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.

The critical state of Lebanon’s cultural sites calls for the international community to guarantee the preservation of cultural heritage as a crucial component of peace processes and post-conflict resilience. < Back Lebanon’s Cultural Heritage at Risk: How International Frameworks Attempt to Safeguard It Saimi Hartikainen for MEDMUN November 30, 2024 The escalating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has had a destructive impact on the lives of millions. Since October 2023, Israeli attacks on Lebanon have killed over 3,000 and displaced an estimated 1.2 million people. Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel have led to the death of 72 people, with more than 60,000 displaced in Northern Israel. In addition to the tragedies inflicted upon human lives, international concerns have been raised over the state of Lebanon’s cultural sites. On October 23, Israel launched air strikes on Tyre, known as ‘Sour’ in Arabic, one of the cities with the oldest, continuous human habitation in the world. The strikes have continued in nearby areas in southern Lebanon. On October 30, Israel targeted the ancient city of Baalbek, known for its unique Roman citadel. The attacks on Baalbek have since damaged three historical buildings, including the Gouraud Barracks and the Palmyra Hotel, in the proximity of the Roman temples. The UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has classified both cities as World Heritage sites. Damages to these cultural sites fracture Lebanese history for the country’s identity, further disrupting cultural continuity and collective memory in times of crisis. These events and their consequences have thus raised alarm domestically and globally, positioning international protection frameworks of cultural heritage in the spotlight. UNESCO’s classification of World Heritage sites attributes ‘cultural heritage’ with “outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view.” UNESCO has nominated both Tyre and Baalbek based on different criteria : Tyre , the antique Phoenician metropole that ruled the Mediterranean and founded the colonies of Cadiz and Carthage, is home to ruins from the Roman period. It fulfills UNESCO’s criterion III of being “a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared” and criterion VI of being “directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs… of outstanding universal significance.” Baalbek , the Phoenician city that maintained its religious significance throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods is considered to comply with criterion I of “represent(ing) a masterpiece of human creative genius” and criterion IV of being “an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history.” UNESCO pays special attention to safeguarding World Heritage sites as it considers that they constitute a foundation that can be later used “to rebuild a broken community, re-establish its identity, and link its past with its present and future.” These considerations illustrate the potential of international frameworks for the protection of cultural heritage in Lebanon. The crucial need for protection of cultural sites was echoed by Lebanese lawmakers who noted that it “ goes beyond physical preservation; it is about safeguarding the traditions, stories and values these sites represent, legacies that connect our past to our future.” Indeed, cultural heritage sites act as a material reminder of the historical phases of a country and its civilization. They function as points of reference for understanding one’s position in the world and the historical advancements made as a people. These shared experiences and memories foster a clearer sense of community and identity, anchoring a people to a place. Cultural heritage can also attract tourism and bring about economic opportunities, thus serving as a platform for sharing cultural experiences and livelihoods. In addition to the cultural, social and economic value heritage sites generate for local societies, they also enrich humankind. Destruction or damage of cultural sites hence “ impoverishes humankind.” Since cultural heritage is an integral part of national identity, offenses on a nation’s sovereignty are often accompanied by attacks on culture. Israel has been accused of targeting Lebanon’s cultural heritage, a charge that Israel has denied, and instead claimed that its strikes have been aimed at Hezbollah targets in nearby areas. Experts have warned that strikes might hit off-target and unintentionally damage important cultural sites. Either way, the impact on Lebanon’s collective memories and identity is shattering in case of such strikes succeeding. UNESCO and other international actors thus aim to protect World Heritage sites through a variety of international frameworks. The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, known as the 1954 Hague Convention, commits states to preventive measures against damage to cultural heritage in conflict and to “refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings… in the event of armed conflict” and “from any act of hostility, directed against such property.” The 1999 Second Protocol to the Convention established the notion of ‘ enhanced protection,’ under which World Heritage sites shall be granted “high level immunity from military attacks as well as threats of making it a military target.” Lebanon has appealed to UNESCO for a swift process of inscribing the country’s Heritage sites under enhanced protection in light of the recent near-misses of Israeli strikes. UNESCO will discuss this in an extraordinary meeting in Paris on November 18. The agency is assisting local authorities in the transportation of World Heritage site artifacts to safety and has conducted remote assessments of the damage caused to the cultural sites. Lebanese lawmakers have noted the urgency of “the protection of these historic sites by mobilizing UNESCO’s authority, securing international attention and advocating for protective measures.” Ideally, UNESCO’s efforts will guarantee physical protection of the