Syria Is Not the Antithesis of “Never Again.” It Is the Embodiment of “Never Before.”

The unfathomable horrors unraveling in Syria can only be described as a theater of destruction in the most literal definition of the term. An entire country’s population has been largely uprooted or displaced, millions of lives have been irreversibly damaged, and an entire civilization has been erased. The people of Aleppo have begun to make their final pleas for help from a numb, indifferent, and complicit international community, and every time you think the depths of barbarity and violence cannot possibly get any worse, a new episode of the civil war proves you wrong.

Humanity once again grapples with the question of how we allowed this to happen on our watch, with so many concluding that the slogan “never again”- coined after the world shamelessly witnessed or stood idly by in the face of one too many genocides – has now been rendered meaningless.

When we look at Syria, it is true that “never again” seems like nothing more than retrospective posturing.  The phrase is now commonly invoked ironically, to expose the world’s incapacity to learn from history, or to make an indictment against the notion that the trajectory of humanity is one of moral progress. It is easy to take morally unequivocal positions on humanitarian crises, ethnic cleansing, and genocide when you’re decades detached from them and do not have to go up against the prevailing political and ideological zeitgeists of the time.

But to describe Syria as proof of the vacuousness of “never again” cheapens the unprecedented circumstance that the world find itself in today.

The following words by Syrian activist Rime Allaf on Facebook have forced me to fundamentally refocus how I view humanity’s relationship to the Syrian crisis:

No, actually, Syria is not an “again” but an absolute first. It is nothing like Bosnia or Rwanda or Chechnya or any other “never again” genocidal event in history. It is a macabre Truman Show, an uninterrupted 6-year long live reality TV program watched globally 24/7 on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, on Skype, WhatsApp and Viber.

“Never again” doesn’t apply to us, for what has been done to Syria has never been done before. Our tragic fate is to be the modern age’s “never before.”

Never before has the world been able to observe – in real time – the destruction of a nation and the extermination of a people who dared to demand freedom. Never before has a civilian population been filmed under attack with Scud missiles, barrel bombs and chemical weapons by its “own” illegitimate authorities. Never before have starvation sieges and old-fashioned barbaric massacres been so documented as they happened. Never before has mass torture been so evidenced. And never before has the world’s indifferent silence been so loud, save for perfunctory condemnations and erasable red lines.

Indeed, never before has the mightiest superpower the world has ever known shamelessly pretended to be impotent, and never before has it had the temerity of falsely pleading with the Syrian people’s executioners for grace and mercy, the same grace and mercy it denied Syrians by rejecting their desperate appeals for protection.

Never again? You mean never before. Hell of a legacy.

This is a uniqueness to the Syrian tragedy that the world has never seen, and one that it can only hope to never see anywhere else. Indeed, Syria is not the antithesis of “never again.” It is the embodiment of “never before,” and that is to our eternal shame.

-Asad

Readings: Week of December 4, 2016

This week’s readings were pretty intense and lengthy, so I’ve separated them into categories to make it easier to sift through them. In each category, I’ve highlighted important analysis in purple and must-reads in red.

Israel and Palestine News/Analysis

Syria

U.S. Politics 

Europe

Hitler (yes, this is an actual category this week)

 

Miscellaneous

 

-Asad

Readings: Week of November 27, 2016

This is the first time I’m sending my ‘weekly readings‘ blog post being via my newsletter, so just a few things:

  • Most news sites have paywalls, which means that they only allow you to read a certain number of articles per month until you have to pay to read more. For example, the New York Times has a paywall of 10 articles. Some ways to get around this: 1) If your you’ve reached the limit on your phone, read them on your laptop, which gives you a fresh start. 2) Read articles in different browsers. 3) Type the title of the article in the search bar and load it from there. This doesn’t count toward the paywall.
  • However, I would nonetheless suggest subscribing to the New York Times. For a few dollars a month, you’ll have full access to all online publications and it is fully worth your money. You do not have to agree with everything you read, but the exposure to high-quality content and a diverse range of views on a whole host of issues is vital to your intellectual development. It will help you challenge your own thoughts, polish your ideas, and improve your vocabulary.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything I read or share. In fact, I may vehemently disagree with some readings. But I am also a firm believer in engaging with challenging ideas, which first requires understanding what they are. I see it as an inextricable part of my growth to challenge my own ideas and to continuously revise them as I develop. With that said, here are some articles I read this week which helped me to do exactly that. I’ve divided them into sections based on category, and have emphasized in red which ones I think are must-reads. Enjoy!

