Saudi Arabia’s New Naval Alliance Masks an Old War and Risks Global Catastrophe

Saudi Arabia’s New Naval Alliance Masks an Old War and Risks Global Catastrophe

    Thursday, July 30, 2026   No comments

The announcement from Riyadh on July 30, 2026, of a 14-nation "multinational defensive naval alliance" is being sold to the international community as a necessary measure to protect global maritime trade. However, a closer look at the geopolitical realities on the ground reveals a familiar, dangerous playbook. This repeated scenario is clearly designed to provide political cover for Saudi Arabia to launch a wider military offensive against the Yemen government in Sanaa.

Far from securing the waterways, this initiative is highly unlikely to stop the Houthis or successfully open the strait. Instead, if this militarization drags on, it will be catastrophic for the global economy and will ultimately isolate the 14 countries that have signed on to support this Saudi initiative.

The Ghost of the 2015 Coalition

To understand the current maneuver, one must look at the recent past. More than ten years ago, in 2015, Saudi Arabia announced a coalition of 10 Muslim states with a stated mission to overthrow the Sanaa government and restore its own allied government, which was operating first out of Riyadh and later from Aden.

The reality of that war, however, was starkly different from the diplomatic optics. During that period, it was just Saudi Arabia and the UAE who actually conducted the war on the ground and in the air. The broader coalition largely stayed on the sidelines, and the military campaign went nowhere, resulting in a protracted stalemate and a devastating humanitarian crisis.

Today, Riyadh is attempting to recycle this strategy under a new facade. The new coalition boasts a different stated mission—protecting transit in the Red Sea—but the underlying objective remains the same: to build a multinational shield behind which Saudi Arabia can escalate its conflict with Sanaa.

A Chokepoint Turned Crisis Zone

According to the founding charter announced in Riyadh, the alliance will focus on the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden. While the 14 founding members—including regional heavyweights like Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan—claim the alliance is "purely defensive," the practical effect will be the exact opposite.

Rather than securing the region, this massive naval buildup is likely to increase the cost of transit in the Red Sea and turn that tight, vital waterway into a permanent crisis point. The presence of a large, Saudi-led multinational naval force will inevitably be viewed by the Sanaa government and its allies as a direct blockade and a prelude to invasion. This will spook global economic systems, driving up insurance premiums, forcing shipping reroutes, and injecting massive volatility into global energy and supply chain markets.

If this standoff takes longer than a few weeks, the resulting disruption will be catastrophic for the global economy, which is already struggling to absorb the shocks of ongoing US-Iran tensions and broader Middle Eastern instability.

Diplomatic Isolation for the 14

By joining this coalition, the 14 founding nations are inadvertently signing up for a diplomatic disaster. The international community is increasingly wary of endless Middle Eastern conflicts. By providing political and military cover for a Saudi initiative to start a wider war with the Sanaa government, these 14 countries risk severe diplomatic isolation.

They will be viewed not as defenders of global trade, but as complicit actors in a regional land grab and an aggressive expansion of the Yemen conflict. Nations like Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt, which have their own complex geopolitical balancing acts, will find their international standing severely damaged if this naval alliance is used as a Trojan horse for bombing campaigns against Sanaa.

The Internal Saudi Tinderbox

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this new military venture is how it intersects with Saudi Arabia’s fragile internal landscape. Given the current global and regional context, this round of Saudi violence can easily backfire and destabilize the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is currently undergoing radical internal changes. The kingdom, traditionally a very conservative society, is rapidly abandoning aspects of its historical culture in a aggressive push for economic gains and foreign investment under Vision 2030. This rapid social engineering has created underlying friction within Saudi society.

Furthermore, the political foundation of the current leadership remains susceptible to internal shocks. The current trajectory was set when the young prince, Mohammed bin Salman, sidelined the more traditional crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, in what was widely seen by regional observers as a bloodless coup within the halls of power in the Kingdom. This consolidation of power relied heavily on the promise of economic prosperity and regional stability.

Dragging the Kingdom into another unwinnable, expensive war in Yemen—disguised as a maritime defense pact—threatens to shatter those promises. The financial drain of a prolonged naval and aerial campaign, combined with the risk of retaliatory strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure (as seen in the recent attacks on the Eastern Province), could ignite domestic unrest.

The 14-nation naval alliance announced in Riyadh is a geopolitical mirage. It promises security but delivers a roadmap for escalation. It will not stop the Houthis, it will not secure the Red Sea, and it will not bring stability to the Arabian Peninsula. Instead, it threatens to crash the global economy, isolate its member states on the world stage, and push the Saudi Kingdom toward an internal and external crisis from which it may not easily recover. The world should not be fooled by the "defensive" label; this is the opening salvo of a much wider, and much more dangerous, war.

Who are the member-states of the Saudi Coalition against the Houthis?

1. Saudi Arabia Lead nation and host of headquarters
2. Qatar
3. Kuwait
4. Bahrain 
5. Pakistan 
6. Turkey 
7. Egypt
8. Jordan
9. Yemen  Note: This refers to the Saudi-backed government, not the Sanaa government
10. Bangladesh
11. Nigeria 
12. Sudan 
13. Djibouti 
14. Somalia 

Regional Breakdown:

• Gulf States: 4 (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain)
• Middle East/North Africa: 4 (Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan)
• Horn of Africa: 2 (Djibouti, Somalia)
• South Asia: 2 (Pakistan, Bangladesh)
• Other: 1 (Turkey - transcontinental), 1 (Nigeria - West Africa)

Yemeni counternarrative:

Meanwhile, the Houthis are already actively weaponizing a potent propaganda narrative to galvanize religious and regional opposition to this new coalition. Capitalizing on recently surfaced allegations and documents suggesting that pieces of the sacred Kaaba cover (the Kiswa) were gifted or shipped to Jeffrey Epstein’s residence, Houthi media and allied outlets are accusing the Saudi ruling elite of defiling Islam’s holiest sites and beliefs for corrupt, secular ends.

This narrative is sharply amplified by the circulation of photographs showing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman alongside Epstein, which Houthi supporters are using to frame the Saudi leadership not as defenders of the faith, but as participants in an "alliance of criminality" with Western predatory elites.