sites and raise international awareness that puts global pressure on the initiation of a peace process. However, the effectiveness of UNESCO’s work has previously been questioned . In 2019, Israel withdrew from the organization along with the United States, accusing the organization of anti-Israel bias. UNESCO had previously criticized Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and, in 2011, made Palestine a member of the agency. Following this, Israel and the US stopped paying the required fees to UNESCO, signaling reluctance towards contributing to UNESCO’s mission of preserving culturally significant property. Due to such handicaps of UNESCO, some experts put their faith in other international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The Court set a global precedent in a 2021 Armenia v. Azerbaijan landmark case that attributed destruction of cultural heritage with racial discrimination under the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Hence, the international community is working slowly but steadily towards better protection of cultural heritage and accountability of actors. The Israel-Hezbollah conflict has, without doubt, put Lebanon’s cultural heritage at risk, with World Heritage sites such as Tyre and Baalbek suffering damages that have raised grave concern over their significance for national identity as well as humankind’s collective memory and heritage. International frameworks aim to provide protection of these sites, highlighting their importance and the responsibilities of states. For example, UNESCO is considering placing Lebanon’s sites under enhanced protection. However, the effectiveness of these frameworks has come under question amid geopolitical tensions, as demonstrated by Israel’s retreat from UNESCO. The critical state of Lebanon’s cultural sites calls for the international community to guarantee the preservation of cultural heritage as a crucial component of peace processes and post-conflict resilience.

The EU’s ongoing partnerships with authoritarian regimes, such as Tunisia, to control migration raises crucial concerns about the ethics and long-term efficacy of such agreements. While these arrangements may offer short-term containment, they fail to address the systemic drivers of migration, such as political repression, economic instability and environmental degradation, prevalent in many MENA countries. < Back EU-Tunisia Deal: Migration Control at the Cost of Human Rights? Eleni Dimitropoulou November 30, 2024 People have lost faith. International humanitarian law has lost its credibility and value, both in theory and practice. Nowhere is this erosion more evident than in Tunisia, where human rights have taken a backseat to geopolitical interests. In recent years, Tunisia has faced mounting criticism for its deteriorating human rights situation, exacerbated by an increasingly authoritarian regime. This crisis has drawn global attention, particularly due to the European Union's growing role in shaping Tunisia's migration policy. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in 2023 between Tunisia and the European Union (EU), is officially titled the "Global Gateway Tunisia-EU Partnership" and involves financial support for Tunisia, in return for a commitment by the Tunisian government to curb migration to Europe. Although the deal aims to stabilize Europe's borders, it has been heavily criticized for its role in supporting a regime accused of widespread human rights abuses. Testimonies recorded by international human rights organizations are alarming. Tunisian authorities have been accused of arbitrary arrests, beatings, mass deportations and violent practices against migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, often leaving them abandoned in poor conditions at the border with Libya and Algeria. These practices expose people to extreme risks, as many are left without access to humanitarian aid or basic necessities. According to these testimonies, Tunisian security forces are applying violence against migrants at sea, using dangerous maneuvers against their boats, resulting in their frequent sinking and the deaths of dozens of people. The UN reported that in the first half of 2023 alone, at least 265 people died in these interception operations, and several others remain missing. Despite growing evidence of violent and abusive practices by the Tunisian authorities, the EU continues to financially support Tunisia as part of its strategy to outsource its border management. The memorandum of understanding includes the provision of 105 million euros to strengthen Tunisia's border control measures, as well as other investments in the digital sector, renewable energy and economic support for the country. The EU has tasked Tunisian authorities, including the National Guard and Coast Guard, with the responsibility of preventing migrant departures to Europe. However, this strategy has allowed the regime of President Kais Saied to double-down on its authoritarian practices, limiting the rights of citizens and immigrants. The international community is watching the intensifying repression of civil society in Tunisia with concern. Since 2021, core freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary have come under severe pressure. President of Tunisia Kais Saied has imposed severe restrictions focusing on dissent and political opposition, such as intimidating and imprisoning journalists, activists and political opponents, while humanitarian organizations are prevented from carrying out their work. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and humanitarian organizations stress that Tunisia is not a safe destination for migrants to disembark, as many of them are vulnerable to serious violations of their rights during the deportation process. Authorities are accused of using collective deportations and not carrying out individual assessments to protect migrants, thus violating the principle of non-refoulement, a fundamental tenet of international law that ensures that no one is sent back to a country where they risk persecution, torture or serious harm. Although supported by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and some European leaders, the EU deal with Tunisia raises ethical and political questions. Some MEPs express their dissatisfaction with the EU's stance, accusing it of not taking sufficient measures to protect human rights. In a letter to von der Leyen, MEPs call for tighter conditions on funding to prevent further funding being responsible for serious breaches. They also warn that the current agreement does not ensure the protection of migrants while entrenching the EU's cooperation with authoritarian regimes in the Mediterranean region. Migration flows into Europe have been steadily increasing due to a combination of global crises, including armed conflict, climate change and economic inequality. In many regions of the world, worsening conditions are forcing people to flee their homes in search of safety, opportunity and a better life. For Europe, this means migration is no longer a distant concern; it’s a challenge at the region’s doorstep—one that will only intensify in the coming decades. By 2050, experts predict that climate change alone could force millions more to leave their homes, exacerbating the pressures on already strained migration systems. At the same time, economic disparities between Europe and other regions, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, continue to fuel movement across borders. For many, Europe represents the hope of a more secure future, but the rise in migration is testing the EU’s capacity to manage arrivals without compromising its commitment to human rights and dignity. Understanding the root causes of migration—and addressing them through more sustainable, cooperative strategies—is essential if Europe is to remain a beacon of hope while ensuring fair and effective migration management. However, political dynamics within Europe complicate these efforts. Anti-immigration rhetoric, fueled by populist movements, continues to shape public opinion and policy. While the EU must address these concerns, it cannot afford to compromise its foundational values. Transparent communication, highlighting the contributions of migrants and fostering solidarity among member states, will be essential. The EU's current engagement with external partners like Tunisia reveals the complexities of balancing migration control with the principles of human rights. This approach is emblematic of a broader strategy that prioritizes agreements with neighboring countries to manage migration flows. For instance, the EU’s collaboration with Turkey under the 2016 migration deal showcased a significant investment in curbing irregular migration routes in exchange for financial aid. Some critics argue that such deals often sacrifice the EU's values in pursuit of pragmatic solutions, creating a precedent for controversial partnerships. The EU-Turkey deal is often lauded for reducing irregular crossings in the Eastern Mediterranean, but it too has faced significant debate. Human rights advocates have pointed to overcrowded refugee camps on Greek islands as evidence of the deal's failure to ensure humane treatment for migrants. This demonstrates that while such partnerships may achieve short-term goals, they often fail to address systemic issues, such as improving asylum processes or offering viable resettlement options for displaced individuals. In contrast, some EU member states have worked to set positive examples in migration management. Sweden, for instance, has emphasized the integration of refugees through extensive language and vocational training programs, enabling them to contribute to local economies. Similarly, Portugal has actively sought to attract migrants and asylum seekers to address demographic challenges, fostering policies that encourage inclusion and community-building. These examples illustrate that humane approaches to migration are both possible and beneficial when politics align with long-term planning. To uphold its stated humanitarian values, the EU must reassess its reliance on third-country agreements that lack clear human rights safeguards. Establishing transparent oversight mechanisms, ensuring accountability in the use of EU funds, and prioritizing partnerships with countries that respect international law could mitigate risks of complicity in abuses. These measures should be complemented by internal reforms to create accessible legal pathways for migration, reducing reliance on external actors. The EU’s ongoing partnerships with authoritarian regimes, such as Tunisia, to control migration raises crucial concerns about the ethics and long-term efficacy of such agreements. While these arrangements may offer short-term containment, they fail to address the systemic drivers of migration, such as political repression, economic instability and environmental degradation, prevalent in many MENA countries. Rather than outsourcing border control to regimes with questionable human rights records, the EU should focus on policies that address the root causes of migration. This involves supporting sustainable development, peacebuilding, and climate resilience in migrants’ countries of origin, particularly in regions like the MENA, where instability is exacerbated by conflict, corruption and climate change. In the case of Tunisia, the EU's ongoing funding despite proven violations demonstrates the need for a more rigorous policy assessing human rights criteria before distributing funds. Ending cooperation with regimes accused of abuses and creating accountability mechanisms would protect migrants and uphold the EU’s moral credibility. Without such actions, the EU risks eroding the principles on which it is built, undermining its international legitimacy and prestige. Ultimately, the EU must evolve its migration policies to address both immediate concerns and long-term goals. By fostering internal solidarity, building ethical partnerships, and addressing the root causes of displacement, the EU can set a global standard for humane and effective migration management, reaffirming its role as a leader in promoting human dignity.