American Politics

  1. Is 90% of the Quran a legal document? CNN, Myth and Math by Imam Joe Bradford (Joe Bradford) [must-read]
  2. Trump Excuses the White Working Class from the Politics of Personal Responsibility by Peter Beinart (The Atlantic) [must-read]
  3. How Stable Are Liberal Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’ by Amanda Taub (The New York Times) [must-read]
  4. Trump: The Choice We Face by Masha Gessen (The New York Review of Books) [must-read]
  5. Of Nine Tech Companies, Only Twitter Says It Would Refuse to Help Build Muslim Registry for Trump by Sam Biddle (The Intercept)
  6. Mr. Trump, Meet the Constitution by The New York Times Editorial Board (The New York Times)
  7. White-Collar Supremacy by Kelly J. Baker (The New York Times)
  8. Glenn Beck Is Sorry About All That by Ana Marie Cox (The New York Times)

Syria

  1. For Bashar al-Assad, Winning the Syrian War May Lead to New Troubles by Alissa J. Rubin (The New York Times)
  2. Foreign fighters pour into Syria to bolster Assad regime by Erika Solomon (Financial Times)
  3. Syrian crisis: Air strike kills the last clown of Aleppo, Anas al-Basha by Eryk Bagshaw (The Sydney Morning Herald)
  4. Inside Kerry’s race to stop the siege of Aleppo by Josh Rogin (The Washington Post)

Global Politics

  1. Pakistan Names New Military Leader by Salman Masood (The New York Times)
  2. Jimmy Carter: America Must Recognize Palestine by Jimmy Carter (The New York Times) [must-read]
  3. Why encourage Palestinian hope with mosque loudspeakers? by Sayed Kashua (Haaretz)
  4. Reform and Conservative Jews try a new tactic in battle for Israeli religious pluralism by Michele Chabin (Religion News Service)

Don’t forget to tell your friends to subscribe to the newsletter!

-Asad

Are liberal democracies dying?

Lately I’ve been reading a lot on liberal democracy, a form of government where rights and freedoms are protected, government officials are elected, governing powers are separated, and institutions are open. These are characteristics embedded within the fabric of a liberal democracy and are enshrined as values to be upheld and celebrated. In a post-World War II era, these characteristics have more-or-less been the norm and have apparently, up until now, been taken for granted.

I recently came across an article in the New York Times titled ‘How Stable Are Liberal Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’‘ written by Amanda Taub. It highlights the findings of a Harvard lecturer and author named Yascha Mounk, who suggests that liberal democracies have begun to show signs of decline. Mounk, who has written a memoir about growing up as a Jew in Germany, teamed up with a fellow researcher from the University of Melbourne named Roberto Stefan Foa, to pinpoint three ‘warning signs’ that indicate the decline of a liberal democracy.

From the article, the three signs are:

  1. Public support: How important do citizens think it is for their country to remain democratic?
  2. Public openness to nondemocratic forms of government, like military rule.
  3. Whether “antisystem parties and movements” – political parties and other major players whose core message is that the current system is illegitimate – were gaining support.

These three signs presuppose that it is possible for liberal democracies to actually decline, thus going against a commonly held theory in political science called “democratic consolidation” which simply means that democracy becomes secure in a country if it possesses a certain set of attributes like democratic institutions, a robust civil society, and a certain degree of wealth. Mounk and Foa believe that if democracies show the three aforementioned signs, they’ve begun a process of “deconsolidating.” Think of the fever you get right before the flu.