By framing the impending conflict as a moral and religious defense of Islamic sanctities against a corrupt monarchy, the Houthis aim to severely undermine the religious legitimacy of the Saudi state, transforming a geopolitical dispute into a profound ideological flashpoint that could resonate dangerously across the broader Muslim world.

Leader of Yemen's Ansar Allah, Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi: 

The Saudis gave Epstein the curtain of the Holy Kaaba, intending for him to use it as a mat to walk on with his shoes, and to incorporate it into his satanic rituals.

Unfortunately, Islamic governments and religious authorities in the Muslim world have remained silent regarding the gift of the Kaaba's curtain to the Jewish criminal Epstein.

I call for the formation of an Islamic committee to investigate this betrayal of giving the Kaaba's curtain to the Jewish criminal Epstein.

Media Review: US-Iran War is Igniting Regime Change Risks Across Arab Monarchies

Media Review: US-Iran War is Igniting Regime Change Risks Across Arab Monarchies

    Thursday, July 30, 2026   No comments

 The Fragile Thrones

As the United States resumes its military strikes against Iran, the geopolitical fault lines of the Middle East are shifting inward. For years, Arab authoritarian regimes have operated on a precarious social contract: trading limited political representation for economic stability and security guarantees, almost always underwritten by Washington. However, as Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia are increasingly perceived as facilitators of a US-Israeli war effort against the Islamic Republic, that social contract is fracturing. Regime change risk, once dismissed by Western analysts as a relic of the 2011 Arab Spring, is now a tangible and escalating reality. Nowhere is this dynamic more explosive than in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Jordan: The Hashemite Crucible

For decades, the Hashimite regime has relied on a carefully curated narrative of religious legitimacy and royal lineage to consolidate power. This top-down approach has effectively centralized absolute authority in the palace, systematically robbing Jordanians of meaningful self-representation in government. The King retains the final say on all matters of state, a dynamic that has grown increasingly untenable as the kingdom’s foreign policy diverges sharply from the will of its people.

Today, Jordan’s close military alliance with the United States and its perceived complicity in the ongoing devastation of Palestine have sparked profound domestic outrage. This anger is compounded by a deep sense of betrayal regarding the Palestinian cause—a sentiment made more acute by the fact that Queen Rania is of Palestinian roots. To a populace watching neighboring Gaza and the West Bank suffer, the monarchy’s silence, coupled with its logistical facilitation of US-Israeli operations, is viewed not just as a foreign policy choice, but as a moral and political abdication.

The boiling point is now visible on the streets and in the halls of parliament. As recently reported, hundreds of Jordanian political, legal, and civil society figures have signed an open letter demanding the expulsion of US military forces. The letter explicitly warns that these bases expose Jordan to "security, political, and economic risks that serve no national interest" and increase the likelihood of the country being dragged into a regional conflict to which it is not a party.

Ninety-year-old veteran activist Sufyan al-Tell, who was detained by security forces in 2022 for planning to protest a speech by the monarch, framed the letter as a necessary revelation of the chasm between the rulers and the ruled. "We as Jordanian people do not accept the politics of the government and its exploitation of Jordan and its capabilities in one way or another to defend Israel," al-Tell stated, warning that the government’s predictable response is to "open the prison doors and drag us one after another to prison."

The tension is not confined to street activists. In a recent parliamentary session, a heated debate erupted when MP Ali al-Khalayleh suggested issuing formal condolences to Washington following the deaths of US soldiers in Iranian strikes targeting US bases in Jordan. He was swiftly met with furious shouts from fellow lawmakers, with one accusing the US military of killing "children, women, and the elderly."

This domestic fury is set against a backdrop of direct military escalation. Jordan has been among the leading Arab states facilitating US-Israeli attacks against Iran via its airspace and military sites. Consequently, it has become a direct target. Just hours ago, the kingdom reported intercepting Iranian missiles and drones launched in retaliation for the US resuming its strikes on July 30. For an already impoverished kingdom grappling with severe water scarcity, record unemployment, and crushing debt, the economic and security costs of hosting this conflict are becoming catastrophic. King Abdullah II may be forced to recalibrate his foreign and domestic policy, much as he did with limited political concessions during the 2011 Arab Spring. However, the margin for error is drastically thinner today, and the demands of the street are far more systemic.

The Ripple Effect: Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia

The tremors originating in Amman are being felt across the Gulf, where similar dynamics of authoritarian rule and fraught US alliances are creating volatile domestic environments.

In Bahrain, the ruling Al Khalifa family faces a perennial challenge from its Shia majority population, which maintains strong cultural and religious ties to Iran. Bahrain’s role as the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet makes it a prime strategic asset for Washington, but also a primary target for Iranian retaliation. Any perception that Manama is actively enabling strikes against Tehran risks igniting widespread civil unrest that the regime, despite heavy Saudi backing, may struggle to contain without brutal repression that would further isolate it internationally.

In Kuwait, the dynamic is different but equally precarious. The country possesses a more vocal and active parliament than its neighbors, and there is a strong, historically rooted anti-interventionist sentiment among the public. Kuwaiti lawmakers and civil society have consistently pushed back against being drawn into US-led military adventures. As the threat of Iranian retaliation grows, the Kuwaiti government will face immense pressure to distance itself from US military operations, directly challenging the long-standing US-Kuwaiti defense pact and testing the limits of the ruling family’s authority.

Even Saudi Arabia, despite Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s recent diplomatic outreach to Tehran and his focus on the "Vision 2030" economic transformation, is not immune. While Riyadh has publicly sought to avoid direct confrontation, its deep security integration with the United States makes it a vulnerable target. Any covert facilitation of US war efforts, or even perceived complicity, could invite devastating drone or missile attacks from Iran or its regional proxies. Such an escalation would shatter the illusion of stability and security that underpins the Crown Prince’s domestic legitimacy and economic ambitions.

The summer of 2026 marks a critical inflection point for Arab monarchies. The assumption that populations will silently endure the geopolitical ambitions of their rulers is no longer valid. By aligning themselves with a US-led war against Iran, these regimes are not merely making a foreign policy calculation; they are gambling with their own survival.

In Jordan, the intersection of economic despair, Palestinian solidarity, and the immediate, physical threat of Iranian retaliation has created a perfect storm. If the Hashemite monarchy, and others like it, cannot fundamentally recalibrate their relationship with both their people and Washington, the demand for regime change will transition from a whispered risk to an unavoidable reality. The era of unquestioned authoritarian stability in the Middle East is drawing to a close.

Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

    Sunday, July 19, 2026   No comments

How Arab State Media Narrate Conflict and Risk Their Own Survival

In the theater of modern warfare, language is a weapon of geopolitical alignment. Since the Arab Spring of 2011, state-controlled and state-aligned media across the Arab world have increasingly functioned as extensions of foreign policy. By carefully curating their lexicons, these outlets signal bias, legitimize certain military actions, and delegitimize others. Today, as the region grapples with the fallout of the US and Israeli war on Iran, the selective outrage embedded in Gulf media narratives is not only distorting reality but also planting the seeds of domestic instability.

The blueprint for this linguistic weaponization was clearly established during the Yemen conflict and the subsequent 2017 Gulf diplomatic crisis. When the Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen, a stark divergence in media framing emerged. Saudi-aligned outlets consistently employed highly charged, valorizing terminology: Saudi casualties were exclusively referred to as "شهداء" (martyrs), while Yemeni casualties were described as "أشخاص قُتلوا على يد القوات السعودية العادلة" (persons killed by the righteous Saudi forces).

In contrast, Aljazeera, based in Qatar, adopted a more neutral, journalistic lexicon, consistently using the word "قتلى" (killed) for casualties on all sides. This seemingly minor semantic difference carried immense political weight. It challenged the moral absolutism of the Saudi narrative. The threat this posed to Riyadh’s geopolitical project was so profound that, in 2017, Saudi Arabia and its allies issued a list of demands to Qatar to end the blockade, prominently featuring the immediate and permanent shutdown of Al Jazeera. That demand, as history has shown, went nowhere, but it established a lasting precedent: in the eyes of certain Arab states, neutral language is an act of political defiance.

This pattern has reached a dangerous apex in the current US and Israeli war on Iran, a campaign executed and supported by US troops stationed in Gulf States and Jordan. A review of recent headlines from Saudi-aligned and Gulf-centric media outlets, such as Asharq Al-Awsat, reveals a meticulously crafted narrative of selective outrage.

When reporting on Iranian military actions, these outlets deploy a lexicon of moral condemnation. Recent headlines from July 2026 describe Iranian actions as:

• "العدوان الإيراني الآثم" (The sinful Iranian aggression)
• "اعتداءات إيرانية جديدة" (New Iranian assaults)
• "نهج عدواني ممنهج" (A systematic hostile approach)
• "اعتداءاتها الجوية الإيرانية الغادرة" (Treacherous Iranian air assaults)

These phrases are designed to frame Iran as a rogue actor violating international law and threatening Arab sovereignty. However, when these same media outlets report on US and Israeli military actions against Iranian territory, the vocabulary shifts dramatically. US and Israeli bombardments are routinely sanitized as "غارات" (strikes) or "هجمات" (attacks). The word "عدوان" (aggression) is conspicuously absent.

This linguistic sanitization serves a clear political purpose: to normalize the presence of US military forces in the region and to frame the US-Israeli campaign as a legitimate, defensive, or corrective measure, rather than what international legal experts have identified it to be.

The Gulf media narrative stands in direct contradiction to the consensus of the international legal community. The war on Iran has been widely documented as lacking proper legal authority and factual justification.

In March 2026, UN Human Rights experts issued a stark press release, explicitly denouncing the US and Israeli military assaults on Iran and Lebanon as "flagrant violations of international law" and unequivocally labeling them an "act of aggression." The experts warned that the unprovoked attacks, carried out while negotiations were ongoing, constitute a dangerous precedent of impunity.

Furthermore, a landmark letter published by Just Security, signed by over 100 prominent US-based international law experts and professors, condemned the US role in the conflict. The letter detailed how the initiation of the campaign was a "clear violation of the United Nations Charter" (jus ad bellum), as it lacked Security Council authorization and was not an act of self-defense against an imminent threat. The experts also raised alarms over jus in bello violations, citing strikes on civilian infrastructure, including schools and energy facilities, and condemned dangerous rhetoric from US officials dismissing the rules of engagement as "stupid."

While UN experts and legal scholars universally apply the term "aggression" to the US-Israeli campaign, Gulf state media remain silent on this legal reality, choosing instead to act as a linguistic shield for their powerful allies.

The Domestic Boomerang: When Populations Stop Listening

This deliberate cognitive dissonance carries severe domestic risks. The Arab landscape has changed dramatically since 2011. Populations are no longer captive audiences to state-controlled media. With widespread access to satellite television, social media, and independent digital journalism, citizens can easily compare the hyperbolic condemnation of Iran with the sanitized coverage of US actions.

This selective outrage is eroding the credibility of state institutions. Nowhere is this more acute than in Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom has found itself in a precarious position, hosting US troops and participating in air defense efforts against Iranian projectiles, such as the recent rocket attacks on the Muwaffaq al-Salti airbase. While the Jordanian government frames its actions as defensive sovereignty, a significant majority of the Jordanian public views this blind support for a foreign-led military campaign as fundamentally misaligned with national interests.

By aligning its media narrative and military posture with a war that is widely perceived as illegal and unjust, the Jordanian government is risking severe domestic backlash. The potential for public uprising is no longer a fringe theory; it is a tangible consequence of a populace that feels its government is sacrificing its well-being for geopolitical patrons who do not reciprocate the loyalty.

The Ultimate Strategic Blunder

Language matters, especially during times of war. Words shape perception, and perception dictates political legitimacy. The Gulf states and Jordan, by weaponizing language to show selective outrage, are engaging in a dangerous gamble. They risk losing what is left of their standing among their own people, who are increasingly adept at seeing through the propaganda.

There is a profound, tragic irony at the heart of this conflict. The US and Israeli war on Iran was explicitly designed, in part, to foment regime change in Tehran. Yet, by acting as complicit enablers—both militarily and linguistically—the supporting Arab states are exposing their own populations to the radicalizing effects of war, economic strain, and perceived national humiliation.

When the outcome of this war is not regime change in Iran as now stated by even those who started the war, but rather the destabilization, weakening, or even the fall of regimes in the Gulf and Jordan, it will stand as the biggest strategic blunder in modern Middle Eastern history. The supporters of this war may find that the linguistic and political tools they used to target their adversaries have ultimately written the epitaph of their own rule.

