olive trees—moments that blend food, memory, and togetherness. As reported by Al Jazeera , such gatherings reflect not only agricultural labor but an act of cultural preservation—each olive picked, pressed, and shared becomes a story of belonging. After the harvest, farmers trim the trees to keep them healthy for future seasons ( Library of Congress ). The olive tree is generous but demanding—it requires care, time and patience. In many villages, presses work day and night, their stone wheels grinding fruit that families have gathered from dawn until dusk. Every drop counts. But these groves face growing threats. According to B’Tselem , settler violence has led to the destruction of tens of thousands of Palestinian olive trees over the past decade, with attacks intensifying during peak harvest months. These losses are not just agricultural—they represent the erasure of memory, livelihood, and history for thousands of families. According to The Polis Project , olive trees have become "sites of resistance," where colonization, dispossession and identity intersect. Uprooting an olive tree is not just ecological destruction—it’s cultural erasure. During each harvest season, hundreds of incidents of settler attacks and arson are reported. A 2025 Mongabay investigation documented how farmers across Gaza and the West Bank continue to salvage what they can from burned or fenced-off groves. Another powerful symbol of Palestine’s relationship with the olive tree is Mahfouza Shtayyeh, known across social media as "the Olive Lady." Her iconic photograph—taken two decades ago—shows her holding tightly to an olive tree in her village, Salem, near Nablus. Recently, the media group Hind’s Call visited her to mark the 20th anniversary of the image, meeting her up close and documenting the story behind her enduring presence and strength. During the interview, she explains that the tree she held onto had been planted by her father and that she continued to return to protect it whenever settlers approached the grove. Her words in the video are simple but unforgettable: "The tree has stood with us through everything. How can I leave it now?" Her story resonated across the region because it reflects something universal: love, memory, and the refusal to let the land be erased. In the village of Deir Ghassaneh, locals say the olive tree is like a member of the family—when one is lost, it is mourned. Yet even after fires, people return to replant. Organizations like Land of Canaan Foundation are working to restore uprooted groves through the Trees for Life Project , giving farmers new saplings and the means to rebuild their livelihoods. Every tree replanted is both an act of healing and a message of defiance. Beyond symbolism, olive oil is a vital part of Palestine’s economy. Before restrictions on export began, it represented up to 15% of agricultural income in some West Bank regions. Palestinian olive oil is sought after worldwide for its purity and low acidity, and small cooperatives have been forming to promote sustainable farming. According to Mongabay , some producers are now using solar-powered presses to protect the environment and reduce costs. The olive tree is also deeply spiritual. In Palestinian Christian and Muslim traditions, it is a sacred plant—mentioned in the Qur’an and the Bible. Olive oil lights church lamps and mosque lanterns; it blesses weddings, newborns, and even the dead. To many Palestinians, it embodies the connection between heaven and earth. Today, despite barriers, checkpoints and burning groves, Palestinians continue to press olives and pour oil into glass bottles with handwritten labels. Some jars are sent abroad to relatives; others are kept for family meals that bring everyone together around the table. Projects like Trees for Life and local presses in Ramallah, Nablus, and Jenin show that the story of the olive tree is still being written—in every harvest, every meal, and every act of care. Olive oil remains what Palestinians call "liquid "gold"—not only for its color or taste, but for what it represents: resilience, continuity and identity. From the terraces of Deir Ghassaneh to the ancient gardens of Jerusalem, the story of olive oil is the story of Palestine itself—rooted in endurance, nourished by memory and carried forward by hands that refuse to let go. Photo Source: American Colony (Jerusalem), Wikimedia Commons

While news organizations grapple with industry shifts due to globalization and new technologies, journalists face more imminent danger while reporting conflict than ever.  < Back Changing Face of Foreign Correspondence as Journalist Deaths Skyrocket By Colette Yamashita Holcomb February 29, 2024 Western media publications and broadcasters have cut back on foreign correspondence since the late 1990s, including closing or downsizing their bureaus abroad due to economic pressures. While news organizations grapple with industry shifts due to globalization and new technologies, journalists face more imminent danger while reporting conflict than ever. Over 100 journalists have been killed in the Israel-Gaza war so far. The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate alleges Israel directly targeted 96 journalists, but exact numbers have yet to be confirmed. Covering war is already a dangerous task, but journalists in Gaza face exceptionally high risks covering the Israeli ground assaults, including airstrikes alongside food and medical supply shortages, power outages, and communication lapses. The president of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Jodie Ginsberg, stated this war is the deadliest conflict for journalists they have recorded in over 30 years of their operation, especially because journalists are dying at such a high rate in such a short period. Human rights and press freedom organizations have also kept their eyes on Russia’s war on Ukraine. According to CPJ, at least 15 journalists were killed in Ukraine in 2022, with 13 confirmed to have been killed while reporting. Most journalists died in the early stages of the war, but three reporters and media workers were killed in 2023, including French cameraman Frédéric Leclerc-Imhoff in May 2023. Still, journalists face physical danger. Ukrainian, as well as other international journalists, are often injured by shelling, some also report that Russian forces have directly targeted them. One such reporter was the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich, who has spent nearly a year detained by the Russian Federal Security Service. Despite his full press credentials from Russia's foreign ministry, the RFS detained him on espionage claims. A claim which Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal, and the US government forcefully denied. Another significant change, particularly in the Gaza war, has been the emergence of social media documentation. As major media organizations are restricted from reporting directly in Gaza, local Palestinians have taken to these platforms to document the war. This real-time, unfiltered reporting has gained traction, especially on platforms such as Instagram and X, formerly known as Twitter. While foreign correspondents — particularly from Western countries — used to be the central source of information, people worldwide connect with these journalists and rely on their social media pages for updates. Some of these reporters in Gaza are now affiliated with certain media groups, but many have remained independent, such as Motaz Azaiza and Bisan Owda. While journalists have never been invincible, standards are evidently changing within these wars. This highlights a lack of respect for press credentials; what used to symbolize protection for journalists — such as wearing press designations on their jackets — is no longer a guarantee of safety for journalists. “If you wear your flak jacket [a protective vest that protects the body from shrapnel] and your helmet, you have the press logo, and you are moving with a car that has the TV logo, even all of that doesn't protect you,” said Nagham Mohanna, a Gaza-based reporter for The National. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera correspondent Youmna ElSayed told the Reuters Institute. “We got to the point where wearing our press vests seems like putting ourselves in danger. We’re afraid to wear them because we don't want to label ourselves as journalists.” In late October, Israeli officials informed international news organizations — including Reuters and Agence France Presse — that it cannot guarantee the safety of their journalists operating in the Gaza Strip. This statement occurred a little over a week after Israeli tank fire killed a Reuters visual journalist on the Lebanese border. This incident also injured six other reporters, including journalists from Agence France Presse and Al Jazeera. All reporters were wearing blue flak jackets and helmets, most with “PRESS” written on them in white letters. Collaborative investigations by Reuters, Agence France Presse, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International later concluded this was “likely a direct attack on civilians that must be investigated as a war crime.” Few international journalists have been able to enter Gaza without being embedded by the Israeli Defense Forces — meaning they are attached to military units during their reporting. In Russia, Western news organizations struggle with the harsh crackdown on free speech by President Vladimir V. Putin, leading many to pull correspondents from Moscow and suspend news reporting or broadcasting in Russia. This decision followed Putin’s censorship law, where journalists who described the war as a “war” could be sentenced to prison which effectively criminalizes independent journalism covering the invasion of Ukraine. Without authorization from Israel or Russia, journalists struggle to provide unbiased, consistent, and efficient coverage of the wars. These dramatic shifts in norms raise the question: what obligations do governments have to protect journalists, especially those who do not report for their country? According to international law, deliberately targeting journalists — whether with violence, unjust imprisonment, or torture — is a war crime. Journalists receive the full scope of protection granted to civilians and thus cannot be considered military targets. Still, it can be difficult to prove — especially in an area as condensed as Gaza — that strikes are always intentional. There is also an important distinction between the differences in protections for war correspondents who are formally authorized to accompany armed forces and journalists as outlined in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Both are recognized as civilians, but only war correspondents are entitled to prisoner-of-war status, as they are granted the same legal status as armed forces members upon capture. In the evolving landscape of conflict journalism, the safety of journalists is increasingly compromised, evident in the staggering number of casualties during the Israel-Gaza war and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The traditional protections associated with press credentials and designated attire have lost their efficacy, leaving journalists vulnerable to targeted attacks and imprisonment. Moreover, independent, on-the-ground reporting can leave reporters more vulnerable to attacks, wrongful detainment, and intimidation without representation from larger media organizations. These challenges faced by journalists raise urgent questions about the responsibilities of governments to safeguard those who strive to bring unbiased and essential information to the world amidst these changing dynamics.

How can believers trust an institution that continuously lies? How can they trust an institution that fails to live by the teachings of the word it claims to follow? How can one believe in the good, in the charity of an institution that causes so much pain? I am not suggesting the Church is inherently flawed, after all I still am a Christian and I still believe in the Church, but there is no denying the wrongdoings of its executive. The question is whether the Church will confront the sin lying in its foundation—for an institution like the Church cannot stand if it hides the rot within. < Back Broken Faith: Confronting Abuse within the Catholic Church Rebecca Canton For centuries, people around the globe have regarded the Catholic Church as an institution offering sanctuary, a place of rest and protection, evident in passages like Proverbs 18:10, ‘the name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.’ Christian children are taught religion is dependable as a source of guidance and truth, myself included. Yet, such promises do not tend to reflect current realities. The revelations of widespread abuse in the Church create a shadow over these ideals. The Church and its confessional, once considered a place for repentance and reflection, have become symbolic of secrecy and cover-up. I am a Christian, I believe in God, I believe in the Bible. Do I believe in the systemic abuse of children and vulnerable adults by priests and clergy members? Rather obviously not. I’m a Christian, not devilish. So then, why has this happened? Why have, since 1950, around 216,000 children in France been sexually abused by clergy members? 216,000 childhoods were destroyed in France alone, by people they were taught to trust. I’ve read the Bible and nowhere does it state ‘Thou shalt not refrain from assault,’ not one passage, phrase, nor implication suggests this is the Christian doctrine, that this is acceptable. Yet, until recently, they have gotten away with it. Protected by religion, protected by hierarchy, protected by institutions, such cycles of physical, sexual and mental abuse have been perpetuated throughout the Church for decades. The first time I heard of anything remotely related to abuse within the Church was in 2013. In my home country, the United Kingdom, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who was the Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, resigned after revelations that he had engaged in predatory sexual relations with priests and seminarians in an abuse of power. I was eight and had just started religious studies. I remember my mother, who is a Protestant and my father, who is a Catholic, discussing this ‘scandal,’ but I did not think much of it. At the same time, I learned a phrase that rang particularly true, ‘a tree with a rotten core cannot stand.’ This metaphor resonates with the Church, with allegations of decades of abuse threatening the foundation of its institutions. It was in the 1980s that revelations of Catholic Church abuse first came to light, with allegations of decades of abuse. And that is just the modern Church. As early as the 11th century, abuse has been reported within the Church, notably when Peter Damian, an Italian Benedictine monk wrote ‘ Liber Gomorrhianus,’ which condemns priests having sexual relations with young boys. Now, since the 1980s, the Church has been hit with ‘scandal’ after ‘scandal.’ It only takes a quick search for ‘Catholic Church abuse’, for thousands of articles to emerge, from a multitude of countries. August 2005, Bell River, Ontario, Canada. Father Charles Henry Sylvestre pleads guilty to 47 counts of sexual abuse between 1952 and 1989. His victims? Girls aged nine to fourteen. August 2020, Germany. 1,412 people accuse at least 654 monks, nuns and other clergy members of abuse. 2017, Australia. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse finds that out of the 201 Catholic Churchs, 46% had allegations of sexual abuse towards minors. What becomes evident is that this is not one event. Not one ‘scandal’ like my parents told me. This abuse transcends borders, age and gender. It is systematic, ingrained within the very structures of the Church. Perhaps it is unfair to claim this is institutional. After all, not all Catholic priests are sex offenders. Institutions have taken steps, however small, to hold abusers accountable. There have been inquiries into sexual abuse in the Church with a court recently approving a $323 million settlement for abuse victims. Many priests have been forced to resign and in 2005, the ‘Ferns Report,’ an inquiry into allegations of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland, led to an apology from the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowan and a promise to reform the Irish social service system. Such news fills me with hope. Whilst the historical abuse of children and vulnerable adults must not be ignored or neglected, the Bible teaches us to forgive. That hope is crushed when I see another article of another priest abusing another child in another country. That hope is destroyed even further when I read of how the Church has covered up another scandal. The Bible teaches us to forgive, but certain actions are unforgivable. The Church has apologized, but apologies mean nothing without incremental change. Further, are they really sorry, or are they just sorry they got caught? The most harrowing aspect to these cycles of abuse is that the Church was not unaware—they knew it was happening. So many of the Churches that housed these abusers knew. They knew and they did not care. In many prominent cases from all over the world, it has come to light that information surrounding abuse was intentionally suppressed. Take the 2010 Karadima case in Chile, for example, wherein Fernando Karadima, a Chilean Catholic priest, was accused of sexually abusing boys as early as 1984. Yet when it was found that these accusations were true, the Archbishop of Santiago, Karadima’s superior, took no action. In 2011, the Vatican found Karadima guilty of sexual and psychological abuse and he was forced into retirement and denied practice as a priest under the punishment of a ‘life of prayer and penance.’ Realistically, this was a slap on the wrist, as Karadima had no legal action against him due to the statute of limitations. Another example is from the United States, where on 29 December 2019, it was exposed that multiple bishops had withheld hundreds of names from the accused clergy list. Further, on 6 March 2020, an investigation by the Houston Chronicle and ProPublica revealed that the Catholic Church moved more than 50 accused clergy to other countries to avoid consequences for sex abuse. The story varies from country to country, but the patterns that emerge are the same: abuse has effectively been condoned, creating a system where clergy members think they can act without consequences and where victims are discouraged from coming forward. The hierarchical nature of the Church—characterized by a chain of command, has often led to an environment that leans towards mishandling and concealment of cases regarding sexual abuse. As in such a structure, the clergy and senior officials, the abusers, are protected by layers of secrecy. This system has long protected the reputation of the Church and loyalty over transparency and accountability, as many clergy members have been shunned from Church social circles, not for abuse, but for standing up for the abused. Likewise, it has meant that instead of being imprisoned perpetrators are simply reassigned. With a history of payouts, victims are compelled not to tell their stories. Further, in most religious communities, going against God is seen as blasphemous. Priests and Clergy members are meant to be his representatives, thus there is shame associated with questioning Church executives. Dissent or accusations towards Church members, especially high-ranking ones, can feel like a betrayal, promoting fear of condemnation or even eternal punishment. It is similar to why people tend not to testify against family members— there is a sense of loyalty. Loyalty not only to the Church, but to God and unless the victim wholly rejects religion, it can be hard for them to escape cycles of abuse. Likewise, it is not uncommon for priests and clergy members to have genuine relationships with their victims, acting as father figures to vulnerable children. For some, the Church becomes their family. “Seeing him in shackles and an orange jumpsuit, people asked me, ‘Why don’t you hate him? Why don’t you want to hurt him?’ Well, I do. But at the same time, I have some really strong conflicting feelings. It’s not hard to love the man that he was before he did what he did.” ~ Jim VanSickle The Vatican wishes for a “path of redemption,” which is how the narrative shifts. The very ones inflicting shame on the children they hurt, the ones seen as ‘holy’, now asking, begging, for forgiveness with statements of ‘pain’, of ‘regret’, of ‘institutional failings.’ But it is too late. You can not take back the suffering and erase the harm caused by the hands that touched perniciously. “Then, the next thing you know, he's reaching over there, touching you. You're asleep, wake up and somebody is touching you. I just remember freezing, frozen, kind of out of body.” ~ Mark Belenchia The Catholic Church has committed a heinous crime, the crime of failing generations, from Australia to Ireland, Rome to New York . In a way, the Church has failed not just the abused but its followers as a whole. When I think of God and Christianity, I feel loved, but when I think of the Catholic Church and the abuse of children, that emotion is replaced by disgust. These scandals, especially the failure to do anything about it, taints my religion and no amount of holy water can wash away the sins now ingrained in its very foundations. “I always listened as they said ‘lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil' but they were bestowing evil upon us at the same time” ~ Alicia Sample How can believers trust an institution that continuously lies? How can they trust an institution that fails to live by the teachings of the word it claims to follow? How can one believe in the good, in the charity of an institution that causes so much pain? I am not suggesting the Church is inherently flawed, after all I still am a Christian and I still believe in the Church, but there is no denying the wrongdoings of its executive. The question is whether the Church will confront the sin lying in its foundation—for an institution like the Church cannot stand if it hides the rot within.