The article then gives examples of Venezuela and Poland, recognizing how they once appeared to be flourishing democratically only to show signs of “deconsolidation” and a subsequent precipitous diminution in democratic characteristics.

It’s something to think about when observing the unique juncture we are at in the United States, a country where the idea of existing within an ‘illiberal democracy’ (a term first coined by Fareed Zakaria) seems impossible. Most Americans are well aware of illiberal currents in the country, but these currents were widely regarded as fringe elements that had little to no influence in the broader society, and their ideas were regarded as vulgar and unacceptable. With the election of Donald J. Trump, our political imaginations have never been so drastically ruptured. How did we reach a point where the Overton Window was pushed so far that headlines asking if Jews are human beings became okay? Where do we go from here to prevent things from getting worse?

There is one factor about liberal democracies that is severely overlooked, and I believe it is the single most important factor to guarantee their preservation and proper function, and that is the good faith of the people. Yes, democratic institutions exist, but they cannot protect themselves, and the mechanisms designed to protect them only matter insofar as there are individuals willing to enact them. There must be human beings with good faith; rational, free thinkers acting, pushing, demanding, that these institutions remain preserved and that any violations against these institutions be challenged. Up until now, the good faith of people has merely been assumed, thus causing it to be neglected and taken for granted. Instead, we began to depend on our institutions, in effect granting them imaginary powers while relinquishing our own agency as actors who enact and enforce these powers in good faith.

The faith must be in the people, not in the institutions. If liberal democracies are on the decline, then it must be the people who work to ensure they recover. As long as we remember this, we will never be given in to complacency or passivity with a Trump administration and the fringe elements that it has empowered. We must repeat to ourselves that what is happening us unprecedented and not normal.

This is not normal.

This is not normal.

This is not normal.

I end this post with a quote from Matt Levine (Bloomberg View):

I thought about the fact that those principles can’t automatically enact themselves, that they only work if the human actors in the system choose to follow them and to demand that others follow them. They persist because the people constrained by them believe themselves to be constrained by them. The Constitution, separation of powers, religious liberty, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, equality of all citizens: There is a complacent sense in America that these things are independent self-operative checks on power. But they aren’t. They are checks on power only as far as they command the collective loyalty of those in power; they require a governing class that cares about law and government and American tradition, rather than personal power and revenge. Their magic is fragile, and can disappear if people who don’t believe in it gain power.

-Asad

Readings: Week of November 20, 2016

Thanksgiving reading

  1. The First Amnesty by Lawrence Downes (The New York Times)

Election Commentary 

  1. Blame Trump’s Victory on College-Educated Whites, Not the Working Class by Eric Sasson (The New Republic)
  2. Sanders: Dems must move beyond ‘identity politics’ by Mallory Shelbourne (The Hill)
  3. Shirtless Trump Saves Drowning Kitten by Brian Phillips (MTV News)

Post-Trump America

  1. No Trump, We Can’t Just Get Along by Charles M. Blow (The New York Times)
  2. Living In Trump’s Soviet Union by Gary Shteyngart (The New Yorker)
  3. Alt-Right Gathering Exults in Trump Election With Nazi-Era Salute by Joseph Goldstein (The New York Times)
  4. White Nationalists Celebrate ‘an Awakening’ After Donald Trump’s Victory by Alan Rappeport and Noah Weiland (The New York Times)
  5. Museum Condemns White Nationalist Conference Rhetoric (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum)
  6. Climate Change in Trump’s Age of Ignorance by Robert N. Proctor (The New York Times)
  7. Obama Reckons With A Trump Presidency by David Remnick (The New Yorker)

Law and Activism

  1. The Art of the Protest by Tina Rosenberg (The New York Times)
  2. Why Korematsu Is Not A Precedent by Noah Feldman (The New York Times)
  3. Power Imbalance at the Pipeline Protest by the New York Times Editorial Board (The New York Times)