  

Aaron Bushnell: "I will no longer be complicit in genocide… This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal"

Aaron Bushnell: "I will no longer be complicit in genocide… This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal"

    Wednesday, February 25, 2026   No comments

A Sacrifice of Conscience

On February 25, 2024, a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C., the ongoing global discourse regarding the war in Gaza was punctuated by a singular, traumatic event. Aaron Bushnell, a 25-year-old active-duty member of the United States Air Force, set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy. Livestreaming the act on the platform Twitch, Bushnell shouted, "I will no longer be complicit in genocide," before collapsing. His death hours later at a local hospital transformed him instantly from an anonymous serviceman into a polarizing symbol of dissent, sparking a complex debate regarding moral responsibility, military service, and the human cost of the conflict in West Asia.

The facts of the incident are well-documented through police reports, eyewitness accounts, and the digital footprint Bushnell left behind. Arriving at the embassy shortly after 1:00 p.m., Bushnell doused himself in a flammable liquid and ignited it. As Metropolitan Police Department officers rushed to extinguish the flames, Bushnell repeatedly shouted, "Free Palestine." He was transported to MedStar Washington Hospital Center in critical condition, where he was pronounced dead. The Secret Service and the FBI subsequently opened investigations, classifying the incident as a security breach, while the Air Force launched an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of the serviceman.

Bushnell's final statement, "This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal," served as the thesis of his protest. It was a direct condemnation of the United States' continued military and diplomatic support for Israel amidst the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. By using the term "genocide," Bushnell aligned himself with a specific legal and political argument that had gained traction in international forums, including the International Court of Justice, where South Africa had filed a case alleging Israel was violating the Genocide Convention. For Bushnell, the abstract policy debates occurring in Washington had reached a moral breaking point that he felt compelled to address through extreme physical action.

Prior to the incident, Bushnell was described by colleagues and officials as a dedicated serviceman with no prior disciplinary record. Assigned to the 5th Intelligence Squadron at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, he held a Top Secret security clearance. In the days following his death, the Air Force confirmed his active-duty status but withheld further details pending the investigation. This background added weight to his protest; he was not an outside agitator but an insider within the military apparatus he sought to critique. His action raised difficult questions for the Department of Defense regarding the mental health support available to service members distressed by foreign policy decisions, as well as the boundaries of political expression within the military.

The reaction to Bushnell's death was immediate and deeply divided, reflecting the broader polarization surrounding the Israel-Hamas war. For supporters of the Palestinian cause, Bushnell became a martyr. Vigils were held in cities across the United States, including New York and Los Angeles, as well as internationally in London and Beirut. In these gatherings, participants honored his willingness to sacrifice his life to draw attention to civilian casualties in Gaza. Digital memorials proliferated on social media, where his final words were circulated as a call to conscience. Graffiti bearing his name appeared on government buildings, cementing his status as a folk hero within specific activist circles.

Conversely, government officials and other segments of the public viewed the act through a lens of tragedy and security concern. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described the event as "horrific" and expressed condolences to Bushnell's family, while reiterating the administration's policy positions. Security experts analyzed the breach at the embassy as a failure of protocol, leading to heightened security measures at diplomatic missions. Mental health advocates also weighed in, emphasizing the need for intervention and support for individuals experiencing extreme distress, cautioning against the glorification of self-harm as a political tool.

The legacy of Aaron Bushnell is inextricably linked to the historical moment in which it occurred. His protest took place months into a conflict that had already displaced millions of Palestinians and resulted in significant loss of life, sparking widespread protests on American university campuses and in city streets. While civil disobedience is a recognized tradition in American political history, Bushnell's method marked a rare and extreme escalation in the context of modern foreign policy dissent.

The self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell stands as a stark, tragic chapter in the history of protest against the war in Gaza. It forced a confrontation between individual conscience and state policy, highlighting the intensity of feeling the conflict has generated worldwide. While his method of protest remains a subject of profound ethical and safety concern, his final words continue to resonate within the global discourse on human rights and military complicity. The event serves as a somber reminder of the human toll of geopolitical conflicts, not only for those in the war zone but for those who feel morally bound to oppose it from afar.

Media Review: Who’s Shaping the Narrative of Iran’s Protests?

Media Review: Who’s Shaping the Narrative of Iran’s Protests?

    Thursday, January 15, 2026   No comments

Reviewing a news story from  Al Jazeera:

In an era where digital spaces often shape political realities as much as streets and parliaments, a recent wave of online activism surrounding protests in Iran has come under scrutiny. What appeared to be a grassroots digital uprising—centered around the hashtag #LiberateThePersianPeople on X (formerly Twitter)—has been revealed by a detailed network analysis to be a highly coordinated campaign.

A Digital Campaign with External Origins

The protests in several Iranian cities were initially sparked by worsening economic conditions. However, online discourse quickly shifted from local grievances to sweeping political narratives about regime change, thanks in large part to the viral spread of #LiberateThePersianPeople.

Contrary to assumptions that this digital momentum originated within Iran, an investigation by Al Jazeera Verify shows that the campaign was primarily orchestrated by external actors—most notably pro-Israeli networks.

Data collected over several days reveals striking anomalies:

Of 4,370 posts analyzed, 94% were retweets, with only 170 original posts.

Despite reaching over 18 million users, the content stemmed from a very small pool of sources.

The interaction pattern followed sharp, intermittent spikes—typical of coordinated inauthentic behavior rather than organic public discourse.

A Politicized Narrative, Not Organic Outrage

The messaging pushed through the hashtag wasn’t just sympathetic to protesters—it carried a clear political agenda. Posts framed the unrest as a historic “moment of collapse,” using stark binaries like:

“The people vs. the regime”

“Freedom vs. political Islam”

“Iran vs. the Islamic Republic”

The campaign also aggressively promoted Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s last Shah, as the legitimate alternative leader. Pahlavi himself actively participated, posting on X and receiving enthusiastic endorsements from Israeli-linked accounts who labeled him “the face of a new Iran.”

Direct Involvement of Israeli Officials

High-profile Israeli figures openly joined the digital push:

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s Minister of National Security, posted in Persian calling for the “fall of the dictator” and expressing support for the protests.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s past statements were widely recirculated within the hashtag ecosystem.