< Back Armed Militias vs Aid: The Extremity of U.S. Disaster Response Pracheth Sanka November 30, 2024 In Rutherford County, surrounded by demolished towns, downed trees and upturned roads in the wake of late September’s Hurricane Helene, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials had a new concern : a gun-wielding group of Western North Carolinians out for their blood. It was not just the aid that concerned them now; it was also their lives. At the command of the National Guard and FEMA administration, they were forced to evacuate the county, halting progress in their distribution of necessary material in a post-Helene North Carolina. Ultimately, only one person was arrested in connection to the report and the threat was not as dire as it first seemed. It shows, however, the startling and worrying distrust and menace some Americans hold toward their government. Even during an emergency, which is supposed to be a time of peace, coordination, and unity, disaster relief can become the catalyst for radicalism and resentment. As this case shows, hurricane response is a hotbed for political games, aid mismanagement and misinformation in the United States. Hit by two major storms in the fall of 2024, the American South is still reeling from Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene. Both wrought extensive and costly damage, especially to Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. As of late October, FEMA has approved more than $2 billion for those affected by the storms. This money aids in house and personal property replacement, as well as in opening Disaster Centers that provide meals and housing to those in need. These are all ostensibly helpful programs, so why is there so much distrust coming from storm-affected Americans? Part of the reason lies in politics. Former President and now President-Elect Donald Trump and other high-profile Republicans have been very openly critical of the federal response, even at points lying about to whom and to where monetary aid went. Trump falsely stated that most of FEMA money was going to illegal immigrants, a continuation of his largely xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose state was directly impacted by Helene, made the ridiculous claim that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency tasked with weather forecasting and monitoring, had directed the storm toward conservative-leaning areas to disrupt the upcoming presidential election. Her claims were aided by the real data that showed Republican districts and Trump strongholds being disproportionately hit compared to liberal areas. Far-right and Trump-aligned internet conspiracy theorists also posited that FEMA would use storm response as a facade to bulldoze and replace rural towns, which they saw as an expansion of the central state. Instances of real political discrimination also stoke the fire of skepticism towards FEMA. In November, a FEMA worker from Florida was fired after directing employees to withhold aid from houses that displayed support for Trump. Their action was strongly condemned by Governor Ron DeSantis, who himself has distanced the state from federal assistance. DeSantis notably skipped a meeting with President Joe Biden, stating that a state-led response would move much more quickly than the Biden administration could. Trump also added fuel to the political fire by criticizing Democratic North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, falsely asserting that Cooper’s administration deliberately blocked aid to the western part of the state, an area that was left in ruin by Helene-related flooding and which has historically leaned Republican. The politicization of what should have been an apolitical response highlights how the growing partisan divide and spread of misinformation creates mistrust toward the federal government. Conservatives, who are typically wary of large central states, now see FEMA’s disaster response as another possible means for government overreach, or in the eyes of some conspiracy theorists, a real means of harm. Liberals thus see Republican outrage as a hindrance to disaster response, further separating the two groups. But this politicization is by no means a new phenomenon, nor is it restricted to just natural disasters. Take for instance the Covid-19 pandemic. Americans signaled a marked decrease in trust in the Centers for Disease Control, which is responsible for pandemic regulation and guidance. Confidence in the organization dropped amongst all groups, but the most notable drop occurred amongst conservatives and Trump voters. Government trust was not the only political shift that was noted. Leaders of Democratic states complained that under the Trump