< Back Setting Precedents – Greece’s LGBTQ+ Rights Triumph and France’s Landmark for Abortion Rights By Maria Eirini Liodi March 31, 2024 Cause for celebration comes in the past months, as Greece became the first Orthodox Christian-majority country to legalize same-sex marriage and France enshrined the right to abortion within its constitution. Amid tense discussions on upcoming U.S. elections, multiple ongoing conflicts, and protests of all sorts recently setting central Europe ablaze, perhaps a moment of appreciation for these two recent ‘wins’ could be uplifting. On February 15, 2024, following months of deliberation, Greece emerged as a triumphant example of LGBTQ+ representation within the Southern European region. Despite opposition from the Orthodox Church and members of the political right, the measure was passed by the parliament with 176 voting in favor and 76 against, legalizing same-sex marriage and granting same-sex couples’ adoption rights as well. Granting the right to marriage translates into recognizing LGBTQ+ couples and children's rights on an equal footing within their familial structure. For those who remained unconvinced as to why equal marriage rights are important, various studies conducted over the years support the reality. One such example published in the National Library of Medicine, indicates that same-sex marriage constitutes an issue of public health, delineating clearly that: “ Being in a legally recognized same-sex relationship, marriage in particular, appeared to diminish mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons (in the study). ” Greece has been one of the relatively liberal countries on LGBTQ+ rights in Southern Europe, considering homosexuality had long been decriminalized in 1951, and same-sex civil unions were legalized in 2015. However, given the persisting tragedies of hate crimes against members of the LGBTQ+ community, it is important to keep striving for equal rights and protection for all the country’s citizens. As notably stated by the country’s Prime Minister on X, this moment is “a milestone for human rights” in Greece. As the 16th European Union country to legalize same-sex unions, following Estonia earlier in January of this year, Greece can serve as a precedent for other countries in the region that beyond civil unions, remain more conservative on the matter. Across the continent, France marked its own historic milestone on March 4, 2024, shifting the global narrative toward progressive social change. France has become the first country to enshrine the right to abortion within their constitutional framework. Why is this significant, given that abortion has been legalized since 1975 in France? Ensuing the U.S. Supreme Court’s disruptive downturn in deciding to overturn Roe v. Wade, activists both within the U.S. and elsewhere around the world have responded in an uproar. As of January of this year, twenty-one states prohibit abortion or restrict the procedure to earlier in the pregnancy than the standards set by Roe v. Wade. Women with pregnancy complications or subjects of rape still have to illegally or unsafely deal with this issue. Abortion is a human rights issue, and France has made it clear that “guaranteed freedom” to abortion is vital. In celebration, the Eiffel Tower was lit up with the words “ mon corps mon choix”, my body my choice, clearly delineating the stance the country has taken and continues to take for women. There have been debates on why Macron’s government decided to enshrine this right within the constitution, considering the pre-existing laws safeguarding abortion in France. Is this merely a political stunt? An effort to win popular support? Whatever the case on this front, one thing remains steadfast – laws can change. Putting this right within its constitution, France is providing a long-term safeguard for its women today, tomorrow and for future generations. This step serves as a statement; one which can be an important example for other nations, especially during an era where certain countries are facing regressive shifts in reproductive policies. By codifying this essential freedom, France is challenging deeply ingrained patriarchal structures – after all, what does a state say to its female citizens today if it does not permit them bodily autonomy and protection? Amid grim news feeds, Greece and France shed light on a progressive path toward more equitable societies. Let’s hope these victories resonate globally, prompting policy change toward acceptance and autonomy.

The global energy crisis began in October 2021 with the backdrop of resurgent demand from the re-opening of economies following the Covid-19 pandemic. There is no doubt that recent energy politics has certainly provided a fair wind for both Egypt and Israel. < Back Egypt and Israel: Quiet Beneficiaries of the Energy Crisis By Noor Ahmad October 31, 2022 The global energy crisis began in October 2021 with the backdrop of resurgent demand from the re-opening of economies following the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2021, China’s post-Covid recovery led to a demand for gas that is said to have risen by 8.4 percent. Gas imports are set to increase by 20 percent to satisfy this demand, resulting in less gas available for import to many European countries from gulf countries, such as Qatar, who could not ramp up natural gas supplies to Europe, as they were committed to their long-term contracts with Asian countries. The other major event that undoubtedly catalyzed the energy crisis was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia supplied around 40 percent of the European Union’s gas consumption by pipeline, and the 75 percent cut to supply has significantly affected European countries which have relied on Russian gas for years. Russia started to reduce its supply of gas in 2021 on the pretext of maintenance to its major gas pipelines into Europe. This accelerated in the early part of 2022, when gas flow reduced by about 40 percent through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, one of the major conduits of gas from Russia to Europe. By July of this year, the flow of gas through Nord Stream 1 was reduced to 20 percent of its capacity. On Sept. 30, a series of under-water explosions damaged both Nord stream 1 and 2 pipelines, most likely the result of sabotage. The union has not published its findings, but many suspect Russia to be the culprit. Amidst this chaos, two unexpected beneficiaries have been Egypt and Israel. The benefits have not only been economic but also political. Egypt, following the major discovery of offshore gas in 2015 by the Italian company ENI in the Zohr gas field, has been investing in its scope for exportation through the development of its gas liquefaction capacity. Liquefied natural gas has become a major method of transporting gas where piping gas is not possible. According to reports, Egypt now ranks in the top ten countries in the world with gas exporting capacity. Part of this success is due to its links with Israel through the Arab Gas Pipeline, which is used by Israel to export piped gas to Egypt for liquefaction and then is re-exported. Israel has become a significant gas exporter in recent years. It relies on its two major gas fields, Tamar and Leviathan, both offshore fields off its coast. Leviathan, which was discovered in 2010, has the capacity to supply Israel’s domestic needs for the next 40 years. Tamar gained significance around the same time. Most recently, in 2022, 60 billion cubic meters of gas was discovered in the Olympus Area, also in the Mediterranean. By some estimates, Israel, which currently exports 10 million cubic meters a year, has the capacity to more than double this in the coming years by investing further. For both countries, the rising price of gas and their export capacity have provided much needed hard currency to support their economies. Egypt’s economy has been severely impacted by rising commodity prices, particularly wheat, which is a mainstay for its population’s bread consumption. At the same time, sanctions on Russia have affected Egypt’s tourism industry, which relies on Russian tourists. In Israel’s case, a recent report published by the Ministry of Energy showed Israel’s profits from natural gas increased by almost 50 percent. Eleven percent of royalties from revenues from natural gas go directly to the treasury to fund state expenditure. Beyond this, Israel set up its own sovereign wealth fund, The Israeli Citizens’ Fund, to benefit from the increase in gas production; it raises its revenues from taxing excess profits. After a disappointing start, the fund, according to the Israeli Tax Authorities, was expected to collect between 300-$500 million dollars a year over the next decade. This turned out to be very conservative given that it raised 500 million dollars in less than three months in 2022. This fund will be invested for future generations, in line with how other sovereign wealth funds operate around the world. Beyond economics, the two countries’ geopolitical situations have also benefited. The European Union signed a trilateral Memorandum of Understanding between Egypt, Israel and itself in June 2022 to increase the export of Israeli gas. What has surprised many has been the union’s silence on the values it has held so dear for many years. Both Egypt and Israel have been targeted for various humanitarian issues – the Egyptian military regime’s treatment of dissenters is well documented. Moreover, the union has been historically vocal about Israel’s settlements and occupation of Palestinian territories and. It has been widely noted that the memorandum signed was the first in which the union failed to mention the Palestinian territories. A question was raised on the matter in the union’s parliament to the European Commission on the subject. A response on July 28, 2022 to the question, given by the Vice-President of the commission, Borrell Fontelles, stated that as this is a non-binding agreement, no territorial clause was deemed necessary. And while the union recommitted to abiding by United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, which calls for its member states to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967, the omission in this instance is unusual. There is no doubt that energy politics has certainly provided a fair wind for both Egypt and Israel.