Additionally, Israeli activists such as Eyal Yakobi and Halil Nueir amplified claims of excessive violence by Iranian authorities while accusing international media of silence.

Ideological Reframing and Calls for Foreign Intervention

Rather than focusing on socioeconomic demands, the campaign reframed the protests as an ideological battle against Islam itself. Posts frequently described Iran’s government as “oppressive Islam” and portrayed Persians as victims of religious tyranny—a narrative aimed at severing the link between the state and society.

Even more alarmingly, the discourse escalated into explicit calls for foreign military intervention:

Fabricated or decontextualized quotes attributed to Donald Trump suggested U.S. readiness to act if protesters faced violence.

Reza Pahlavi publicly welcomed these alleged statements.

U.S. lawmakers like Rep. Pat Fallon shared similar messages, while numerous posts urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene directly.

Central Nodes in a Coordinated Network

Network mapping identified key accounts driving the campaign:

@RhythmOfX: Created in 2024, this account changed its name five times and consistently promotes both Israeli interests and the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy. It regularly calls on the U.S. to take action against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

@NiohBerg: A verified account claiming to be an “Iranian Jewish activist” supporting Israel and monarchy restoration. Active since 2017 and also renamed multiple times, it presents itself as a leading voice in the movement and alleges it is wanted by Iranian authorities.

@IsraelWarRoom: This account functions as a digital “war room,” routinely reposting content from @NiohBerg and disseminating real-time alerts, U.S. official statements, and field footage related to Iran.

These nodes formed a tightly interconnected cluster, demonstrating strategic coordination rather than spontaneous solidarity.

A Weaponized Hashtag

The evidence strongly suggests that #LiberateThePersianPeople was not an authentic expression of Iranian public sentiment, but a politically weaponized digital operation launched from outside Iran. Orchestrated by networks tied to Israel and its allies, the campaign sought to hijack legitimate economic protests and reframe them as part of a broader geopolitical project—one that envisions regime change through foreign intervention and the restoration of monarchy. In doing so, it highlights a growing trend: the battlefield of narratives is now as critical—and as contested—as any physical one.

Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

    Saturday, October 04, 2025   No comments

A new, decentralized youth movement is shaking the political landscape of Morocco. Dubbed "Generation Z 212" — a nod to the country's international dialing code and its digitally-native leaders — the group has sustained protests for over a week in several cities, channeling widespread public anger over corruption, deteriorating public services, and a deep-seated political disillusionment.

The movement's core demands are starkly local: improved healthcare and education, a serious fight against corruption, and the resignation of Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch. However, its emergence reflects a global pattern of youth-led activism fueled by economic stagnation and a loss of faith in traditional institutions.

A Spark in Agadir, A Fire Across Cities

The immediate catalyst for the protests was a tragic incident in the southern city of Agadir. The deaths of eight pregnant women in less than a month at a public hospital ignited public outrage, serving as a grim symbol of a healthcare system in crisis. The protests that began there quickly spread to other urban centers.

The situation on the ground has been volatile. While "Gen Z 212" activists have called for and committed to peaceful demonstrations, their gatherings have been met with bans, violence, and mass arrests by the authorities. Some protests have devolved into riots, resulting in the deaths of three people and injuries to dozens. The movement's activists have been quick to disavow the violence, blaming it on opportunistic elements and reaffirming their commitment to peaceful dissent.

A Generation Filling a Political Vacuum

Analysts point to a profound vacuum in political and social representation as the bedrock of this unrest. The majority of Moroccan youth have lost confidence in established political parties, which they view as having lost their credibility. The traditional power of labor unions has also waned.

This void has been filled by young people organizing through social media and digital networks, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. The movement is leaderless and organic, making it both resilient and difficult for the government to engage with through conventional channels.

The economic backdrop is bleak. According to the High Commission for Planning, Morocco's overall unemployment rate stands at 12.8%, a figure that skyrockets to 35.8% among young people and 19% among university graduates. This lack of opportunity for a highly educated generation is a primary source of frustration.

A "Ticking Time Bomb" No Longer Silent

Experts had long warned that this combination of factors was a recipe for social explosion.

Professor Mohamed Al-Merrani Boukhabza, a political scientist at Abdelmalek Essaâdi University, highlighted the demographic reality: "There is a demographic shift whereby a third of the population pyramid in Morocco is made up of young people between the ages of 15 and 35." He noted that the socioeconomic reality, coupled with declining public services and weak trust in traditional institutions, formed a "ticking time bomb" that has now detonated.

Echoing this sentiment, Ahmed Al-Bouz, a professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law, stressed the need for "urgent and tangible reforms, especially in education, health, and employment, while guaranteeing freedom of expression and the right to protest." He warned that in the absence of such reforms, any government dialogue with the youth would be seen as merely a tactic to buy time.

A Government in Response Mode

Faced with the growing momentum, the government has stated that it "understands the demands of the movement" and has expressed its readiness to open a dialogue with the protesting youth. However, for a generation that feels it has been repeatedly promised change without seeing results, mere words are no longer enough.

The "Gen Z 212" movement represents a critical juncture for Morocco. It is the voice of a disenfranchised, connected, and impatient generation demanding not just dialogue, but demonstrable action to address the deep-rooted economic and social crises that define their daily lives. The government's next steps will determine whether this energy can be channeled into meaningful reform or if it will further fuel the flames of discontent.

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

    Tuesday, September 02, 2025   No comments

In the ancient lands of the Levant, where history is measured in millennia, a modern curse condemns nations to a purgatory of weakness. This is not a curse of geography or resources, but one of design—a political architecture built not on the bedrock of principled compromise and shared national vision, but on the shifting sands of sectarian appeasement. The fates of Lebanon and Syria stand as stark, bloody testaments to a brutal truth: a government forged in the fire of sectarian civil war is destined to be weak, illegitimate, and a prelude to the next conflict.

One would think that healing and reconciliation should follow three decades of peace. Yet Lebanon, whose 15-year civil war ended 35 years ago, is a nation frozen in time, a ghost haunting its own corpse. It is not a healed nation but a palimpsest of its former conflicts, its power structures meticulously drawn along the very sectarian lines that once tore it apart.