administration, typically Republican states were given more favorable aid due to their electoral support. Analysts also raised concerns that Trump would use pandemic-era subsidies to farmers in important swing states in an attempt to gain voters. Trump is not shy about using federal aid as a political tool. He famously threatened Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom by promising to withhold federal aid until he was told how many people in certain California counties voted for him. Trump also tried to leverage future wildfire disaster aid to get Newsom to sign a favorable freshwater drainage plan, though Newsom did not buckle. This has forced California to create its own disaster aid plans to “Trump-proof” the state, which is prone to severe wildfires, earthquakes, and floods. In a world of increasingly violent and frequent natural disasters, the nation is following a similar trajectory. Political storms and partisan divides mar the should-be peaceful process of relief and aid distribution. Two decades ago, the most extreme reaction to federal disaster response came when Kanye West, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, appeared on television to proclaim that then-President George W. Bush “doesn’t care about black people.” Now, with armed militias and conspiracy theories rampant, West’s statement would be a politically tame and almost neutral response. As divided as the United States is now, polarization and political threats as a response to tragedy and disaster are likely to become much more radical and extreme. Both with administrative actions, like that of Trump’s, and individual instigators, like Rutherfordton’s armed militia, tensions between political actors and government agencies can have lasting consequences and could cost people their lives. These ramifications have no immediate solution and require long-term easing of the country's struggle. For her sake, the citizens of the United States should hope they can unite once again, facing disasters as the threat they are, not as pawns in a political game.

This climate-induced Arctic conflict demonstrates that the time has come for global warming mitigation to be placed at the heart of national security strategies and defense planning across the world.  < Back The Icebreaker Putin, Biden and Jinping Are Playing By Lucy Lönnqvist for Sciences Défense October 31, 2023 The geopolitical dimension of the climate crisis involves a question of appropriation of land, sovereignty and security. The world is becoming hotter in many senses due to global warming, and in addition to melting ice caps and rising sea levels, the climate has become a threat multiplier for military spending globally. Today, this climate-driven military posture is culminating at the world’s peak, in the Arctic region. The shrinking Arctic has revealed the geopolitical battlefield of once-inaccessible shipping routes, kickstarting the race for potentially priceless minerals and oil deposits. What was once the world’s neutral ground, an undisturbed, barren white sheet of uninhabited land, has now become a hotspot for increased violence and potential conflicts between three invested powers : Russia, the United States, and China. An arms race has begun in the Arctic, and Western efforts are lagging behind. If governments cannot raise efforts to mitigate global warming for biodiversity’s sake, the question remaining is whether they will take greater action when global alliances are on the line. This climate-induced Arctic conflict demonstrates that the time has come for global warming mitigation to be placed at the heart of national security strategies and defense planning across the world. The Arctic Region encompasses eight states: Russia, the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which sought to preserve the Arctic as a region of cooperation, low tension and respect for international law; an approach referred to as “High North, low tension,” one the Nordic countries were particularly partial too. However, hopes for pacificity between sovereign states in the region seem to be melting down along the ice sheets, as world powers U.S., Russia and China extend their grip on military presence in this new polar arena. Russia’s increased military presence and operations in the Arctic present one source of tension and China’s increased diplomatic and economic activities in the Arctic are another. Meanwhile, Russia’s war in Ukraine has only amplified friction in the Arctic’s competitive environment, as Russia’s exclusion from the Arctic Council incentivized the country to redirect collaboration towards China – a decision that will undoubtedly strengthen the dual powers. Russia has expanded military forces across their share of the Arctic