For Iran it was an illegal assassination of a national hero; For the United States a justified pre-emptive attack on a terrorist. For the millions of civilians who reside within the Gulf region, it meant fear of what could be a death sentence by two powerful states in their unending quest for hegemony. < Back Iran and the United States: Fighting for Hegemony at the Cost of Civilian Lives By Emilia Kohlmeyer January 30, 2022 For Iran it was an illegal assassination of a national hero; For the United States a justified pre-emptive attack on a terrorist. For the millions of civilians who reside within the Gulf region, it meant fear of what could be a death sentence by two powerful states in their unending quest for hegemony. For the international community, it is a painful reminder of its continuous failure to uphold international law. January 3 marked the two-year anniversary of the US-led assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and on a diplomatic mission in Baghdad when he was killed by a US drone strike on the 3rd January 2020. This triggered counter strikes by Iranian forces on US bases in Iraq, injuring thousands of military staff. In Iran, thousands of mourners have marched in protest to what their government deems as “military adventurism”or reckless military strategies by the United States within the region. This is accompanied by Iraqi demands for the final withdrawal of US forces from their territory. The States legally justified the strike as anticipatory self-defense, however it was immediately disputed that the danger Soleimani represented was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” They failed to provide concrete evidence of an imminent threat, in effect failing to justify the principle of self-defense. The United Nations special rapporteur for investigating extrajudicial and summary executions, Agnes Callamard, concluded, “Even at the most basic level, the U.S. did not demonstrate that striking Suleimani was ‘necessary.’” Furthermore, Iraq did not consent to the strike; therefore it concretely violated its sovereignty. Two years later, Iran’s continuous calls for action to the United Nations and Interpol sanctions on those responsible remain unanswered. International law should exist to provide a set of rules by which everyone is required to abide, despite one’s power or influence. It sets the basis for equality amongst states and their people, which is the foundation of conflict-resolution between multiple parties. When there is no consequence to the violation of said law for states which are considerably more powerful, international law fails to address its entire purpose:equal accountability. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani therefore set a dangerous precedent, highlighting that if powerful states such as the U.S. desire to bend the law according to their interests, they face no consequences. Why should other states therefore abide by the law at all? It could neither be considered fair nor necessary. This neglect of an accepted set of rules can endanger millions of civilian lives. In this particular instance, with the increasingly downright insulting rhetoric of both Iran and the States towards each other, armed conflict did not seem unlikely. Maybe Iraq would once again become the playground of the powerful – after all, strikes from both sides took place there. The ones who bear the burden of transgression from either side are innocent civilians, who are not even citizens of the perpetrating countries. They would share the same fate as Syrians, whose home is subject to a pissing contest between powerful states. The dangerous consequences of this fight for regional hegemony indicate that the current global mechanisms which are in place to protect civilians have failed to fulfill their duty. The pick-and-choose of which nation receives sanctions for its actions continues to allow a disproportionate exercise of power — often by countries that do not even lay within the region they seek to control. The guise of spreading human rights and global peace by such states can no longer serve as justification for foreign intervention. The international community cannot continue to accept it as such. Therefore, it is of increasing importance to hold officials of our own countries — and the organizations in which they participate – accountable. For too long this region has been a playground for the powerful at the expense of innocent lives. Two years have passed, and I am back in Qatar sitting in conversation with friends who have seen their homes fall victim to this power play. With the turbulence of COVID-19, many people abroad have forgotten how January 2020 felt. But we still live between 11,000 U.S. troops on the Al-Udeid base mere kilometers from our homes and our neighbor Iran, separated by a flight less than an hour. We joke about the time there was almost a war, but entrenched in our subconscious is the knowledge that any diplomatic misstep can claim our next home.

< Back Vague Policy on Concrete Issues Pracheth Sanka September 30, 2024 “We have to get a deal done.” Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, repeated this statement multiple times during a brief answer in her live CNN interview in late August. In her first real moment to explain her policies to the American people, she gave non-answers and vague responses, especially on the question of the War in Gaza, leaving viewers disappointed . Harris provided a mixed message, both stating her unequivocal support for defending the state of Israel and for the innocent Palestinian civilians impacted by the conflict, echoing her statements from the previous week’s Democratic National Convention. In addition, she—very—quickly expressed her backing for a potential two-state solution, one of the few outwardly indicated policies concerning a post-war Palestine. Chiefly, Harris aims to continue the Biden Administration policy in pursuit of a ceasefire. She showed visible frustration that negotiations between Hamas and Israeli leadership seemed to be stalling in Doha. Still, she remained adamant that a deal must be agreed upon, both to free American hostages and end the conflict. President Joe Biden and V.P. Harris have stated their belief in a ceasefire as a means to rebuild the region. However, apart from the aforementioned whispers of a two-state system, they have given little insight into what this would look like. In May of 2024, U.S. officials proposed nominating a civilian advisor in the region, tasked with peacekeeping and helping lift Gaza out of ruin. The same officials floated ideas of economic restructuring and city building, or even creating a peacekeeping alliance out of neighboring Arab states. It is unclear whether V.P. Harris plans to implement these ideas, but they are a look into the pre-existing Biden Administration plans for the “day after” scenario. Like Harris, former President, and current Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has stayed mainly vague on the issue, sharing a similar sentiment to V.P. Harris in his unwavering support for Israel and its defense. He has also indicated support for a two-state solution, as outlined in his 2020 policy proposal, “Peace to Prosperity”, more colloquially known as the Trump peace plan. However, Trump’s support for this ideal seems to be slipping among the shifting attitudes within the Israeli government and Palestinian people. In May of 2024, Trump was recorded saying he believed a two-state solution had lost popularity and his support for the plan’s viability had waned. What is clear, though, is Trump’s steadfast promotion of Israel’s ideals to eradicate Hamas. Both Trump and Republican Vice Presidential Nominee JD Vance have espoused providing more aid to Israel, in hopes that this will allow the country to end the war as quickly as possible. Despite these seemingly unsure policies on the ongoing war in the region, many Sciences Pistes are sure of who they support in the upcoming election. For American 1A Loowit Morrison, the choice is clear. “I think that her foreign policy definitely outweighs that of Trump’s.” Morrison explained that while she disagreed with the Vice President’s actions as part of the Biden Administration, Harris’ recent shifts to serious calls for a ceasefire and outward recognition of the Palestinian lives lost makes her a stronger candidate. Morrison still holds that Harris’ foreign policy is weak at best, but Trump’s all-out refusal of a ceasefire is significantly weaker. A Lebanese 1A, who wished to remain anonymous, is likewise hoping for a Harris win in November. He believes that Trump’s wish for a complete Israeli victory is an overly simplistic outlook in a much more complex situation. For him, Israel’s success means a loss for its neighboring Arab countries, potentially destabilizing the region and leading to a prolonged conflict that could encompass the broader Middle East. “I really think Kamala Harris’ approach, advocating for both an Israeli and Palestinian state, is the most viable solution.” He also agrees with Harris’ strong position against Hamas and her support of the Palestinian people. “Kamala is not backing Hamas; she is supporting the Palestinians. People often conflate the two but they aren’t the same.” Other Sciences Pistes agree with the two-state ideal that Harris espouses. 1A Theo Hisherik, a British-Israeli, thinks that Harris’ call for a ceasefire and two-state solution is the correct position, as he states that “without a doubt, Harris is the best candidate for that.” He also believes that Harris effectively walks the line between support for Israel and Palestine. “She argues still for a defense of Israel to ensure that it can defend itself in the future, but she understands the need and the plight of the Palestinians,” he explains, solidifying his backing of Harris as a candidate. Despite outward support for Israel and its defense, Hisherik does not buy into Trump’s policies. “I think Trump’s pro-Israel sentiment is firstly a farce, I don’t think he actually really cares about Israel,” believing that Trump only says this to appeal to his Christian conservative or right-wing domestic voter base. Some Sciences Pistes don’t feel as strongly towards either of the candidates. “What we have seen is that the ‘lesser evil’ is the complete annihilation of Gaza” says an anonymous 1A from Jordan. She criticized the overwhelming view among Americans that Democrats are the so-called “lesser of two evils” when it comes to foreign policy. When speaking of the media she saw from the Gaza Strip, she said “they sent it back to the stone ages” and spoke of Israeli bombardments of refugee camps using American weaponry. “This is supposedly the lesser of two evils, so how much more evil can it get from here?” Providing 69% of Israeli weapon imports since 2019 and almost $4 billion annually, she has just one ask of the American people: “Stop providing Israel with the weaponry to kill civilians.” Her further frustration with the American political system could be summarized with a quote she had seen earlier: “You should dream bigger than seeing a black woman commit genocide.” For her, the identity politics in play of Harris’ rise to Democrat stardom means nothing if she holds little sympathy for what is happening in Gaza. “Kamala Harris supposedly being part of a minority, that she should be more considerate of what happens in the Middle East, I don’t think that has that stance that [Middle Easterners] agree with.” As the War in Gaza continues on, it will undoubtedly have an impact on the outcome of this year’s election. With nearly 80% of Arab Americans holding unfavorable opinions of Biden, coupled with protest votes , it could look bleak for the Democrats’ hopes of retaining office in November. Despite many Sciences Pistes’ belief that Harris would prove better than Trump regarding foreign policy in the Middle East, American voters seem to be more split on the candidates, especially among the candidates' seemingly hazy policy.

La politique regorge de mystères. L’un d’eux, parmi les plus importants, est l’explication d’un phénomène à l'œuvre depuis quelques décennies dans les démocraties occidentales. < Back Extrême-droite : les raisons d’une percée électorale transnationale By Jonathan Smidtas Schalita “La peur mène à la colère, la colère mène à la haine, la haine… mène à la souffrance” Maître Yoda La politique regorge de mystères. L’un d’eux, parmi les plus importants, est l’explication d’un phénomène à l'œuvre depuis quelques décennies dans les démocraties occidentales. Ce phénomène est l’entrée des partis qualifiés par leurs adversaires d’extrême-droite au centre du jeu politique. Qualifiés d'extrême-droite, mais jamais revendiqués comme tels. L’explication classique est simple : depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et les horreurs du régime nazi, le qualificatif d’extrême-droite est devenu plus que péjoratif. Refuser l’étiquette infâme ne serait alors qu’une stratégie afin de ne pas effrayer un électorat modéré. Poussé à son paroxysme, cela culminerait dans une politique de dédiabolisation consistant non seulement à refuser la qualification d’extrême-droite, mais même à adopter des positions modérées tout en gardant, au fond, un même fil directeur raciste. Mais peut-être ne sont-ce là que des idées fausses, fruit d’une vision déformée de la situation politique contemporaine. Réaliser un lien direct entre les extrêmes-droites d’hier et d’aujourd’hui serait alors une erreur. Certes, hier comme aujourd’hui, ces partis se fondent sur l’acharnement contre une population minoritaire, bouc-émissaire explicatif de tous les maux dont le plus important se trouverait être le délitement du pays. Toutefois, le degré de radicalité serait tellement différent qu’il entraînerait un changement de nature. Affirmer cela serait faire preuve d’une naïveté confondante. Ce serait oublier que l'extrême-droite ne se réduit pas au projet génocidaire hitlérien, mais constitue une famille politique plus large dont les hérauts contemporains ne font que reprendre les thèses traditionnelles. Rejet de l’étranger, projet autoritaire, opposition à la démocratie représentative, complotisme… Les racines sont les mêmes et le danger toujours présent. La majorité des électeurs français l’a compris et vote contre les représentants de l’extrême-droite. Mais ils furent toujours moins nombreux : Jacques Chirac recueillait 82% des suffrages en 2002, Emmanuel Macron 66% en 2017 et seulement 58% en 2022. La baisse représente quand même un quart des suffrages exprimés. Presque partout en Occident, un même phénomène s’observe : les digues ne s’effondrent pas toujours, mais ne cessent de s’affaiblir. Dans un contexte de marasme économique et de questionnement identitaire dans un monde plus que jamais changeant, pourquoi sommes-nous en train de reproduire les erreurs du passé ? Différentes explications ont été apportées. L’une, parmi les plus classiques et que l’auteur partageait il y a peu, est la peur — peur de l’immigration ou du déclassement économique. Pour le politologue et professeur à Sciences Po Martial Foucault, dont l’interview joue un rôle central dans la rédaction de cet article, ce n’est pas la peur mais la colère qui explique ce vote. Un ouvrage, Les origines du populisme, appuie notamment cette thèse. Dans différents pays occidentaux, les enquêtes sont formelles : le principal déterminant du vote pour les partis extrémistes est la colère. Simplement, la colère se marie avec une confiance élevée pour les électeurs d’extrême-gauche alors que cette colère s’allie avec une forte méfiance pour les électeurs d’extrême-droite. La question du déclencheur du vote pour l’extrême-droite n’est pourtant pas résolue. Si la colère est corrélée, est-elle pour autant la cause du vote ? N’y a-t-il pas une variable cachée échappant aux enquêtes statistiques ? Et si effectivement c’est la colère qui entraîne le vote, la question est de savoir ce qui déclenche cette colère. Lorsque l’on ne dispose pas de preuves empiriques de ce que l’on affirme, l’appel au bon-sens est souvent utile. Ce dernier permet de trancher la question : oui c’est évidemment la colère qui cause le vote pour l’extrême-droite car cette dernière propose un programme, justement, colérique. En colère contre la mondialisation, contre l’immigration, contre l’Europe, contre les “élites”... Mais de quoi naît cette colère ? Pour répondre, revenons à la citation du vénérable Maître Yoda “La peur mène à la colère”. Effectivement, il est raisonnable de considérer que la peur contient les germes de la colère. Si les étrangers ou la mondialisation sont la source de tant de colère, c’est avant tout car ils provoquent de la peur. Les “étrangers”, la “mondialisation”, c’est au fond très flou, très impersonnel, très inconnu. Et l’inconnu effraie. On nous objectera que nous ne faisons que déplacer la focale analytique sans répondre clairement à la question. D’accord, l’ignorance d’une chose mène à sa crainte, et la crainte constitue le lit de la colère. Mais on ne peut pas affirmer que c’est l'ignorance qui explique le vote pour l’extrême-droite. À moins d’affirmer que les sociétés occidentales sont frappées par une nouvelle épidémie d’ignorance, l’idée ne fait sens. Finalement, l’essence du vote pour l’extrême-droite, si elle existe, demeure insaisissable. Mais son fruit reste connu, car la colère mène à la haine qui, elle-même, mène à la souffrance. Nous remercions notre professeur de sciences politiques, Martial Foucault pour ses précieuses analyses sur la question du vote pour l’extrême-droite qui ont permis de nourrir cet article et à l’auteur d’affiner son opinion.