This is a country still ruled, in effect, by unelected leaders. The current president was appointed after years of vacuum, his ascent only possible by twisting the constitution to bypass a rule prohibiting active military officers from political office. The prime minister, a respected former international judge, was less elected than selected, installed through backroom compromise and heavy-handed pressure from foreign capitals like Washington, Paris, and Riyadh. Even the speakership, held by an elected MP, is shackled to a sectarian quota, its legitimacy perpetually questioned.

This patched-together entity now dares to act as a legitimate government, attempting to change the very practices its own flawed existence perpetuates. But a house divided against itself cannot stand, and a government built on sectarian compromise cannot govern. It will either fracture under the weight of its own contradictions or push ahead with its agenda, inevitably alienating one faction or another and risking a return to the civil war days it was designed to prevent. In Lebanon, the peace is the war, continued by other means.

This tragic model is not unique. Libya, shattered since 2011, is a mosaic of rival fiefdoms. A weak, internationally recognized government controls the capital, while the rest of the country answers to another regime in Benghazi or to autonomous tribal forces. There is no central authority, only a precarious and violent stalemate.

But it is Syria that presents the most chilling and recent case study. After a decade of brutal war exacerbated by a proxy conflict involving regional and global powers, the Baathist regime finally collapsed nearly a year ago. The rebels, aided by Turkey and Qatar and spearheaded by factions with extremist ideologies, seized their moment amidst the regional instability sparked by the war in Gaza.

Their victory, however, was merely the prelude to the next chapter of failure. The new Damascus regime, finding its authority challenged, has already resorted to the same tactics of its predecessor: massacres in Alawite and Druze regions, sowing fear among all ethnic and religious minorities. This has not consolidated power; it has shattered it further. The powerful Kurds, along with other groups, are now arming themselves for survival, refusing to hand their weapons to a central government they see as just another sectarian predator.

The outcome is inevitable. Syria is rapidly descending into the Lebanese and Libyan model—a central government that lacks both the legitimacy to command respect and the power to enforce its will. It rules not by consent but by fear, and fear is a fuel that quickly burns out, leaving only the ash of resentment.

When you add Iran to the mix, a country that was destabilized by US invasion and governed through a power-sharing arrangement still, the entire Levant thus becomes a powder keg, its nations condemned to cycles of violence by a refusal to transcend sectarian and tribal identities. The power of the gun, mistaken for political power, creates only a brutal illusion of control. True legitimacy is not seized through the barrel of a rifle or assigned by religious quota; it is earned through the principled compromise of a social contract that serves all citizens equally.

Without this fundamental transformation—without building states for all citizens rather than fiefdoms for sects—the next ten years will not bring peace. They will bring more transformative, and likely armed, events. The civilians of this ancient region will be lucky to witness change that is not delivered by a bullet. For now, their destiny remains held hostage by the very structures claiming to save them, guaranteeing that instability is not a phase, but a permanent condition.

Academic Leaders Unite Against Trump Administration's Threats to Higher Education

Academic Leaders Unite Against Trump Administration's Threats to Higher Education

    Monday, April 28, 2025   No comments

In a significant display of unity, over 500 college and university presidents, along with leaders from scholarly societies, have signed a public letter denouncing the Trump administration's recent actions against academic institutions. The letter, organized by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU), criticizes what signatories describe as "unprecedented government overreach and political interference" threatening the core principles of higher education. ​

The petition emerged in response to a series of federal actions targeting universities, particularly those with perceived liberal leanings. Notably, Harvard University faced a $2.3 billion funding freeze and threats to its tax-exempt status after refusing to comply with demands to audit its academic programs for ideological diversity and expel students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. In retaliation, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that such measures violate constitutional rights and academic freedom. ​

The petition has garnered support from a diverse array of institutions, including Ivy League schools like Yale and Princeton, as well as public universities such as the University of Hawaii. Signatories emphasize their commitment to academic independence and the free exchange of ideas, asserting that universities should not be coerced into aligning with political agendas. ​

In addition to the petition, several universities have taken legal action against the administration. Harvard's lawsuit challenges the legality of the funding freeze and the broader implications for academic autonomy. Other institutions are exploring similar legal avenues to protect their rights and resist federal overreach. ​

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also voiced strong opposition, urging universities to uphold free speech protections and resist federal pressure to surveil or punish students and faculty for their political views. The ACLU's letter outlines key principles for institutions to follow, including encouraging robust discussion, protecting student privacy, and abiding by constitutional protections. ​

The petition remains open for additional signatures, reflecting the growing concern among academic leaders nationwide. Supporters argue that defending academic freedom is essential not only for the integrity of educational institutions but also for the preservation of democratic values. As the situation develops, universities continue to navigate the complex balance between federal expectations and their commitment to independent scholarship.

In recent months, universities have increasingly become focal points of governmental efforts to suppress dissent against the ongoing war in Gaza. Institutions of higher education, traditionally seen as bastions of free thought and expression, have been subjected to heightened scrutiny and intervention. Student activists who have organized peaceful protests or voiced criticism of the war have faced severe consequences, including disciplinary actions and surveillance.

Moreover, there has been a disturbing rise in the deportation of international students holding valid student visas, alongside professors and researchers, solely based on their participation in protests or public expressions of opposition to the war. These actions reflect a broader strategy to silence critical voices within academic spaces, undermining fundamental principles of academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceful assembly. The targeting of scholars and students in this manner not only threatens individual rights but also weakens the role of universities as centers for critical inquiry and social debate.

Causes and Consequences of Arresting Istanbul's Mayor

Causes and Consequences of Arresting Istanbul's Mayor

    Sunday, March 23, 2025   No comments

The political landscape in Turkey has been thrust into turmoil following the recent arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu, the popular mayor of Istanbul. Imamoglu, a member of the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), was detained on corruption charges in a move that many see as politically motivated.

The arrest order, issued by a judge in Istanbul, came amid a wave of widespread protests across Turkey condemning Imamoglu's detention. The mayor was accused of "irregularities" in his handling of municipal contracts and "terrorist propaganda" - charges that his supporters decry as fabricated attempts to remove a powerful political rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ruling party.