Global Politics

  1. League of nationalists by the Economist (The Economist)
  2. Angela Merkel to Seek 4th Term as Germany’s Leader by Alison Smale (The New York Times)
  3. Pakistan Names New Military Leader by Salman Masood (The New York Times)
  4. Israeli Muslims Want to Save the Muezzin – and So Do Ultra-Orthodox Jews by Eatta Prince-Gibson (The Forward)
  5. How the Iranian-Saudi Proxy Struggle Tore Apart the Middle East by Max Fisher (The New York Times)

Readings: Weeks of October 30, November 6, and November 13 (2016)

This post consists of some of my selected readings from the week before the 2016 presidential election, the week of the election, and the week after the election. Because of the sheer number and magnitude of events that took place during this short yet tumultuous period, I don’t have the time to share all of my thoughts on the individual readings. However, I am sharing them here nonetheless as a reference.

Week of October 30 – November 5 (Pre-Election Week)

Week of November 6 – November 12 (Election Week)

Week of November 13 – November 19 (Post-Election Week)

This is it for now.

Reflections on the Election – “Looking Forward”

Donald J. Trump is the President-Elect of the United States of America.

These are words I never thought I’d write. In fact I was looking forward to seeing him lose so humiliatingly that by the time I wrote this blog post, he would be remembered as nothing more than a horrible nightmare that plagued our country for a year and a half; the damage of which we would deal with without having to deal with the man himself.

I was looking forward to healing as an individual, along with my community and my country, from the trauma caused by the unrelenting and insufferable drivel of a racist, sexist, misogynist, bigot who cared for nothing and for no one but his own ego.

I was looking forward to the short sigh of relief that would come with knowing that bigotry was not granted a platform in the highest office in the land, and that the forces of good won the battle for the day despite the long road ahead.

I was looking forward to working with allies to push further toward justice and equality, holding Clinton’s feet to the fire, calling her to account at every corner and every turn, and making it clear to her administration that they should not take their victory for granted, and that liberals and progressives should not fall into passivity simply because Trump had lost.

I was looking forward to reflecting on how far America has come; being conscious of where the country was, celebratory – but critical – of where it is, and optimistic about where it can go.

I can no longer look forward to any of these things because the outcome was not as I expected, and now I must recalibrate what I look forward to.

Words cannot be minced. We must not be charitable with how we describe the man or his campaign. Donald J. Trump was, is, and will likely be, an irreparable monster. His systematic denigration of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, from Latinos to blacks to Muslims; his callous mockery of a disabled journalist; his blatant disregard for the integrity of democratic institutions; his venomous threats to prosecute his opponent and to target the media; his calls to rupture the global political order that has preserved important alliances, trade deals, and treaties and prevented a major catastrophe like another World War; his bold denial of the existential threat of climate change; his courting of autocratic leaders and his own embracing of fascistic tendencies; his borderline-treasonous  encouragement of a foreign power to meddle in domestic affairs; his demonization of  refugees fleeing a brutal war; his incitement against marginalized groups and his blithe dismissal of the subsequent violence happening in his name; and his documented and demonstrated history of business fraudulence, racist practices in the workplace, and sexual abuse; should all have sufficed as categorical disqualifications that clearly indicated not only his incapacity to govern, but his disgusting character as a human being. He was an indictment against himself, unfit, unqualified, and unprepared to lead.

And yet.

He is now the President-Elect, and if he is not impeached or removed from power through legal mechanisms, he will remain with us for at least another four years. The atmosphere he has created – or rather, revealed – may remain for decades to come, and if we are to respect democracy, this outcome must be accepted. Does this mean normalization of Trump? No, it absolutely does not. Respecting a peaceful transition of power and accepting democratic results does not preclude resisting against what is to come. Any homily that argues for preserving the institution of democracy should be coupled with the imperative call to action; the two are inseparable. We must now, at this critical moment in time, engage in a sobering reflection about where we are, and with a renewed impetus, recognize our responsibilities as citizens to push back against what is to come.

What that entail?