< Back Left Behind: UK Youth Moving Towards the Right Rebecca Canton September 30, 2024 We assume young people generally vote left and for green initiatives. They care for climate change, sexual liberation and free healthcare. Any young person who votes for the right is an anomaly, right? While historically such stereotypes may have held truth, the right wing throughout Europe is seeing unprecedented gains, especially from a younger demographic. In the 2023 general election in the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom, a nationalist right-wing party led by populist Geert Wilders, won 35 seats, a landslide victory. Likewise, in Germany the anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany, won almost a third of the vote in the eastern German state of Thuringia. This political success of right-wing and far-right movements is not limited to these two countries; Italy, Finland, Hungary, to name a few, have “hard-right” governments. What is unusual for European governments is the age of the voters that support them. For example, Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing populist party, Brothers of Italy, was the most popular party among under-35s. The future generation seems to be turning their backs on their traditional parties, changing the political landscape of Europe. The United Kingdom is technically an exception to Europe’s swing towards the right. The social democratic Labour party, led by Sir Keir Starmer, defeated the Conservative party—the Tories—in the 2024 general election for the first time since 2005. This victory for the left was supported by young people, with a YouGov poll postulating that 41% of 18 to 24 year olds voted Labour. However, despite these statistics, it does not mean the United Kingdom is moving opposite to the rest of Europe. Starmer has been accused of ‘purging’ the Labour party, by prioritizing Tory votes with fiscally conservative policies. Further, another YouGov poll found that 48% of Labour voters backed Labour simply in opposition to the Conservative party. This negative cohesion perhaps does not represent true sentiments and political leanings of citizens; it also does not mean the U.K. is immune to the wave of right-wing mania sweeping Europe. On July 29, 2024, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance workshop in Southport, Merseyside, U.K., three children were fatally stabbed . Ten others were injured by 17-year-old British citizen Axel Rudakubana. Initially, no information about the attacker was released by police, and the platform “X” and other social media immediately labeled the attacker as Ali Al-Shakati, a Muslim immigrant, regardless of the fact that Rudakubana was born in Cardiff and had no established connections to Islam. On July 30, 2024, far-right protesters clashed with police in Southport, damaging a Mosque, especially due to the misinformation spread on social media platforms. In the following week, multiple towns and cities in England and Northern Ireland were swept up in riots and disorder, including arson, looting and racist attacks, in what was the largest occasion of social unrest in England since 2011. The disturbance marks a disturbing escalation in the far-right sentiment in the U.K., highlighting deep-rooted issues within the country concerning immigration and political polarization. What is particularly concerning is not just the number of rioters— 1,280 individual arrests— but also the age of those involved. Stageringly, 72 of arrests made were against those under 18, with children as young as 12 having pleaded guilty to violent disorder in relation to the riots. The far-right is not a new political movement to the U.K. with one of the first examples of facism, the British Fascisti, founded in 1923. he modern rise of extremism has links to right-wing media, with a number of riots organized through Telegram , specifically a channel called “Southport Wake Up.” The Southport riots in July and August, combined with the general increase in youth extremism, have been heavily centered around online radicalization, which has been exacerbated by the rhetoric of public media figures. One notable figure is Nigel Farage, a recently elected member of parliament and the leader of the right-wing populist Reform UK party, the third largest party by popular vote . Farage uses platforms accessible to young people e.g., TikTok—where he has almost 1 million followers—to spread his beliefs more effectively. Creators like Farage produce content of genuine social grievances, mixed with right wing conspiracy theories that resonate with many young people disillusioned by current governments. For example, he likened the landing of child migrants in Kent to an ‘invasion’ , thus creating an “us vs them” mentality, a mindset adopted by the right-wing who tend to blame economic and social problems on migration. Farage is not alone in the group of far-right influencers; figures like Paul Joseph Watson, a right-wing YouTuber with 2 million subscribers, use casual language and memes within their videos, which is specifically catered towards younger audiences through ‘Gen-Z’ references, thus amassing a younger following. Whether the media itself is to blame for violence is difficult to determine. What is not irrational is the fact that social media has provided a bridge between the far-right and youth, a bond that is unlikely to be broken anytime soon. Despite the influence of far-right figures, would the media and influencers be able to convince young people to vote right if they weren’t already disenchanted by their government? The U.K. currently faces some severe challenges to the nation’s stability. Although the U.K. came out of recession in 2021, the prevailing cost-of-living crisis affects a vast majority of the population. People cannot heat their homes, feed their families, or pay off their mortgages. Young people simply cannot afford to join the housing market. A lot of young voters do not agree with the core ideologies of the right or the far-right, but their general consensus is the same: they have been largely disregarded by the governments that preceded them. While a vast majority of voters have turned left and towards Labour, the right has placed blame on easy targets for everyday problems. Immigration has been a controversial issue in the country since the Windrush generation where Caribbean people migrated following World War II, after the British government encouraged immigration from Commonwealth countries due to losses suffered in the war. Immigrants themselves have been blamed by multiple public figures, including Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary in 2022. Condemning the concept of “others” divides the country, promoting hate and violence. The issue, as with most sensitive topics, is that it is a slippery slope and the pipeline from being disappointed with the government to right-wing radicalism is real and dangerous. It is now up to the new Labour government, a government not associated with the previous government’s failings, to close the gap between those on opposing ends of the political spectrum for both social cohesion and peace. The question remains as to how , with an answer emerging unlikely. Young people are more susceptible to online conspiracies, and until migration is not blamed for social problems, tensions are likely to continue. How can the government appease and convince the left that they stand for values of inclusion and harmony while not allowing the country to fall to right-wing violence? Is there really an answer to this pressing question?

The sufferings of Palestinians were marginalized even at COP26, where Prime Minister Shtayyeh reiterated his denouncement against the environment-threatening Israeli policies. This article aims to investigate the inherent characteristics of the Israeli occupation which aggravate climate change. < Back The Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories Threatens the Environment By Margherita Cordellini January 29, 2022 The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP26), which took place in Glasgow in November, was depicted by the media as a theater of — sometimes empty — promises and of implicit defeats. People expressed their indignation towards Narendra Modi’s last-minute intervention, and India was accused multiple times of prioritizing political and economic aims over the commitment to avoid a global catastrophe. Public opinion deemed this action as intolerable. However, the Glasgow Climate Conference silently witnessed the denouncement of another state that includes in its political agenda an enormous quantity of CO2 emissions: Israel. On the second day of the international conference, the prime minister of the State of Palestine, Mohammad Shtayyeh, reiterated his denouncement of the Israeli occupation defining it as the “most critical long-term threat to the Palestinian environment.” It was not the first time that worrying data concerning the issue had been presented, as it was not the first time that the situation went almost unnoticed on an international scale. For instance, in 2012 the United Nations (UN) raised the alarm by announcing that Palestine would have been inhabitable by 2020 if Israel did not radically modify its expansionary and repressive policies. The human characteristic to adapt to inhumane conditions was once again underestimated. The Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem (Arij) published several reports which clearly affirmed that, not only do the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) suffer from the Israeli occupation, but so does the climate. The report published in 2007, perhaps the most complete one, illustrates in detail all the consequences of the Israeli occupation, which are supported by sound scientific evidence. In 2018 another report was issued, which showed rapid escalation of the problem. Given the complex nature of the issue, this article will seek to summarize the most devastating climatic problems that Palestine is facing because of foreign occupation. Israel’s settlement project in the OPT is grounded on four main pillars: expansion, segregation, fragmentation, and resource exploitation. First of all, one of the main objectives of the Israeli occupation has been expansion, and consists of ensuring control over Area C, an administrative division following the Oslo accords, that represents 66 percent of the West Bank. The Arij report of 2007 underscores the dichotomic appearance of the Palestinian landscape. On one side, Palestinian villages are built on non-fertile soil and favor the organic development of the landscape, on the other one, Israeli settlements are scattered significantly on agricultural lands situated in strategic positions such as the Jordan Valley, in the West Bank’s western edges and the Jerusalem area. Thus, Israel’s expansion entails destruction of cultivations and deforestation: Prime Minister Shtayyeh drew attention to the fact that Israel has uprooted approximately 2.5 million Palestinian trees since 1967, 800 thousand of which were olive trees. Moreover, the settlements are typically characterized by their enormous sizes. This has a twofold aim: to attract colonists and to cover as much land as possible. Since 1967, Israel has been trying to convince the world that the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is the segregation of Palestinian communities. This statement is undoubtedly misguided both from a humanitarian and a climatic perspective. The main way of establishing a situation of apartheid is the development of two distinct road networks. Colonists have at their disposal an increasing number of streets, which are mostly strictly forbidden to Palestinians, so that the journey time from the settlements to Israel decreases. Furthermore, Israeli settlements are surrounded by “security streets” of thousands of square kilometers which have no purpose other than circumscribing the living area of the colonists. This further fragments the Palestinian Territories, which are already constituted by two separate land masses. The result of the apartheid regime to which Palestinians are subject is a disproportionate quantity of CO2 emissions caused by an unavoidable traffic jam. For instance, in order to go from the villages to the main cities of the OPT, local inhabitants are forced to face longer journeys in order to avoid Israeli settlements and pass checkpoints, as is now required. The former obstacle is responsible for the supplementary yearly emission of 196 thousand tons of CO2, whereas the latter, according to the Arij report of 2018, for the annual waste of 80 million liters of fuel in the West Bank. In such cases, a classical solution would be the implementation of a public transportation system. However, the fragmentation of the territory and the highly limited freedom of movement of Palestinians makes it impossible. Israel’s occupation of Palestine is also a story of exploitation. From a resources point of view, Israel parasitically avails itself of Palestinian water. For instance, Palestine is currently undergoing a severe problem of water scarcity. The Arij report of 2007 shows how Israel has been exploiting the territory’s hydric resources since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. In the area, the Jordan River System, the Coastal Aquifer and the West Bank Aquifer System are the three main water resources, and theoretically, they should be shared with Palestine. However, Israel is in control of all of them. Since the occupation, Palestinians are denied their rightful access to the Jordan River and they are compelled to give Israel more than 80 percent of the water coming from the West Bank Aquifer. As a result, the per capita share of water of West Bank inhabitants (excluding settlers) is 79.1 liters per day, whereas in the Gaza Strip, it is 79.9, much lower than the daily required standard recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), which is 100-150 liters per person. Repercussions are visible not only in the progressive decrease of Palestinians’ living standards but also in the indirect climatic impact. In fact, given the limited availability of hydric resources, Palestinians are forced to exploit the Gaza Aquifer system. Because of its over-usage, 96 percent of its water is undrinkable. Thus, a CO2-consuming purification plant is required. Without considering the impact that such measures have on the inhabitants’ daily lives, we can still evaluate the enormous environmental consequences, which originate also from the necessity of transporting the treated water. The marginalization of the Arab-Israeli question in the international political discourse can no longer be justified: it is not only a private issue, but a collective one since it is indissolubly tied to the concept of climate justice.