frontier of 25,000 kilometers, amounting to 53 percent of the Arctic border. But why is the Arctic region so sought-after, and how has the region changed geographically due to climate change? Physical changes in the Arctic consist of melting permafrost, intense cyclones, warming sea ice and vegetation alterations. All of which have been driven by emissions and GHG-induced feedback loops within the atmosphere. A monitoring report conducted by the Arctic Council in 2019 concluded that “ the Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its previous state [in the 20th century] and into a period of unprecedented change, with implications not only within but also beyond the Arctic .” These changes raise questions of statehood sovereignty and national security, thereby proving the dire need for states to adopt a climate-defense portfolio in their military strategy. The melting Arctic has effectively opened a whole ocean entirely, with new navigation routes being explored for the first time in recorded history. The most highly disputed path is the Northern Sea Route , which has paved new transport circuits for containerships and Navy missions, cutting shipping distances by over 6,500 kilometers – roughly two weeks of travel time. Russia upholds its claim over the Northern Sea Route as an inland waterway that falls under its territory, whereas the U.S. defends the idea that the Northern Sea Route is an international route. For China, as the leading exporter of goods across the world, the Northern Sea Route is a pivotal passageway from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, allowing the country to trade with enhanced efficiency. Alarmingly, Russia has already begun expanding its armed presence in the Arctic well beyond U.S. presence, through an abundance of airfields, missile systems and nuclear-powered icebreakers in the region. The new ocean demands the need to balance competing claims of sovereignty over international waters and maritime borders in the Arctic. Under current international law, the Arctic is not subject to any regulation , triggering a pressing need to determine the status of the region. The only regulation calming the Arctic waters is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ). Currently, Denmark, Norway, Canada and Russia use UNCLOS to lodge legal claims on the Arctic Ocean, however the U.S. is not a party to this treaty, placing the country further behind in the global contest over the polar North. If the U.S. is serious about playing catch-up, signing the UNCLOS treaty would prove worthwhile. However, the prospects of this actually occurring are highly doubtful based on traditional U.S. stance towards binding itself to international law ( the U.S. has not ratified any UN treaties since 2002 in fear that tying itself to international laws would make it vulnerable to potential legal sanctions before the ICC ). As opposed to signing the UNCLOS treaty, the U.S. has elected to ramp up military presence in the Arctic, with the White House committing to "enhancing the capabilities required to defend our interests in the Arctic," as outlined in the Oct. 2022 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Consequently, there has been a soar in U.S. spending on ships, aircrafts, infrastructure and soldiers disguised under the title of ‘climate expenditure’. It is almost ironic to see that although there has been no bipartisan support to curb emissions, there is bipartisan support for responding to Russia and China’s presence on a melting Arctic. What this ultimately demonstrates is that as we look forward, the grip that the climate now has on national security strategies is only going to grow. The seriousness of potential climate threats are imminent and must be accounted for in state defense budgets and planning. Rising sea levels, extreme weather, the scarcity of water, loss of ice cover and other climate change drivers are impacting human security today through the spread of epidemics, mass displacement of people and conflicts over receding resources – all of which require a security response. Soon enough, we may be looking at an altered map of the world, one with military competition occurring in places they never had before. The Arctic is interconnected with the rest of the world through the circulation of water, heat and carbon both in our oceans and atmosphere. Not to mention, it is connected through human systems of transport, energy and mineral production, tourism, and security. In light of this information, disputes of sovereignty over the melting Arctic and invested military powers at bay are of utmost concern for the world at large, calling on a climate defense strategy that takes our environmental crises with utmost severity.