Before anything else, we need to understand how we got here.

Trump’s campaign has unleashed a cavalry of the most dangerous, menacing, and fringe elements of our society, and his tremendous display of hubris throughout has emboldened and empowered them to openly proclaim their virulently racist, supremacist ideologies. This cannot be overlooked and must be fought against. There are definitely those who deliberately voted for him because he enabled and normalized the racism they secretly espoused, but it is difficult to calculate statistically how many people voted for him because they possess a conscious or subconscious racism. But are all Trump supporters brazen racists and unfettered bigots? Likely not. They did however, find his messaging resonant enough to overlook these concerns and vote for a bigot, and we need to ask ourselves why.

As difficult as it may be for democrats, liberals, progressives, and leftists, they must accept that millions of Americans, particularly rural and working class whites, who may lack a college education and are employed in industries that are on the decline because jobs have been moved overseas; who may work in farms and factories in the Rust Belt and in the Midwest, where they may not have benefited from the fruits of globalization; who may live under poor conditions in the South, deprived of opportunities for economic advancement; all truly believed that Trump was the best candidate to run this country because they felt that he would provide the safety, security, and economic mobility that liberal elites have failed to. We will have to recognize these legitimate concerns without accepting the illegitimate bigotry and ‘otherization’ that may sometimes be attached to them.

Donald Trump has tapped into a dark underbelly of America; an underbelly that polite society in our country often pretends does not exist, because the reality of confronting it is too burdensome or shameful to bear. He has now removed that veil and laid bare the reality that is America. As a society we will have to have some frank, open conversations about the causes and consequences of the “Trump phenomenon.” This necessitates stepping out of our insulated friend circles and social media bubbles that reinforce what we already believe and grant us the delusion of having a diverse audience. Let us express our concerns but also be willing to hear out the concerns of those who differ from us.

And herein lies the challenge: demarcating the fine line between acknowledging concerns of ‘the other side’ and normalization of Trump.

And thus, at every step will make it unequivocally clear that we will not allow bigotry to become normalized; make it clear that even when we are not surprised by what Donald Trump says, that we will still remain outraged; make it clear that we will not flinch for a second when we are asked to stand up to the powerful forces of bigotry, hatred, racism, and oppression. We will do what we must, using every mechanism and means at our disposal, to confront these various threats, and we will not be fooled by fleeting, ephemeral semblances of normalcy, as if this man did not gain ascendance with an unprecedented disregard for societal and institutional norms.

With a renewed sense of urgency, we will push for more just laws, organize protests and teach-ins, build cross-community coalitions, attend town hall meetings, create petitions, lobby local, state, and federal lawmakers, and continue to build our power through education, empowerment, and organizing.

And to this, I look forward.

I look forward to organizing locally with a strengthened resolve, among family, friends, and community, to build power that will defend the weak, the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized, and the targeted.

I look forward to using my positions of privilege to amplify the voices of those who may not have access to the same platform as me. I will offer my platform to them and I will stand as an ally to all oppressed individuals, communities, and people.

I look forward to fighting back against any and all harmful legislation that the Republican-controlled Congress attempts to pass, whether it be unlawful profiling and surveillance, the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants, the evisceration of health insurance for millions of people, the loosening of gun restriction laws, and more.

I look forward to supporting organizations and institutions working to make the world a better place. I look forward to reading, writing, educating, and sharing whatever knowledge I have that will contribute to making the world a better place.

I look forward to punctuating my mark in history by fighting and resisting against all forms of oppression with every fiber of my being.

Count me as part of The Resistance.

I look forward to it.

Today I Learned – 11/3/2016

Today I Learned a little bit about how American Jewish leaders grapple with their religious legal tradition in light of an American cultural tradition and how they engage with their congregations on the topic, with Halloween as a starting point. In an October 2013 article written for the Tablet Magazine, Rabbi Regina Sandler-Phillips shares an anecdote about an intriguing question she was asked by a young student named Adam: “What is your position on zombies?”