While many, particularly in the political arena, view the disaster as purely natural, experts point to human factors such as corruption, poor infrastructure maintenance and chronic conflicts that have left the country unprepared for events like Storm Daniel. This disaster highlights how human irresponsibility in two key areas—climate change and political instability—has compounded the crisis. < Back Libya: Victim of a Double Crisis Eleni Dimitropoulou September 30, 2024 In September 2023, Libya, a country which has been a victim of civil wars, economical crisis and governmental instability, was struck once again by an unexpected nightmare, an environmental disaster: Storm Daniel. The "Omega block", a high-pressure zone sandwiched between two zones of low pressure, with the isobars shaping like the Greek letter omega (Ω) was largely responsible for the prolonged duration of the storm. This meteorological event caused the storm system to linger over the region for an extended period, continuously pumping moist air from the Mediterranean Sea, intensifying both the storm’s duration and rainfall. The Omega block was primarily situated over Central and Northern Europe, while it created a stagnant low-pressure zone in the Ionian Sea. This resulted in several days of warm, moist air flowing from the northeast towards Libya, causing unprecedented rainfall and extreme flooding. As a result, more than 11,000 people lost their lives in the coastal city of Derna and over 30,000 were left homeless. This phenomenon is not new with the region as Derna had already experienced floods in 1941, 1959, and 1968. According to the Libyan Red Crescent, more than 11,300 people were confirmed dead after the powerful storm hit eastern Libya. The ensuing floods breached two dams in Derna, creating a torrent that swept away entire neighborhoods. The floodwaters were described as resembling a massive tsunami. Dozens of bodies were buried in mass graves, as seen in images widely circulated on online platforms. The International Organization for Migration reported that over 3,000 residents in El Beida and 2,000 in Benghazi were left homeless. Derna, which is normally connected to the rest of Libya by seven roads, is now only accessible by two, with electrical and telecommunications damage hampering rescue efforts. The scale of the disaster was exacerbated by the lack of maintenance on two critical dams on the dry Wadi river south of the city. Al Bilal Dam, with a capacity of 1.5 million cubic meters survived the storm. However, the larger Abu Mansour Dam, closer to the city which could hold 22.5 million cubic meters, collapsed. These dams were constructed using pressed clay with stone linings, materials less durable than reinforced concrete. Since 2014, Libya has been politically divided between two rival governments: one based in Tripoli in the west, recognized by the UN, and another in eastern Libya based in Benghazi, supported by Marshal Khalifa Haftar. The Tripoli-based government, led by interim Prime Minister Abdel Hamid Dabaiba, attempted to assist the eastern region despite not controlling it. Dabaiba announced the dispatch of humanitarian aid, including medicine, food, and medical personnel. A plane from Tripoli arrived in the affected area with 14 tons of aid and 80 doctors. At the same time, the government in eastern Libya, supported by Haftar, oversaw the handling of the Derna crisis. A state of emergency was announced and a crisis management team was established consisting of local officials, emergency responders, medical personnel, engineers, and logistics coordinators to manage the consequences of the disaster. In reaction, various countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Italy provided international aid by sending rescue teams, medical supplies, and equipment. Organizations like the UN and Red Cross provided crucial humanitarian assistance, such as food, water, and technical knowledge, to aid in ongoing rescue and recovery efforts. Funding has been promised to aid in the reconstruction of the city and repair critical infrastructure The United Nations criticized Libya’s early warning system, with the head of the World Meteorological Organization, suggesting that many casualties could have been avoided if proper warnings had been issued, giving residents time to evacuate. Libya's National Meteorological Center had issued warnings 72 hours before the storm, informing authorities via email and advising precautionary measures. While many, particularly in the political arena, view the disaster as purely natural, experts point to human factors such as corruption, poor infrastructure maintenance and chronic conflicts that have left the country unprepared for events like Storm Daniel. This disaster highlights how human irresponsibility in two key areas—climate change and political instability—has compounded the crisis. Climate change, driven by human activities such as the greenhouse effect, is now striking back, with severe consequences that threaten lives. Simultaneously, political instability, the lack of consensus and ongoing conflicts have prevented both governments from investing in essential infrastructure, schools, healthcare, and housing. The ongoing political deadlock continues to prevent displaced individuals from returning home, as fair reconstruction assistance remains difficult to obtain. One year after the destroying surges in Derna, caused by violent wind Daniel on September 11, 2023, the city is still in a a slow reconstruction process. Belgacem Haftar, the child of compelling Libyan military pioneer Khalifa Haftar, is supervising the restoration endeavors. Be that as it may, Human Rights Watch has criticized the Libyan government for falling flat in supplying satisfactory stipends and support to survivors. The ongoing political deadlock continues to prevent displaced individuals from returning home, as fair reconstruction assistance remains difficult to obtain. In Derna, extensive damage remains to housing, water and sanitation networks, electricity grids, hospitals, and schools. The recovery process has been so slow that survivors’ access to essential services, such as healthcare and education, remains disrupted. Financial and government services are also limited, and thousands of victims remain unidentified or missing. Armed groups that contributed to the chaotic emergency response, hindering residents from seeking safety, have yet to be held accountable. In a similarly tragic event one year later, over 5,800 people were displaced due to flooding in the southwestern Libyan towns of Ghat and Tahala. Many are staying with relatives, while others are sheltered in temporary camps and schools. This second flooding disaster highlights the country’s continued vulnerability to extreme weather and the lack of an effective national response plan. The situation in Libya is undeniably vulnerable, and seeing no improvement in the past year is both disappointing and alarming. Both governments, as well as the global community, must take action, raise awareness about the issue and find ways to tackle it. Non-governmental organizations can serve as central points of collaboration between countries and individuals. As for the Libyan government, they must focus more on the root causes of this emergency situation rather than on the political status quo. After all, human lives are more important than power. Let us all hope that Libya, the gem of Africa, will be saved and that no more dead bodies will fill the streets. Instead, they will once again be full of life and joy.

In January 2022, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear two cases, one against Harvard University and one against the University of North Carolina, seeking to ban affirmative action in university admissions. The potential end of affirmative action would dramatically transform the framework of college admissions. < Back The End of Affirmative Action? By Magdelena Offenbeck March 30, 2022 In January 2022, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear two cases, one against Harvard University and one against the University of North Carolina, seeking to ban affirmative action in university admissions. The conservative Supreme Court majority is likely to overturn a legacy of race consideration in college admissions. The history of race as a factor in college admissions begins in the 1960s when Harvard University announced concrete measures to increase the percentage of African American students in its cohorts. Harvard’s plan of action was then adopted by many of the major institutions for higher education in the United States. Aiming to counter the inequality caused by the history of racial segregation, the policies have effectively promoted upward social mobility and diversified cohorts at US universities. Since its implementation, affirmative action has faced criticism by those who favor admission procedures that are entirely based on academic merit. In the landmark 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger , the constitutionality of affirmative action was confirmed in scenarios when race is one of many factors considered in the admission process. However, in the same year, the court declared points-based admission systems that grant extra points to minority applicants unconstitutional and contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are now accused of discrimination by giving race overwhelming importance in admission procedures. The difference between the cases is that Harvard is charged with discrimination against Asians while the University of North Carolina is accused of favoring Black and Hispanic applicants. The plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions,' argued that Harvard’s disproportional consideration of race violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The case was tried in 2018 in the state of Massachusetts but, after a 15-day bench trial in 2018, a lower court in Massachusetts found Harvard not guilty of “race balancing,” otherwise known as admission quotas for racial groups at the university. Many consider it unlikely that the Supreme Court has taken on the case to reaffirm the ruling of the state court. What would the end of affirmative action mean for university communities in the United States? Deans of Yale, Columbia, and Harvard University have spoken out against the lawsuit. In a statement released on the Columbia University website, President Lee Bollinger Broad asserted that “public awareness of the unrelenting impact of racism demands a recommitment to affirmative action, not its abandonment,” deeming affirmative action essential considering the nation’s history. He further described a ban on affirmative action as “calamitous for universities and for the ideals embodied in the Constitution.” The end of affirmative action could significantly decrease the number of Black students admitted to elite universities in the country as Black and Hispanic students have lower average standardized test scores and are subjected to structural obstacles that are not encountered by their white counterparts. However, the plaintiff argues that affirmative action comes at the expense of Asian students, who have lower chances of admission with equal or higher test scores and are consistently ranked lower on the personality scores of the admissions process. Public opinion seems to confirm the plaintiff’s view. A 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center concluded that 73% of Americans think that race should not be considered in college admissions. However, there is stratification between racial groups, with 78% of Caucasians opposed to affirmative action compared to 65% of Hispanics and 62% of Blacks. This gap persists with political leanings. While 88% of Caucasian Republicans are against the consideration of race, this number falls to 66% among Caucasian Democrats. The consideration of other factors such as legacy status, gender, or athletic ability is equally deemed inappropriate by the majority of survey participants. Therefore, the case puts into question a number of controversial admission practices, especially the elitist concept of legacy admissions. If affirmative action is found to be unconstitutional, the question of feasible alternatives arises. The benefits of diverse student cohorts in university environments and the positive effect of upward social mobility in the larger society have continually been emphasized by university administrations and the Supreme Court. Especially the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a major proponent of the policy. Yet, a similar degree of diversity could be achieved by taking into account the socio-economic background of applicants. Black and Hispanic communities are generally more socio-economically disadvantaged. According to a US government census, the median income of Black households in the United States is $28,000 and $41,000 below that of White and Asian households, respectively. The gap is slightly smaller for Hispanics. Considering household income and access to education resources would hence have similar effects on student diversity to affirmative action. This is not to deny the intersectional experience of members of the Black or Hispanic communities that face disadvantages compared to whites with a similar socioeconomic background. Rather, it acknowledges that the individuals who experience similar levels of poverty equally merit a chance in the higher education system. It further takes into consideration the racism and systemic discrimination that Asian communities are victim to, and counters stereotyping in admissions where the achievements of Asian students are not valued equally because of their ethnic background. While the official judgment will only be released in 2023, the end of affirmative action will bring changes to the framework of college admissions. However, it may not be necessary to equate this to the end of student diversity in higher education. A range of alternative tools could continue to protect the interests of socially disadvantaged students.

After 19 years of nearly continuous U.S. military presence, Iraq has limited the influence of the Islamic State, but is still experiencing domestic turmoil, a Parliamentary crisis and extreme corruption in the public and private sectors. Solutions to these challenges should be led by the Iraqi people, not a foreign power with conflicting interests and little investment in the future of Iraq. < Back Reconsidering America’s Presence in Iraq after Zainab Essam Al-Khazali’s Death By Peyton Dashiell October 31, 2022 On September 21, a 15-year-old girl was shot and killed in Baghdad, Iraq while working on her father’s farm. Despite Baghdad previously being labeled as the most dangerous city on Earth for terrorist attacks, Zainab Essam Al-Khazali was not killed by an Islamic State militant or a member of another terrorist group, but by American troops conducting a routine military drill. These are the same troops which first mobilized in 2014 to protect Iraqis from the looming terrorist threat of the Islamic State. Her tragic, senseless death raises critical questions: Why has the United States government refused to acknowledge her death in any way? Why did the American military conduct an exercise in a populous area? And, most of all, why are U.S. troops still present in Iraq after the Iraqi Parliament voted them out years ago and multiple American presidents have pledged military withdrawal? The United States has maintained a continuous military presence in Iraq since a U.S.-led coalition invaded the country in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. After a brief hiatus from 2011 to 2014, the U.S. military formally reentered Iraq in 2014 on “Operation Inherent Resolve” to fight Islamic State forces upon request from the Iraqi government. Efforts began after the Islamic State launched the Northern Iraq Offensive in August 2014. In response, the U.S. began supplying Kurdish Peshmerga forces with weapons on August 5, and began direct airstrikes three days later. The operation continued for nearly seven years, and U.S. aid to the Iraq Security Forces totaled $3.5 billion throughout the conflict, with over 189,000 officers trained. The U.S.-led coalition has been criticized for committing human rights violations during “Operation Inherent Resolve” and compounding Iraq’s existing humanitarian crisis. Poorly targeted coalition airstrikes led to many civilian casualties, and Amnesty International alleged in 2014 that the coalition kidnapped Sunni civilian men to use as forced labor in the fight against the Islamic State. Finally, U.S.-backed prisoner abuses date back to the early stages of the Iraq War in prisons like Abu Ghraib – in 2004, Amnesty International uncovered photos of U.S. troops abusing prisoners of war in the same suburb of Baghdad where Zainab lost her life. Despite the United States formally withdrawing from Iraq in December 2021, nearly 3000 military personnel remain in the country in an advisory role to provide air support and military aid. However, their presence has been contentious. In January 2020, U.S. assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani caused widespread outrage in Iraq. Major political figures called for the U.S. Embassy to be closed and diplomatic relations halted. The Iraqi military launched retaliatory airstrikes on U.S. forces in Iraq, and the Iraqi Parliament voted unanimously to expel all American troops from the country, later revising their statements to include all foreign troops. While several NATO countries withdrew their troops due to safety concerns, the Trump administration threatened Iraq with sanctions if any further action was taken against U.S. forces, thus, cementing their presence. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except in “intervention by invitation,” when a country requests the military presence of another country. This rare case would apply to the 2014 American entry into Iraq because the Iraqi government requested help in the fight against the Islamic State. But after the vote by the Iraqi Parliament in 2020 asking U.S. troops to leave, their presence became illegitimate under this charter. However, despite a strong opposition wing within Iraq, anti-American sentiment is not universal, largely dependent on ethnic and religious identity. The vote to expel U.S. troops was led by Shia lawmakers, with most Sunni and Kurdish representatives abstaining from the vote. U.S. troops continue to train with the Iraqi military and recently signed a bilateral defense agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government to bolster security and military training operations. Proponents of U.S. military presence in Iraq often cite reasons such as countering Iranian influence, preventing terrorist attacks, and protecting the security of Israel and other US partners in the region. However, natural resources, particularly oil, serve as another key factor. Iraq is home to oil reserves totaling over 140 billion barrels, the fifth largest proven oil supply globally, with a large portion located in the Kurdistan region. Upon entering the 2003 Iraq War, former U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz pledged to support Kurdistan’s energy sector, telling a Congressional panel that Iraq’s oil and gas resources “could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.” But nearly two decades later, it is evident that the Iraqi people did not benefit as foreign powers descended upon their oil reserves. While the oil-rich Kurdistan region has seen more economic development than the rest of Iraq, fraud, corruption and mismanagement have led to nearly $20 billion per year in oil revenue smuggled out of the country, with little benefit to the Kurdish residents working to source the oil. Kurdistan’s Ministry of Natural Resources has been accused of working with foreign powers to send oil money to international tax havens, flipping assets, and producing massive profits for multinational companies based in North America and Europe. While the Islamic State remains a threat in Iraq, they have no consistent territorial holds, and the Iraqi government has developed effective containment policies for terror cells. Operating with the goal of completely eradicating all Islamic State adherents and ideology will result in an indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq. Furthermore, while American troops have helped foil and respond to some Islamic State attacks in Iraq, they are increasingly being targeted by Iranian drone strikes, which have killed U.S. servicemembers as well as Iraqi citizens fighting alongside the U.S. in Kurdistan. These attacks signify a larger balance of power the U.S. seeks to maintain in the region — Iraqis are paying a violent price as the U.S. aims to counter Iranian influence. If the U.S. decides to completely withdraw troops from Iraq, lessons must be learned from its 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. The 2021 withdrawal resulted in the Taliban seizing power from the Afghan National Army within days of the U.S. military’s departure and created an unresolved humanitarian disaster. Additionally, the withdrawal broke promises made to Afghan civilians who aided American forces — many people were left behind and susceptible to persecution by the Taliban due to past U.S. ties. If American troops leave Iraq, the U.S. must prioritize the protection of Iraqis who have fought alongside them, and ensure that any stabilization money given to the Iraqi government is used for its intended purpose — during the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban seized millions of dollars in cash, gold, and weapons left behind by U.S. forces. The question of American military presence in Iraq extends far beyond a pure military partnership.Twenty-first-century Iraq has experienced immense exploitation for military, economic, and geopolitical gain, and the people and government of Iraq should decide the next steps regarding the American military. After 19 years of nearly continuous U.S. military presence, Iraq has limited the influence of the Islamic State, but is still experiencing domestic turmoil, a Parliamentary crisis and extreme corruption in the public and private sectors. Solutions to these challenges should be led by the Iraqi people, not a foreign power with conflicting interests and little investment in the future of Iraq.