On Feb. 25, Saied released a public declaration calling for the expulsion of all illegal migrants in Tunisia. In the document, he blamed sub-Saharan African migrants for increased crime and violence. < Back Human Rights Deteriorate in Tunisia Under President Kais Saied By Peyton Dashiell March 31, 2023 Tunisian President Kais Saied provoked controversy in late February and early March after a series of inflammatory anti-migrant statements and increasingly authoritarian political actions. On Feb. 25, Saied released a public declaration calling for the expulsion of all illegal migrants in Tunisia. In the document, he blamed sub-Saharan African migrants for increased crime and violence. He alleged a “criminal plot” to change Tunisia’s racial demographics, mirroring the “Great Replacement” theory discussed by white supremacists in Europe and North America. In recent weeks, arbitrary detentions have surged in Tunisia. Saied aims to stifle dissent and opposition by imprisoning dozens of media figures, businesspeople, and political opposition members — particularly those connected to the Ennahda Party and National Salvation Front coalition — on tenuous security-related charges. Saied’s anti-immigrant rhetoric has gravely endangered sub-Saharan Africans living in Tunisia, emboldening racist attacks both in-person and online. Ange Seri Soka, president of an Ivorian advocacy organization in Tunisia, has stated that some of the 5,000 Ivorians in Tunisia have been driven out of their homes and forced to sleep in rural olive groves. The Ivory Coast, Mali and Gabon have cooperated with the Tunisian government to voluntarily repatriate 1,300 citizens who wish to return home. Tunisian universities have also begun offering a virtual class option for those fearing racist attacks. Already grappling with a political crisis and economic downturn, Tunisians have begun to protest in the streets against Saied’s actions but face suppression from local authorities. Citing a plot against state security forces, Tunis officials denied protest permits to the National Salvation Front and threatened organizers with legal action. However, this did not halt demonstration plans. On Feb. 25, around 1,000 Tunisians gathered in Tunis to protest Saied’s racist attack on migrants. Additionally, the National Salvation Front and the Tunisian Labor Union (UGTT) mobilized approximately 3,000 supporters in Tunis to condemn Saied’s authoritarian measures and governmental failures, particularly the targeting of unions, arbitrary detentions, and general economic impoverishment. They specifically called for the release of Anis Kaabi, a UGTT official detained since February for participation in strikes. While protesters were met with verbal threats from police, the demonstrations were not stopped by force. Unfortunately, the current developments follow a concerning pattern of human rights violations under Saied’s leadership. Prior to recent events, Saied has come under fire for violating freedom of speech, targeting opposition and using military courts to jail his political enemies through opaque sham trials. Leading the country once hailed as the only democracy in the Arab world, Saied enacted a successful self-coup in July 2021, suspending the parliament and dismissing Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi from his post to seize almost absolute power. Throughout the past two years, Saied has continued to consolidate his rule. In July 2022, Saied initiated a referendum on a new constitution to replace the document enacted in 2014. The new constitutional draft expanded presidential power drastically weakened the judicial branch and threatened the secular nature of the government by characterizing Tunisia as an Islamic country. Many criticized the constitution drafting process for lack of transparency and non-inclusion of civil society groups and non-governmental organizations. While the constitution passed with nearly 95 percent of votes, a mere 30 percent of eligible voters appeared at the polls – groups like the Free Constitutional Party explicitly boycotted the election to avoid legitimizing Saied’s power grab, while other individuals failed to vote due to apathy and a lack of faith in the democratic process. While Saied’s government defended his recent remarks, with Interior Minister Taoufik Charfeddine calling accusations of racism “unjustified” and saying Tunisia equally applies the law to all who violate it, Saied has responded to public outcry by offering several protections for migrants and assuring that Tunisia is “proud to be African.” He relaxed visa policies for migrants, extending visa-free stays from three months to six months, and will allow migrants who overstay their visas to leave the country without paying fines. Additionally, a medical and psychological hotline has been set up for migrants to receive assistance and report violations of their rights. However, the damage of Saied’s rhetoric has been done, and the outcry against Saied’s racist sentiments has extended far beyond Tunisia’s borders – many multinational bodies and civil society organizations have denounced the repressive measures of his regime. On March 7, Agence France-Presse reported that the World Bank plans to halt cooperation with Tunisia on its Country Partnership Framework due to Saied’s “racially motivated harassment and even violence.” Additionally, the African Union condemned Saied’s “radicalized hate speech” and postponed the “Pan-African Network Conference on Fighting Illicit Financial Flows in Africa,” which was scheduled to take place in Tunis from March 15 to 17. Saied’s racist remarks represent a common tactic among unpopular politicians to distract from their failing policies — utilizing nationalism to unite their citizens against an “other” rather than their government. However, the public response to his statement shows that most Tunisians have not taken the bait. Amnesty International stands with the Tunisian people in calling for an end to Kais Saied’s racism, arbitrary detentions and authoritarian seizure of power.