It’s a strange question, she admits, but one worth exploring.

The first passage that caught my keen interest, compelling me to reread it twice, was this one:

What “Judaism Says” about Halloween, for example, varies as much by personal focus as by denominational persuasion. More traditionally observant communities uphold clearer dress and dietary codes, but mixed religious symbolism, consumer excess, and supervision of children’s behavior are concerns across the Jewish denominational spectrum.

Whatever their ambivalence, Jewish leaders of less insular worldviews generally conclude that the pagan/Christian elements of Halloween have been secularized beyond recognition, and that participation in this one day out of the year will not cause irreversible damage to Jewish identity. Many recommend a proactive clarification of parameters—at least to ensure that basic health and safety needs are met and ideally to highlight teachable moments for instilling Jewish values. Purim is often upheld as a superior Jewish costume-and-candy alternative.

Almost immediately, my mind was inundated with images of debates that take place within the American Muslim community surrounding the same issue; some of these debates are erudite, with a tremendous display of tact where participants meticulously take into consideration all the relevant factors before forming their opinions, while other debates, often initiated by overzealous youth looking more to demonize rather than to discuss, are lacking both in scholarly sophistication and basic mannerisms. For this latter group, the argument often begins with “Islam says!” and often ends with a pompous chest-thumping wanting in constructive, substantive conclusions. Thankfully however, this group is a minority of a minority, and as American Muslims continue to better navigate their legal and theological traditions in the United States, I believe that a much stronger, intellectually robust and spiritually vibrant community will emerge.

I greatly appreciated seeing the parallels between the Jewish and Muslim community here, and was pleasantly surprised to learn that even when the Jewish community is much more institutionally-established and socially-integrated into the American fabric, it still faces questions like these.

The writer goes back to the question of what “Judaism Says,” and more specifically of the “rationalistic” approach to that question, namely that such an approach, though worthy of its own merit, has led to an unfortunate but inevitable consequence that limits the capacity of humans to stimulate their natural imaginative faculties. This capacity is then left unused and the void is then filled by popular culture. She goes on to suggest that our intrinsic creative powers have the potency to surpass our “rationalistic” efforts, without necessarily diminishing the importance of either one.

The rationalistic “Judaism Says” with which I came of age negated centuries of Jewish afterlife traditions. This negation combined the ancient religious hostility to necromancy, the modern secular insistence on scientific measurement, and the ethical imperative to focus on our responsibilities here and now. Sadly, the rationalistic approach has left us mostly blind to our own denial, with diminished capacities for acceptance of inherent mysteries. Popular culture fills the void with a relentless onslaught of imaginary fates worse than death. The creative powers of fear and fantasy far outstrip our ethical here-and-now efforts to visit the sick, honor the dead, console the bereaved, and communicate our own final wishes to those we love.

When I read the above passage, I interpreted it to mean that the author was arguing for a complementary or hybrid approach to life and death: one that integrates both our (rationalistic) “here-and-now” efforts to heal the world with our creative powers that imagine good works as transcendent of worldly results. She goes on:

“Here is my position on zombies,” I told Adam. “I would like a tiny fraction of all the money, time, and resources spent on zombies and vampires and ‘the undead’ to be spent on coming to terms with real death and what it means for our lives.”

Adam nodded, and the dinner table conversation turned to other topics. I was content to have planted a seed of possibility for future cultivation.

Again, this evokes memories of both past and present conversations in the Muslim community. Indeed, the secularization of Halloween and its rituals has effectively erased any semblance of religious significance to the holiday, but as a cultural holiday, is it possible to make it something more, something positive for our spirituality? This writer says it is: The time spent on Halloween, zombies, and vampires can also be used as a moment of reflection; or at least part of that time can. In fact, as the writer suggests, it may be only a “tiny fraction,” but some short period of time nonetheless. As I read through this article, I wondered, how and when I can apply this principle further? When are there times in my life that give me the opportunity to take a moment to turn a mundane, cultural, and ephemeral event into something transcendental, religious, and lasting?