The controversy began last week when Turkey's Interior Ministry suspended Imamoglu from his post as Istanbul mayor, along with the mayors of two other Istanbul districts. This action was taken under Article 127 of the Turkish constitution, which allows for the temporary removal of elected officials facing criminal investigations.

In response, Istanbul's city council convened an emergency session and elected a temporary replacement mayor to fill Imamoglu's role. However, Imamoglu has refused to back down, defiantly calling the move an "attack on democracy" and urging all 86 million Turkish citizens to "fill the ballot boxes and raise their voices against injustice."

The fallout from Imamoglu's arrest has ignited a groundswell of public anger that has extended far beyond just his supporters. Protests have erupted in over two-thirds of Turkey's 81 provinces, with demonstrators - including many apolitical young people and university students - voicing their outrage at what they see as the government's blatant abuse of power.

The broader significance of this crisis lies in the potential long-term implications for Turkish democracy. Imamoglu was widely viewed as a rising political star and a formidable challenger to Erdogan's dominance. His detention appears to be an attempt by the president and his party to eliminate a potent electoral threat ahead of next year's presidential and parliamentary elections.

The outcomes of this crisis remain highly uncertain. Imamoglu's supporters have vowed to continue their protests, raising the specter of sustained civil unrest. The government, for its part, has signaled its intent to press ahead with the prosecution, potentially leading to a drawn-out legal battle.

Ultimately, the fate of Ekrem Imamoglu and the future of Turkey's fragile democracy hang in the balance. This crisis has laid bare the deep divisions and power struggles within the country, and its resolution will have profound consequences for the country's political trajectory in the years to come.

Turkish court formally places Istanbul mayor Imamoglu under arrest on corruption charges

 Following a warning from the Supreme Council of Radio and Television, Turkish television channels have stopped live broadcasts from the sites of rallies, protests and from the Palace of Justice in Istanbul, where a court decision on the preventive measure for Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu is expected.

Over 300 people have been detained, one police officer was attacked with acid, reports say. 

Turkey in Crisis: The Arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu and Its Far-Reaching Consequences

Turkey in Crisis: The Arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu and Its Far-Reaching Consequences

    Wednesday, March 19, 2025   No comments

Turkey is facing a period of heightened political and social unrest following the arrest of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu. This event has ignited massive protests, deepened tensions between the government and the opposition, and drawn international scrutiny over the state of democracy and rule of law in Turkey.

Mass Protests and Public Outrage

Thousands of Turkish citizens have taken to the streets in major cities, including Istanbul, Ankara, Trabzon, and Izmir, protesting Imamoglu’s arrest on charges of corruption and alleged connections to terrorist groups. The opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) has condemned the arrest as politically motivated, urging its supporters to mobilize nationwide in defense of democracy. The government, meanwhile, has cracked down on demonstrations, deploying riot police who have used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds.

A Politically Charged Arrest

Imamoglu, a prominent opposition leader and a key challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the upcoming 2028 elections, was detained following an early morning raid on his home in Istanbul. His arrest coincided with the cancellation of his university degree by Istanbul University, an act perceived by many as part of a broader campaign to discredit him.

Alongside Imamoglu, Turkish authorities have issued arrest warrants for 105 other municipal officials linked to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The charges against them include corruption, fraud, and alleged ties to the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), an organization affiliated with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Critics argue that these accusations are baseless and reflect the government’s increasing use of the judiciary as a tool to silence political opponents.

Government Restrictions and Crackdown on Freedoms

In response to the growing unrest, Turkish authorities have imposed stringent measures, including a four-day ban on protests and public gatherings in Istanbul. Internet access and social media platforms have been restricted, while metro and transportation routes leading to key protest sites, such as Taksim Square, have been shut down. Despite these efforts, demonstrations have persisted, with students and faculty from universities like Boğaziçi, Istanbul Technical University, and Yıldız Technical University joining the movement.

Impact on Turkey’s Economy and International Relations

The arrest of Imamoglu has triggered severe economic consequences, with the Turkish lira losing 12% of its value against the U.S. dollar. The Istanbul stock exchange also experienced a sharp decline, prompting a temporary suspension of trading. Economic analysts warn that these developments could further destabilize an already fragile economy and deter foreign investment.

Internationally, the European Union and other Western allies have voiced concern over Imamoglu’s detention. The Council of Europe issued a strong condemnation, describing the arrest as a move against the will of the Turkish people. European lawmakers and human rights organizations have called on Turkey to uphold democratic principles and the independence of its judiciary.

A Pattern of Political Repression?

Imamoglu’s arrest is the latest in a series of crackdowns against opposition figures, journalists, and activists. The recent imprisonment of Ümit Özdağ, leader of the nationalist Victory Party, further underscores Turkey’s deteriorating human rights record. Many fear that Erdoğan’s government is intensifying its efforts to suppress dissent and consolidate power ahead of the next elections.

An Uncertain Future for Turkey

The arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu marks a pivotal moment in Turkish politics. While the government maintains that the charges against him are legitimate, widespread public outrage and international condemnation suggest otherwise. With increasing economic turmoil, growing discontent, and the erosion of democratic norms, Turkey stands at a crossroads—one that could determine its future as either a democracy or an authoritarian state.

As the situation continues to unfold, all eyes remain on Turkey, watching whether its institutions will uphold justice or succumb further to political influence.

Massive demonstrations in cities across Morocco with thousands demanding an end to the Israeli genocide

Massive demonstrations in cities across Morocco with thousands demanding an end to the Israeli genocide

    Monday, October 21, 2024   No comments

Middle East News Review: Thousands of Moroccans demonstrated in the city of Casablanca (west) on Sunday, rejecting the Israeli genocide that the Gaza Strip has been subjected to since October 7, 2023.

The demonstration, called for by the "Moroccan Front to Support Palestine" (non-governmental), toured the main streets of the city, before heading to Al-Shajar Street, according to an Anadolu Agency correspondent.

The participants expressed their rejection of targeting leaders and the sovereignty of states, demanding an end to the aggression against Palestine and Lebanon.

The demonstration was organized under the slogan "Stop the barbaric Zionist aggression against the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples", and was attended by human rights activists and politicians.

The participants raised the flags of Palestine and Lebanon, and pictures of the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh, its former leader, and Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of "Hezbollah", denouncing their assassination.