< Back Sciences Po Director Mathias Vicherat Temporarily Resigns Following Domestic Violence Custody By Peyton Dashiell December 31, 2023 On Dec. 4, news broke that Sciences Po Paris Director Mathias Vicherat had been placed into police custody the previous evening for violence conjugale (domestic violence). According to AFP, Vicherat’s partner came to police the evening of Dec. 3 to file a complaint against Vicherat after he allegedly pushed her to the ground during a public argument. Additionally, she stated that Vicherat had broken her wrist six weeks ago, but no charges were pursued. Vicherat arrived at the police station shortly after his partner, accusing her of slapping him. Both were released the afternoon of Dec. 4, and no complaints were ultimately filed. Shortly after his release, Vicherat released a statement to students via email clarifying that no official complaints had been filed and expressing his desire to preserve the stability of his family, particularly for the sake of his young children. He affirmed his commitment to the “values of Sciences Po” and said that he will be meeting with student associations shortly to discuss the issue. The allegations promoted a strong reaction spanning across campuses, with several student associations, including Solidaire Etudiant.e.s., Sciences Po Paris En Lutte, and the Sciences Po Menton Feminist Union calling for Vicherat’s resignation. A “day of mobilization” was called for Dec. 5, and an independent petition was publicized calling for Vicherat to step down. The petition highlighted Vicherat’s previous promises to make VSS “his priority,” the fact that as director he holds the ultimate authority over campus VSS cases and sanctions applied, and concluded that “the trust between the student community and its director has been broken.” By Dec. 8, it had garnered over 1,300 signatures. In Menton, the Feminist Union and Solidaire Etudiant.e.s released a joint statement asserting that “as a matter of principle, Sciences Po cannot have a director accused of domestic violence.” This student condemnation of Vicherat was not solely confined to the digital sphere. On Dec. 5, Menton students gathered on the parvis to rally for Vicherat’s immediate resignation, hanging a large banner reading “Vicherat Demission.” Additionally, campus blockades occurred at the Paris, Reims, and Dijon campuses. Student reactions to these demonstrations were generally supportive albeit cautious. Anoushka Naik, an exchange student at Sciences Po Menton, expressed that “If it is found that Vicherat did engage in abusive conduct, calling on him to resign is absolutely the correct step. However, we as students have absolutely no idea what truly happened, and speaking as though we do is not how to properly support survivors of abuse.” Nearly a week after these efforts, the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques announced via email that Vicherat would be temporarily withdrawing from his role as director. After consultations with the Sciences Po board of directors, this withdrawal was unanimously approved to end on January 29, 2024. It is unclear if any additional steps will be taken to address the allegations against Vicherat following this withdrawal period. Vicherat was appointed Sciences Po director in November 2021 after the resignation of Frederic Mion in the wake of the Olivier Duhamel affair. Duhamel, a Sciences Po professor, former politician, and head of the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques , was accused by his daughter-in-law of sexually abusing her brother throughout their childhood in her January 2021 book La Familia grande . Mion initially feigned shock at the accusations, but later admitted that he had originally learned of them in 2018. Mion was one of at least seven people associated with Sciences Po who had knowledge of the allegations for many years. Duhamel admitted to the abuse in an April 2021 interview with the police minor protection brigade, but no charges could be brought due to the statute of limitations. In light of these events, as well as criticism of Sciences Po’s handling of sexual assault cases, Vicherat specifically outlined combatting VSS as one of his aims as director. In Feb. 2022, Sciences Po adopted an institutional action plan addressing VSS, which included mandatory awareness and training modules, a standardized reporting system, and a VSS guide distributed across all campuses. According to a 2023 progress update , 51 preliminary investigations were launched in 2022 for reported cases of VSS. Out of these 51, four were referred to the disciplinary committee and two resulted in sanctions against perpetrators.

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.