< Back The Turbulent World of French Politics and How It Affects Me Stanimir Stoyanov French politics are notorious for being turbulent and complex, and in 2024 especially, France experienced some important shifts in its political landscape. In this context, many people, foreigners in particular, have had a difficult time grasping the political landscape of France. Be it the language barrier or the tongue-twisting, understanding what's happening in France is certainly a demanding task for newcomers. This has led me personally and many other Sciences Pistes to question what effect the current political situation will have on us. This article will present a brief overview of recent events and explain how these developments impact our lives as students at SciencesPo. I. What happened? In the second round of the 2022 French presidential election, Emanuel Macron won 58,55% of the votes against Marine Le Pen, with 41,45% . While still a victory for the current president, the election showcased a continued rise of support for the right-wing leader Marine Le Pen. The election was also marked by the lowest voter turnout ( 72% ) since 1969, raising questions about voter apathy. While political awareness in France remains high, a large part of the population has trouble identifying with politics and disregards their importance. The tensions kept rising as the status-quo was being more and more challenged by the opposition and in January 2024, France experienced severe political turmoil. The ruling government, led by then Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne, didn’t have a majority in parliament, making the legislative process a tougher challenge. In January as an attempt to counter the far-right’s influence, Macron backed a controversial migration law , simplifying the deportation process and making immigration to France much more difficult for non-EU foreigners. This was followed by the resignation of Elizabeth Borne on Jan. 8. Afterwards, on Jan. 9, Macron appointed Gabriel Attal as PM and organized a cabinet reshuffle. This was all in an effort to mitigate the rise of support for the opposition ahead of the 2024 EU Elections. In June 2024, French voters headed to the polls for the European Parliament Election and showcased significant support for Le Pen’s far-right party, the National Rally ( Rassemblement National), which was the front-runner with a remarkable 31,37% . This raised doubts about Macron's authority, leading him to dismiss parliament and schedule snap elections on the 30 June and 7 July. While this move is recognized as an attempt to both consolidate support and bring the attention to the public, it can also be viewed as an unprecedented political gamble. The results of the election showcased the severe social fragmentation with no party gaining a clear majority. The current division of parties in parliament is as follows: *Data compiled from French National Assembly website https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/ , as of Sept. 13 2024. As can be seen, the National Rally party has the most seats, yet no party has a majority. Further, even when looking at possible coalitions within parliament, the main coalitions Nouveau Front Populare (left-wing), and the Ensemble (Macron endorsed) also do not have a majority to form a stable government. The right-wing parties remain divided and are not likely to form a coalition. This means that France currently has a hung parliament, making forming a stable government a formidable task. II. Who is the current French Prime Minister? Following the election in July and Gabriel Attal’s resignation, President Macron had to appoint a new Prime Minister. This was a tough choice, seeing how it needed to be a figure that can gather support from allies and opposition alike. On Sept. 5 2024, Michel Barnier from the Les Republicans party was appointed as Prime Minister. The choice was controversial and followed by backlash from the left coalition NFP, which have the most seats and advocated for their candidate Lucie Castets . In his first interview as PM , Barnier presented his stances on the current situation and promised to form a government that is not just right-wing, but also compromises with the left. He has said he will attempt forming a government in the upcoming week. Should he not gather the support of parliament, the opposition can call a vote of no confidence, where parliament can vote for removing him as PM. Barnier is particularly insistent on his tough stance on migration, following Macron’s attempts to appease the right as a response to Le Pen’s momentum gains. Macron and the Ensemble alliance have always had a more lenient view towards migration, but public opinion has made them toughen their stance. III. How are foreign students studying in France affected? The political turmoil has led to many changes in French society: economic challenges, increase of political protests and violence and a more negative lookout towards migration. The situation has also led to many strikes across France including train strikes in the Côte d'Azur region in August. Such strikes are also planned for the Fall, which raises concerns for Menton students. T he migration law that was passed in January increased requirements for acquiring a visa and made it more difficult for migrants to establish work in France. As part of drafting said law, politicians from Les Republicains, supported by the far-right, succeeded in adding an amendment concerning international students, requiring them to prove every year they are enrolled in a “real and serious programme” and to deposit a sum of money returned after their graduation. These changes were not supported by Macron and were later proven unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council. In the final draft of the law there was no mention of international students. Hitherto, political conversation on the topic has shifted far away from the matter of international students. The ongoing migration legislative efforts mainly concern migrants outside the EU and streamlining of the deportation process. Impact for students is not as severe, beside stricter requirements for visa applications for those outside the EU. Still, uncertainty reigns among students who are not sure how they are affected by the puzzling world of French politics. For now there does not seem to be any imminent danger towards the status of international students seeing how such measures are seen as too controversial and unnecessary for parties on all sides of the spectrum. IV. Final words The changes happening in France now affect our daily lives mainly when it comes to price increases and heightened social tensions. Previously I was hearing many different things, including false news about the dangers that can arise from the political turmoil and it was fairly intimidating. I believe many fellow students also relate to this feeling, but after gathering more insight into the situation, I personally am now more confident as a student in France. While there is no need for us students to fear in this current status, we must remain educated on the matter and follow up with the latest developments to be better informed about the changes happening in France. The domestic political landscape is moving rapidly and is full of unexpected twists. While it might be difficult for foreigners to adjust to it, it is valuable to be well-versed in such topics, in order to know if we are affected by them. Previous Next

A whirlwind of whimsical musical comedy and delectable love triangles (quadrangles?), with a splash of poignant moments, “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is a god amongst television productions, an exceptional set of four seasons that supersedes the comparatively mundane Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu material.  < Back Crazy in Love? My (Unrequited) Romance with Rachel Bloom’s Comedy By Maia Zasler April 30, 2024 Have you ever been utterly desperate for a new show to watch? Have you ever yearned for a series that’s just long enough to hold your attention while you let the episodes run in the background of your daily life? After completing “Gossip Girl,” “Gilmore Girls,” “Big Mouth,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” “Human Resources,” “Community,” “Inside Job,” “Young Sheldon,” “The Office,” “Outlander,” “The Great,” “The Great British Baking Show,” “Bridgerton,” etc. (yes, I watch a lot of TV), I thought I exhausted my arsenal of quality shows. It’s only then that, by a stroke of pure destiny, I discovered the gem that is “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” A whirlwind of whimsical musical comedy and delectable love triangles (quadrangles?), with a splash of poignant moments, “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is a god amongst television productions, an exceptional set of four seasons that supersedes the comparatively mundane Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu material. Rachel Bloom stars as Rebecca Bunch, a quirky, high-strung New York lawyer who quits her job at a fancy firm in favor of moving out to West Covina, California. She makes this impulsive decision immediately after a brief run-in with her summer camp boyfriend from a decade prior, Josh Chan (but Josh just happens to live there!). Bunch is cunning and smart; the first season follows her and her bestie/enabler, Paula, as they hatch plots to wiggle into Josh’s life. Bunch will stop at nothing… unless her great love is actually with another guy, Greg, a bartender at the local sports joint with a smidge of an alcohol consumption problem. Or maybe it's with Nathaniel, the new, jaded boss at her firm in West Covina. To be determined. In each progressive episode, Bunch becomes a bit more deranged. At first, her “unraveling” is endearing; she’s just a tad overzealous, love’s #1 fan…but the audience learns that this passion, the immediateness that washes over her at seemingly random times, is part of a more pressing, pertinent mental health problem. Her struggles and missteps— occasionally crossing the line into illegal territory—are depicted realistically and respectfully. In any instance of intense love where one craves the attention and validation of another and is willing to drop everything for that person, there are often underlying issues e.g., anxiety and/or depression. The audience slowly uncovers more about Bunch’s past and how her behavior toward Josh Chan was not a one-off; she was hurt and traumatized by a previous relationship with a much older male professor during her time at undergrad. Bunch needs affirmation, someone, anyone, to tell her that she's “ okay .” She constantly pushes the limits to what the audience considers “crazy.” It’s what allows the show to masterfully balance cheekiness and an amusing self-awareness with a seriousness that accompanies a storyline of a woman who’s “falling off the side of a mountain and sort of grabbing at roots and trees and brambles,” plummeting (Bloom 2017). But Bunch is able to get the help she needs. She even gets “ a diagnosis ”! Throughout its final season, “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” contributes to the de-stigmatization dialogue that surrounds addressing mental health problems because “ anti-depressants are so not a big deal .” Bunch views her life as a musical. She makes sense of her thoughts, her feelings, and her relationships with others through melodies and performance. Her internal monologue is always on display, and so when she grows, the audience grows with her. While watching, I found myself rejoicing in her triumphs and mourning her losses. I cheered her on when she supported her friends and when she gathered the courage to follow her true calling. Perhaps most frequently, I laughed and cringed at the handful of exaggerated characters and clever, wacky songs. I can’t help but feel a sentimental compulsion to the show; maybe because I see myself in Bloom’s character, or maybe because I think that we can all relate to Rebecca Bunch; Bunch reacts to life’s trials and tribulations in an uninhibited way, reactions stripped of regulated temperament. Her intensity, palpable through a television screen, is a product of feeling intensely. We all face similar fears, anticipating rejection or feeling the sting of criticism, lacking validation. We stifle ourselves, denying ourselves the opportunity for change before we’re even told “no.” We place our happiness at some undefined point in the future, almost always with asterisks; if we’re able to complete this deadline, get a date with this person, and fit into those pants, then “ we’ll never have problems again .” Bunch and her path towards getting better is a testament to a journey we all, in some way or another, are on. On a different note, any musical or show-tune lover will be thrilled with the variety of themes and genres incorporated into “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend”’s incredible score. Some of my favorites included “Let’s Generalize About Men” (a colorful, catchy 80s inspired bop), “Remember That We Suffered” (a dizzying, addicting song set at a quintessential New York bar mitzvah celebration), “Santa Ana Winds pt. 1-5” (I can’t describe… you just have to watch), and “The Sexy Getting Ready Song” (a potential feminist commentary?). Despite receiving two Emmys (and my glowing endorsement), “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” maintained relatively low ratings throughout its run between 2015 and 2019. But it seems to be having a revival now on Netflix. And a revival is what it deserves, if not to have been lauded during its initial release. To watch “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is to watch a labor of love. Bloom, as a lead writer and creator of the show—alongside the late Adam Schlesinger—puts so much of herself into each episode’s immersive dialogue, catchy theme songs, and bonus tunes. Giving audiences Rebecca Bunch simultaneously gives them something for which to strive: authenticity and, as corny as it may sound, self-love. Connecting with ourselves and that which makes us truly happy, rejecting (as difficult as it may be) that which we think should please ourselves or others, is the best service we can give ourselves. That and binge-watching “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.”