The participants chanted slogans in support of the Gazans, including "Moroccan greetings... to proud Gaza", "Morocco and Palestine... one people, not two peoples", "Haniyeh left a will, no compromise on the cause", "Sinwar, martyr, we are still on the path", and "Sinwar, rest, we will continue the struggle".

In Morocco, extensive solidarity campaigns with Gaza continue, including demonstrations and protests, donation campaigns and solidarity evenings.

With American support, Israel has been waging a genocidal war on Gaza since October 7, 2023, leaving more than 142,000 Palestinians dead and wounded, most of them children and women, and more than 10,000 missing, amid massive destruction and famine that killed dozens of children and elderly people, in one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world.

Tel Aviv continues this war, ignoring the UN Security Council resolution to end it immediately, and the International Court of Justice’s orders to take measures to prevent acts of genocide and improve the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Anti-Genocide student protests go global

Anti-Genocide student protests go global

    Saturday, May 04, 2024   No comments

By mid-April, students attending wealthy private universities that have tens of billions of dollars in endowments invested in all forms of economic activities wanted their universities to be selective in their investments and divest from companies that produce anything tied to the Gaza Genocide. This happened after the International Court of Justice found that Israel is committing a plausible genocide and ordered it to take specificactions to stop the genocide. Since then protests spread to almost all Western countries, and there are signs that it will spread to poor countries though universities in such countries have no large investments in weapon manufacturing enterprises.

 Universities in France, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and Mexico are witnessing sit-ins and movements demanding an end to the war that broke out seven months ago on the besieged Gaza Strip. In America, the police, who attended in large numbers, broke up the camps set up by pro-Palestinian students at various universities, the most recent of which was the University of California - Los Angeles, where dozens were arrested.

 As the uprising of American university students continues to escalate in intensity, student mobilization is expanding in a number of countries in solidarity with the Gaza Strip, the day after US President Joe Biden called for order to prevail in American universities, while the French police evacuated the building of the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris of unarmed demonstrators. accidents.

 

On April 18, students who rejected the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip began a sit-in on the campus of Columbia University in New York, demanding that its administration stop its academic cooperation with Israeli universities and withdraw its investments in companies that support the occupation of Palestinian territories.

 With the intervention of police forces and the arrest of dozens of students, the state of anger expanded, and the demonstrations extended to dozens of American universities, including leading universities such as Harvard, George Washington, New York, Yale, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and North Carolina.

 Later, the unprecedented student movement in support of Palestine in the United States expanded to universities in countries such as France, Britain, Germany, Canada and India, all of which witnessed demonstrations in support of their American counterparts and demands to stop the war on Gaza and boycott the companies that supply weapons to Israel.

 CNN reported that the administration of the University of California, Riverside reached an agreement with its students to ensure the end of their sit-in camp, after the university pledged transparency and disclosure of investments and academic cooperation programs with external institutions.

 CNN reported that the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences at Emory University in Georgia will vote in favor of no confidence in the university president, against the backdrop of his calling the police against the protesting students.

 The administration of the University of Chicago in the United States said that there was information “about the presence of physical altercations” on campus, indicating in a statement that in the absence of an agreement with the protesters, the time had come to disperse the crowd.

Students seem to know the consequences of their actions but act, why?

A report in the Times newspaper reviewed the story of Jewish student Iris Hsiang, who was among more than 100 people arrested, in television scenes that credited her with inspiring similar acts of protests on college campuses across the United States.

Hsiang was arrested along with dozens of students at Columbia University for refusing to leave the campus during protests in support of the Palestinians and rejecting the Israeli war on the besieged Gaza Strip.

The student who was suspended from her studies and did not know whether the university would allow her to continue her studies - explained to the newspaper, in a report written by Josie Ensor - the reason for her participation in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations and what prompted her to do so. She said that she was arrested, her hands were tied with ties, and she was placed in a detention cell at the police headquarters all night. .

Hsiang - according to the British newspaper - is now standing outside the gates of the Columbia University campus during the afternoon, because she was prevented from attending classes and accessing the library, dining halls and any other buildings on campus, and was only allowed to remain in her residence as part of the terms of her suspension.

Hsiang has been charged by Columbia University, based on a police indictment, with trespassing, vandalism and “disruptive behavior.” The climate science and human rights student has been suspended from her studies, but she asks indignantly, “How can I trespass on my property at my university?”

Hsiang, who wears a black-and-white keffiyeh as a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, faces a court hearing later this month and is awaiting the university's decision on whether she will be allowed to continue her studies.

She says that her parents (the mother is Jewish and the father is Asian) are worried about her like all parents, and they support her. She adds, “I grew up in a house where we stood up to injustice, so I formulated the matter to them as follows: What do we want people to do if we were in Gaza and this happened?” Happening to us?

However, the threat of a criminal record and permanent expulsion worries the outstanding student, especially since tuition fees at Columbia University cost $66,000 annually, and she will have to pay another year’s fees if she is forced to repeat her studies after missing crucial classes and exams during the demonstration.

Although a number of professors have reached out to students to offer their support, particularly criticizing the university's handling of the demonstrations, and at least 10 faculty members wearing orange jackets standing hugging each other in Central Park on Monday when the evacuation order was issued, Hsiang is disappointed. “I can't believe it has come to this.”

The newspaper reported that New York City officials ran out of patience due to the protests, and its Mayor Eric Adams called on the parents of the students who entered Hamilton Hall to “come pick up their children” and said that the campus must be a safe place for all students.

But Hsiang rejected the idea that Columbia had become an unsafe place for Jewish students. “I am Jewish and I am afraid to enter campus, but for a different reason. I was arrested for my peaceful protest,” she said. “There is a history of using Jewish identity as a weapon. Because I am Jewish, I support the Palestinians against persecution.” .

The newspaper concluded that Hsiang, even if she was not expelled, would have to repeat the academic year because she missed most of her final exams, although it is up to the individual professor to accept or reject the course work of the arrested protesting students, according to the university.

Hsiang concluded her interview with the newspaper by saying, “I am thinking about my future, but at the same time I am thinking about the students of Gaza, as there are no longer established universities. This will definitely change the course of my life, but I went into it knowing that it was a possibility. If Columbia University continues in this situation "There's not much this university can teach me."