Behind this revolutionary U.S.-led endeavor — expected to cost approximately $5 billion according to initial estimates — conflicting interests offer major gains for beneficiaries while putting at stake grand losses for some discontented regional and international powers. < Back IMEC: A Modernized Ancient Route By Jad Toufic Toutinji November 30, 2023 In ancient times, before Ottoman hegemony and the creation of the Suez Canal, the old world was interconnected through the Silk Road and the Red Sea Trade Route. Today, as the Chinese government expands its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the heir of the ancient Silk Road, a new revival of the Red Sea Trade Route is also taking place, mainly prompted by the i2u2 – an economic and security cooperation of the US, Israel, India and UAE. In this case, the heir is the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which was announced in the G20 summit in New Delhi in September. The IMEC has been praised by many world leaders, including President of the European Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, who described it as a “green and digital bridge across continents and civilizations,” and her American counterpart Joe Biden, who dubbed it as a “really big deal.” Behind this revolutionary U.S.-led endeavor — expected to cost approximately $5 billion according to initial estimates — conflicting interests offer major gains for beneficiaries while putting at stake grand losses for some discontented regional and international powers. Nevertheless, since its inception, increasing doubts have been casted amid the Middle East’s instability, especially in relation to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Who benefits? The U.S., despite not having a direct relation to the whole project, is its main driver. The U.S. proposed the endeavor as a sign of its continuous commitment in the region amid skepticism around the Biden administration’s disinterest. It aims to send a strong message to U.S. allies in the Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia and Israel, that the U.S. has never stopped providing support in security as well as economic matters. This is especially pertinent following recent concerns from the latter over U.S. commitment in the fight against Iranian influence. Such concerns are reflected in the Saudi, as well as Emirati, approaches with China through joining the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Accordingly, for the U.S., this project also serves to restrengthen its waning power over the region as Chinese contestation is growing ever more powerful. As such, it aims to recover U.S. influence over the UAE and KSA while proposing a competing proposal to the Chinese BRI. Israel benefits by playing a central role in such a project through its Haifa port, especially since neither Syrian ports nor the exploded and underdeveloped Beirut port are capable of accommodating expected demands. However, Israeli interests are not only economic but also political. The trade route would require the expansion of the Abraham accords to include Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Arab initiative to defend Palestine. If such an expansion were to take place, especially with the recent talks between KSA and Israel, it would constitute a major win to the state of Israel. Israeli ambitions are expressed through Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who boasted that the project is “the largest cooperation project” in Israel’s history. As to the UAE and KSA, the neighbors’ objectives, even if in constant friendly competition, are aligned in the project. As aforementioned, the U.S. seeks to reimpose its influence on the growing independent authority of both countries, yet it does not seem as such for Riyadh or Abu Dhabi. Even though the project would entail U.S. economic and political influence and support, MBS and Sheikh Zayed only consider it as another opportunity to strengthen their geopolitical and economic independence, benefiting from the bipolarized economic cold war between the U.S. and China. Their ultimate goal is to make their respective countries focal points in world trade as potential substitutes to their economic reliance on oil and other natural resources. In addition, with regards to the Abraham Accords, which the UAE already signed in 2020, the kingdom sees a benefit in a stable, peaceful Middle East. Perceived internationally as the Arab leader of the Palestinian cause, extensive concessions would be expected if any potential accord with Israel were to take place in order to maintain Arab and Saudi approval. Nonetheless, amid the current Gaza conflict, any accords are surely halted. Furthermore, Europe will surely benefit as trade becomes cheaper and more environmentally efficient. With regards to India, the project is seen as a means to try and rebalance economic hegemony over Asia, while ensuring greater Indian influence in the world economy in sight of concerns of its exclusion from the BRI (and the inclusion of its neighbor Pakistan through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor – CPEC). Who are the losers? Egypt is arguably the principle economic loser in this new proposed equation of world trade, especially because the IMEC would bypass the highly tariffed Egyptian Suez Canal. Moreover, Egypt would be excluded from the new order. In fact, two of the reasons which prompted the IMEC are to avoid any potential crises in the Suez Canal and to reduce the imposed tariffs. Iran, on the other hand, is set to be the main political loser as the trade route dodges all the potential intersection with Iran or Iranian influenced countries like Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab El-Mandeb Strait, both of which oversee a third and tenth of all the traded oil in the world, are the pivotal locations for Iranian, and Houthi, maneuvers to mitigate imposed sanctions. In other terms, the IMEC can be considered as a U.S., Israeli and Saudi counterreaction to potential threats. The Turks are also going to take a hit not only because of its exclusion, but also because in the Chinese alternative, Türkiye is promised to occupy an essential role, which would likely fade overtime amid more efficient and more rapid opportunities otherwise. This radical opposition is reflected through President Recep Erdogan’s high tone comments on the IMEC, stating that “there can be no corridor without Türkiye” and that Türkiye would “part ways with the EU.” Would China be considered a loser in this agreement? As for the Chinese, despite the BRI, which has reportedly attracted $1 trillion in investments, being largely contested, it does not look like China will be the greatest loser, but they certainly will not benefit. Evidently, certain trade opportunities along the BRI are going to shift towards the more attractive IMEC; however, the BRI is a greater project, covering larger areas over more continents, particularly in Africa. Accordingly, it is unlikely that China will reduce its investments in its intercontinental project. Instead, China might look to alternatives such as extending the IMEC route towards other excluded regions via the BRI. Optimistically, the BRI and IMEC may potentially complete each other, thus revolutionizing global trade. In such a scenario, economic players like India, UAE and KSA (all members and partners of BRICS and SCO) will have a strategic economic role. What are the consequences of the increased aggressions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In the marketing for and the analysis of the IMEC trade route, it is presumed that peace and stability relatively prevalent in the Middle East in the last two years will resume. In fact, it is expected that such a trade route will end the region’s incessant instability by expanding the Abraham Accords to include KSA in exchange for major compromises on behalf of Israel in the benefit of the Palestinians. However, ever since the October 7 violence, it seems unlikely that KSA will be able to achieve these compromises. As to the Abraham Accords, its attainment is inevitable, but the conflict has surely postponed it. Overall, this resurgence of violence sheds light on the predicament the IMEC, as well as the BRI, will constantly face: instability of the Middle East. Without lasting peace, no sustainable trade route can be accomplished. Finally, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has expressed firmly, and quite optimistically, that “IMEC is for the long term” when asked about the current violence’s reality.

Music has a strange sort of power; it can outlive the moments it was originally made for. You’ll Never Walk Alone has transcended Liverpool. Celtic fans sing it in Scotland, as well as Dortmund fans in Germany. It’s been sung in times of crisis—after terrorist attacks, during the pandemic and other acts of remembrance. But it will forever belong to Hillsborough first. It is sacred in the way a national anthem can become sacred, or a funeral hymn. You’ll Never Walk Alone began as a ballad of hope and then a cry for justice.  < Back Singing through Grief – Collective Memory through Music Rebecca Canton April 30, 2025 “Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart / And you’ll never walk alone.” Such words, sung by thousands in harmony at Anfield, the home of Liverpool Football Club, and beyond, are more than just lyrics—they are a cultural memory, a form of resistance and a promise of togetherness. Football, especially concerning fans, can be described as tribal—rooted in geography, loyalty and collective passion. Alongside this, it is also inherently musical. From the cacophony of chants of a favorite player on the stands to the quiet suspense before a penalty, football culture is a sonic landscape. These sounds create a unified identity, binding thousands of strangers into one voice. In this way, football matches resemble a form of ritual: they are repetitive, emotionally charged and have deep symbols. When tragedy strikes, it is often such rituals that remain. Nowhere can these concepts be felt more than in the context of the Hillsborough disaster of 1989, a tragedy that undoubtedly changed football but also transformed grief into music and then identity. In the wake of loss, one of the world’s greatest football anthems— You’ll Never Walk Alone— became something altogether more potent. As a Liverpool fan, Hillsborough, or the Hillsborough Disaster of Apr. 15, 1989, is the darkest day in our club’s history. Forget the infamous Steven Gerrard ‘slip’ of 2014, or the 2022 Champions League Final, Hillsborough overshadows even the most notorious incidents. Four years after the Heysel Stadium disaster, where 39 fans died in a collapse following clashes between Liverpool and Juventus supporters, another tragedy struck. On Apr. 15, 1989, 97 people died in a crowd crush at Hillsborough Stadium during an FA Cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest—94 on the day, with the death toll later rising to 97 by 2021 due to related complications. These people died because of a lack of stadium control. 97 died because of police errors, not because of the fans. Yet what followed the disaster was not just heartbreak, but injustice. In the days following, fans and victims were smeared by the press. The infamous The Sun article — ‘ the Scum ’ or ‘the S*n’ if you’re from Merseyside—‘ The Truth’ accused the dead of looting, drunkenness and even urinating on police officers. Such allegations were not just lies, but acts of systemic violence, designed to discredit the grieving and shift the blame away from the authorities, who let down the very people they were meant to protect. Despite such a tragedy, Liverpool didn’t stay silent. Instead, it sang. You’ll Never Walk Alone didn’t originate from Hillsborough—it’s actually from a show tune from the 1945 musical Carousel by Rodgers and Hammerstein. It was later covered by the Liverpool band Gerry and the Pacemakers in the 1960s. Before Hillsborough, it had already been adopted by Liverpool fans, yet in the wake of such a profound loss, it became something else—an anthem not just of loyalty, but of mourning. Of protest, and of survival. Singing You’ll Never Walk Alone for Liverpool fans became much more than tradition. It became an act of resistance. In a society that refused to believe they were wronged, Liverpool fans created a sound that couldn’t be ignored. Singing became a way to grieve together, but also a refusal to forget the injustices imposed upon them. There’s a sort of rhythm to football, both on and off the pitch. Whether through home and away fixtures, the same 36 matches each year, or the Saturday rituals. The same pubs, scarves, the same voices raised in unison. Football is, in many ways, religious. Stadiums become cathedrals. Chants become prayers. And at Anfield, the home of Liverpool, You’ll Never Walk Alone transformed into something more than a hymn—it became sacred. It’s undeniable that when you bring 50,000 voices together, it’s euphoric, but what gives the song its power isn’t just its melody, but the words . “When you walk through a storm, hold your head up high…” In the aftermath of Hillsborough, these lyrics no longer were a metaphor, but an instruction and reminder to walk on, even through grief. The storm was the disrespect, the interviews, even by famous figures like Wayne Rooney, blaming Liverpool fans for the deaths of their own. Likewise, “though your dreams be tossed and blown” such words speak to what was lost—the lives, the futures, the hopes and dreams of the 97. “Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart” is a rousing call for togetherness and thousands promise that “you’ll never walk alone.” There’s a phrase often heard in Liverpool: Scouse, not English. To outsiders, it perhaps sounds exaggerated, or even cheeky. Yet it's more than regional pride—it’s defiance, a declaration of cultural independence. As someone who isn’t Scouse, I don’t think I’ll ever fully understand what it truly means to be Scouse— that is with a capital S. The phrase captures it better than anything else could: Scouse, not English. It reflects a deep-rooted identity in politics, pride and pain. Liverpool, as a city and as an identity, has long stood apart from the rest of England. With its Irish heritage and history as a working-class port city, alongside its long-term loyalty to the Labour party, the city has often been distant from Westminster, especially under Margaret Thatcher. During the 1980s, under Thatcher’s Conservative government, Liverpool was treated not only with neglect but also hostility. Deindustrialisation ravaged the city, reducing jobs and futures. Later disclosed cabinet documents showed government ministers even considered a policy of “managed decline”—effectively letting the city fall apart rather than supporting it. Any sort of neglect Liverpool suffered was not accidental, but a deliberate attempt to reduce Merseyside’s livelihood. In the face of this decline, rising unemployment, social unrest and the 1981 Toxteth riots, Thatcher’s response only increased policing and blame. Liverpool, already proud and politically stimulated, became vilified in the press as angry, dangerous and self-pitying. To be Scouse was to be othered—culturally, economically and politically. Thus, when Hillsborough occurred, and the government chose to ignore the victims, it wasn’t a shock but a confirmation. When Thatcher visited, she sided with the South Yorkshire police. When The Sun printed lies, the state stayed silent. Normally, in tragedy, people would be allowed to mourn their dead, yet Scousers were forced to defend their character instead. As such, Hillsborough is more than a tragedy for Liverpool. Instead, it's a culmination of years of being ignored and misunderstood. It’s why the song You’ll Never Walk Alone cannot be reduced to just a song of grief. It’s an anthem, a refusal to be erased, a declaration that Scousers will not be ignored. It took 23 years for an official apology. In 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel released a report confirming what had always been known. The police were to blame, the victims were innocent. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, issued a formal apology in Parliament. Yet apologies mean nothing and Liverpool does not forget, with the S*n being banned in all of Merseyside. This does not take back the suffering inflicted, and justice is never simple. Trials have dragged on with little to no resolution, and no senior police officers have been convicted. Despite this lack of accountability, Liverpool has stayed strong, and You’ll Never Walk Alone has continued to be sung. Every year on the anniversary, Anfield falls silent—and then erupts in one voice. The wails of this legendary song sound louder than ever, a reminder that justice does not end with headlines, but only when the truth is known. When the dead are honored as people and not just as statistics. Music has a strange sort of power; it can outlive the moments it was originally made for. You’ll Never Walk Alone has transcended Liverpool. Celtic fans sing it in Scotland, as well as Dortmund fans in Germany. It’s been sung in times of crisis—after terrorist attacks, during the pandemic and other acts of remembrance. But it will forever belong to Hillsborough first. It is sacred in the way a national anthem can become sacred, or a funeral hymn. To put it simply, it is more than music. It is a memory that cannot be erased, a resistance that cannot be silenced or reduced. You’ll Never Walk Alone began as a ballad of hope and then a cry for justice. It reminds us that grief can be public, that mourning can be political, and that justice can be demanded outside the courts. Yet above all, it shows that when people come together, they can never truly be alone. The importance of remembrance is clear. For the victims of the Heysel and the Hillsborough stadium disasters, we should not and will not forget. Victims of the Heysel Stadium Disaster, Mar. 29 1985 Rocco Acerra, 29 Bruno Balli, 50 Alfons Bos, 35 Giancarlo Bruschera, 21 Andrea Casula, 11 Giovanni Casula, 44 Nino Cerullo, 24 Willy Chielens, 41 Giuseppina Conti, 17 Dirk Daeninckx, 38 Dionisio Fabbro, 51 Jacques François, 45 Eugenio Gagliano, 35 Francesco Galli, 24 Giancarlo Gonnelli, 20 Alberto Guarini, 21 Giovacchino Landini, 50 Roberto Lorentini, 31 Barbara Lusci, 58 Franco Martelli, 22 Loris Messore, 28 Gianni Mastroiaco, 20 Sergio Bastino Mazzino, 38 Luciano Rocco Papaluca, 38 Luigi Pidone, 31 Benito Pistolato, 50 Patrick Radcliffe, 38 Domenico Ragazzi, 44 Antonio Ragnanese, 49 Claude Robert, 27 Mario Ronchi, 43 Domenico Russo, 28 Tarcisio Salvi, 49 Gianfranco Sarto, 47 Amedeo Giuseppe Spolarore, 55 Mario Spanu, 41 Tarcisio Venturin, 23 Jean Michel Walla, 32 Claudio Zavaroni, 28 Victims of the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, Apr. 15 1989 https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2024/apr/15/hillsborough-disaster-the-97-people-whose-lives-were-cut-short Jon-Paul Gilhooley, 10 Philip Hammond, 14 Thomas Anthony Howard, 14 Paul Brian Murray, 14 Lee Nicol, 14 Adam Edward Spearritt, 14 Peter Andrew Harrison, 15 Victoria Jane Hicks, 15 Philip John Steele, 15 Kevin Tyrrell, 15 Kevin Daniel Williams, 15 Kester Roger Marcus Ball, 16 Nicholas Michael Hewitt, 16 Martin Kevin Traynor, 16 Simon Bell, 17 Carl Darren Hewitt, 17 Kevin McGrath, 17 Stephen Francis O’Neill, 17 Steven Joseph Robinson, 17 Henry Charles Rogers, 17 Stuart Paul William Thompson, 17 Graham John Wright, 17 James Gary Aspinall, 18 Carl Brown, 18 Paul Clark, 18 Christopher Barry Devonside, 18 Gary Philip Jones, 18 Carl David Lewis, 18 John McBrien, 18 Jonathon Owens, 18 Colin Mark Ashcroft, 19 Paul William Carlile, 19 Gary Christopher Church, 19 James Philip Delaney, 19 Sarah Louise Hicks, 19 David William Mather, 19 Colin Wafer, 19 Ian David Whelan, 19 Stephen Paul Copoc, 20 Ian Thomas Glover, 20 Gordon Rodney Horn, 20 Paul David Brady, 21 Thomas Steven Fox, 21 Marian Hazel McCabe, 21 Joseph Daniel McCarthy, 21 Peter McDonnell, 21 Carl William Rimmer, 21 Peter Francis Tootle, 21 David John Benson, 22 David William Birtle, 22 Tony Bland, 22 Gary Collins, 22 Tracey Elizabeth Cox, 23 William Roy Pemberton, 23 Colin Andrew Hugh William Sefton, 23 David Leonard Thomas, 23 Peter Andrew Burkett, 24 Derrick George Godwin, 24 Graham John Roberts, 24 David Steven Brown, 25 Richard Jones, 25 Barry Sidney Bennett, 26 Andrew Mark Brookes, 26 Paul Anthony Hewitson, 26 Paula Ann Smith, 26 Christopher James Traynor, 26 Barry Glover, 27 Gary Harrison, 27 Christine Anne Jones, 27 Nicholas Peter Joynes, 27 Francis Joseph McAllister, 27 Alan McGlone, 28 Joseph Clark, 29 Christopher Edwards, 29 James Robert Hennessy, 29 Alan Johnston, 29 Anthony Peter Kelly, 29 Martin Kenneth Wild, 29 Peter Reuben Thompson, 30 Stephen Francis Harrison, 31 Eric Hankin, 33 Vincent Michael Fitzsimmons, 34 Roy Harry Hamilton, 34 Patrick John Thompson, 35 Michael David Kelly, 38 Brian Christopher Mathews, 38 David George Rimmer, 38 Inger Shah, 38 David Hawley, 39 Thomas Howard, 39 Arthur Horrocks, 41 Eric George Hughes, 42 Henry Thomas Burke, 47 Raymond Thomas Chapman, 50 John Alfred Anderson, 62 Gerard Bernard Patrick Baron, 67 Keith McGrath, 17 Photo source: Mark Lowen on Wikimedia

On quitte rarement le Liban, on s’en sépare, souvent contre sa volonté. Et pourtant, dans cette séparation, une étrange alchimie se crée: plus le pays sombre dans le chaos, plus il semble s’effondrer sous les poids du temps et de la guerre, et plus l’attachement et le patriotisme de ses enfants, même à l’autre bout du monde, se fait viscéral. Ce phénomène est particulièrement visible parmi les étudiants libanais en France, pour qui ce patriotisme se nourrit de la résistance face à un contexte tendu, marqué par les tensions et les conflits internes. < Back Loin des yeux, près du coeur: les Libanais de la diaspora face au chaos Christy Ghosn December 31, 2024 « Si le Liban n’était pas mon pays, je l’aurais choisi pour pays. » Gibran n’est pas mort, il vit à travers chaque mot, chaque pensée, de ceux qui, loin de leur terre natale, l’embrassent encore dans leur âme. On quitte rarement le Liban, on s’en sépare, souvent contre sa volonté. Et pourtant, dans cette séparation, une étrange alchimie se crée: plus le pays sombre dans le chaos, plus il semble s’effondrer sous les poids du temps et de la guerre, et plus l’attachement et le patriotisme de ses enfants, même à l’autre bout du monde, se fait viscéral. Ce phénomène est particulièrement visible parmi les étudiants libanais en France, pour qui ce patriotisme se nourrit de la résistance face à un contexte tendu, marqué par les tensions et les conflits internes. Des interviews avec de jeunes expatriés ont permis de comprendre ce paradoxe et comment le patriotisme, loin des frontières du Liban, devient un acte de résistance, comme une promesse de ne jamais oublier ceux qui sont restés. Un patriotisme renforcé par la distance Avant de quitter le Liban, une grande majorité des Libanais interrogés ressentaient une relation ambivalente avec leur pays. L’amour pour leurs proches était entaché par une frustration intense face à la situation politique et économique. Quitter le pays était souvent perçu comme un soulagement, une échappatoire au danger quotidien, mais ce choix était aussi teinté de culpabilité: partir signifiait abandonner un foyer en crise et laisser derrière des proches plongés dans l’incertitude. Une fois à l’étranger, la distance géographique semble paradoxalement rapprocher émotionnellement les expatriés de leur pays d'origine. L’une des étudiantes interrogées a partagé son expérience: bien qu’étant partie très jeune, elle n’avait jamais ressenti un lien aussi fort avec le Liban qu’à la suite des récents affrontements entre le Hezbollah et Israël. Ces événements ont ravivé un sentiment d’appartenance malgré la distance, un sentiment alimenté par la solidarité partagée avec d’autres Libanais dans la même situation. Ensemble, c’est comme s’ils avaient formé une sorte groupe émotionnel de support. De plus, face à la pression d’intégrer les valeurs françaises, beaucoup ont éprouvé un besoin urgent de se rattacher à leur identité libanaise, comme une manière de se réapproprier une partie essentielle et profonde d’eux-mêmes qu’ils sentent parfois menacée. La diffusion et la promotion de la culture libanaise Ce besoin se traduit par une redécouverte de leur culture et une fierté renouvelée d’être Libanais. En effet, les étudiants libanais à l’étranger deviennent souvent des ambassadeurs de leur culture. De la poésie libanaise à Fairuz, en passant par le houmous ou la dabke, ils partagent activement leurs traditions et contribuent à façonner une image positive du Liban, malgré les crises. Cette diffusion culturelle est perçue comme un acte de résistance morale: dans un contexte où leur identité est menacée, préserver et promouvoir leur culture devient une manière de la protéger. Ce sentiment se renforce notamment à Sciences Po où, face au conflit, beaucoup ressentent la nécessité de se positionner et de défendre leurs valeurs. Comme le résume une étudiante, « Le simple fait d’exister, de vivre, devient une forme de résistance. » Des événements culturels organisés par les étudiants libanais illustrent cet engagement, suscitant souvent l’admiration de leurs camarades internationaux, qui se disent inspirés par les récits et les valeurs partagés. Alors que certains, touchés par ces portraits envisagent de visiter le Liban, d’autres, déjà influencés par le temps qu’ils passent avec leurs amis libanais, intègrent inconsciemment des éléments de cette culture dans leur quotidien, ponctuant leurs phrases de mots comme "Saraha" (Honnêtement) ou "Chou?” (Quoi?). Le rôle de la diaspora dans l’avenir du Liban La diaspora libanaise a toujours été un pilier économique et social pour le pays. En 2023, la diaspora a envoyé 6,7 milliards de dollars au Liban selon la Banque mondiale . Ces transferts représentent 30,7 % du PIB libanais, soit le troisième ratio le plus élevé au monde. Les envois d’argent soutiennent des familles entières. Cependant, il ne s’agit pas seulement de contributions économiques pour soutenir le Liban; depuis la révolution de 2019 jusqu'à aujourd'hui, la voix des expatriés libanais a permis de sensibiliser la communauté internationale à la crise libanaise. Pour les Libanais, il ne s’agit plus de se reposer sur un gouvernement, qui s’est déjà montré incapable de répondre à la crise, mais de compter sur le soutien de la communauté internationale. Toutefois, peu de Libanais vivant à l’étranger envisagent un retour au pays. L’absence d’opportunités, combinée à l’instabilité persistante, empêche beaucoup d’imaginer un avenir viable au Liban. Pourtant, ils continuent d’espérer que leur engagement culturel, intellectuel, voire même émotionnel contribuera, à long terme, à un renouveau du pays. A présent, permettez-moi de me glisser dans le rôle de ma propre interviewée, et de conclure par cette réflexion. Être un Libanais étudiant à l’étranger, c’est avant tout un mélange d’émotions: une colère sourde face à la détresse de notre pays, mais aussi une impuissance déchirante, celle de ne pouvoir rien changer—pire—de ne même pas pouvoir être là, physiquement. C’est souffrir face à cette pile incessante de nouvelles, se sentir pris au piège face à cette sensation écrasante de n’être qu’un observateur distant. Et pourtant, malgré cette distance qui déchire, vivre loin de chez soi, c’est porter chaque jour en nous une parcelle du Liban, et s’efforcer de la garder vivante.

Lauded for its clear waters and dream houses, the North Coast has gained immense popularity from Egyptian citizens and throughout the Arab world. < Back Urban Development Booms on Egypt’s North Coast By Joudi Arafa September 30, 2022 It is no surprise that pristine coasts along the Egyptian Mediterranean have undergone thorough urban transformations in recent years. It serves not only as a source of attraction for domestic and international tourists but for investors as well. The development runs precisely across Alexandria, Marsa Matrouh and the newest city of El Alamein. The longstanding interest in coastal tourism in Egypt proves to be transformational in the tourism sector. Until recently, Egypt relied on archaeological-centric tourism; nowadays, it is profiting far more from leisure attractions. In two decades, the number of visitors in the coastal region grew by an astonishing 76%. This boom can be explained by the expansion of the hotel and housing industries through furious infrastructural and architectural activity. In 2014, Egypt approved a reallocation of 2.4 million square meters of public-owned land to the New Urban Communities Authority (NUCA) to proceed with the construction of a new city in the North Coast area — El Alamein. The first phase of the project aims to house 20,000 people. Residents will be able to expect a tourism development area and a vast array of retail options. The conceptual plan is looking to incorporate industries such as logistics, agriculture, regional trade, tourism and education in hopes of attracting new investments to the fledgling coastal city. El Alamein even features skyscrapers in its layout, some of which are already completed and welcoming tourists and residents alike. Not only is all of this urban development along the North Coast bringing forth unprecedented revenues, but it is also creating employment opportunities for the growing youth population of Egypt. Serving as the most famous summer destination spot for Egyptians, the property market in the area has widened, and competition to attain a coveted seaside property, whether it be a multistory sea-view villa or a humble one-bedroom studio, has tensed. “Sahel,” as Egyptians call it, has set an image for itself as a hub for summer relaxation and family reunification. After years of saving, it is not uncommon for someone to hastily purchase a Sahel property that is either still under construction or a finished unit. They know that the return on their investment is worth the cash and that it is a destination to look forward to visiting when leaving their bustling hometowns of Cairo, Alexandria or Port Saïd. The urban distribution of the North Coast comes in the form of compounds or, more precisely, neighborhoods separated by a highway. Amwaj, Marassi, Mountain View, Golf Porto Marina, and Hacienda are just a few of the desirable development projects that can be found in Sahel. Each compound has its unique attractions — gated communities, sailing, spas, and playgrounds — to be enjoyed by residents. Lauded for its clear waters and dream houses, the North Coast has gained immense popularity from Egyptian citizens and throughout the Arab world.