A moment of reflection.

Last thought: Both the manner in which she responds (constructively, with hope, optimism, and love) along with the content of what she says (accounting for both the “rationalistic” approach and the “creative” approach) speak volumes to her exemplary character as a religious leader. I hope to develop my personal spiritual practice and my relationship with people in such a way where I am able to do the same.

-Asad

 

 

 

Readings: Week of October 23, 2016

This week’s readings are divided into three topics: U.S. politics leading up to the historic 2016 election which is right around the corner; the Middle East; and some miscellaneous thought-provoking pieces that I think were worth reading. Enjoy!

U.S. politics leading up to the 2016 election

The Middle East 

Thought-provoking 

Readings: Week of October 16, 2016

The first reading delves into what’s colloquially known as ‘secret law,’ which are essentially laws and procedures that allow the government to bypass traditional checks and balances to expand its jurisdiction in order to protect national security interests. These procedures, signed off by the Executive branch of government, are not open to scrutiny because they are shrouded in secrecy, which sets a dangerous precedent signaling to future administrations that accountability plays no role in creating and enacting laws. This piece argues for more accountability through mechanisms such as inter-agency decisions as to what should be made secret, the creation of more specific standards for secrecy, limitations on length of secrecy, and Congressional public oversight. The two readings right after it talk about these ‘secret laws’ in practice; the first one is about the CIA’s torture program, and the second is about secretive military campaigns in Somalia.

There couldn’t have been a more timelier moment for their publication, considering that President Obama will be leaving office soon, and it will be up to his successor to inherit the responsibility of addressing (or redressing) the precedents that the Obama administration has standardized.

The next two readings focus on two Muslim-majority countries that have found themselves — tragically — at the center of foreign policy discussions. The first is about the campaign to retake the ISIS-occupied Iraqi city of Mosul, which was taken by ISIS in the summer of 2014 and has remained under its control since then. The piece discusses the local implications of the battle, which parties are involved, and the benefits and harms of different approaches to the battle. It’s a starter for anyone seeking to closely follow what will be one of the most decisive — and difficult — battles against ISIS.

The reading right after it is about Aleppo and the perpetual atrocities that it continues to endure. The criminal silence and indifference that humanity has collectively displayed in the face of our century’s worst humanitarian disaster is damning; so damning that the consequences of our inaction (or, arguably, or counter-intuitive action)  will be felt for the next half-century. It is a moralistic piece that interrogates our very sense of shared humanity, asking us to be true to it, and demanding of us to do better. To that effect, it asks a discomforting rhetorical question explaining perhaps why the world has done nothing: Is it because the people of Aleppo are Muslim?

The piece right after it is just as important, as it highlights the parties primarily responsible for an overwhelming majority of not only the atrocities in Aleppo, but of the Syrian Civil War as a whole. It then proposes policy initiatives that the United States and the international community can — or rather, must — take to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The last piece is written by someone who survived the siege on Sarajevo, and it is written against the backdrop of the siege happening today in Aleppo. This piece goes in-depth as to what factors in Sarajevo (like local and foreign journalists highlighting what was taking place) mobilized the international community to act.

The next two readings are about Israel and Palestine. The first one is a short read on the recent UNESCO resolution relating to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, a holy site revered by all three Abrahamic faiths (the holiest in Judaism and third holiest in Islam). The original resolution referred to the site exclusively by its Muslim name, leading many to read it as a rejection of any Jewish connection it has, despite the fact that it made a general affirmation of the site’s importance to all three Abrahamic faiths. The article speaks about the resolution itself, which was intended as a political resolution and not a religious one, and discusses how despite the politics, the historical context and religious sensitivities of the site demand precise language. It argues that there is too much at stake for there to be anything but precise, inclusive naming of the site, because for whatever little pragmatic stability exists there, anything other than a precise naming can be read as a “final allocation” of the site and result in further conflict.

The second piece is a bit more uplifting: It talks about Israeli and Palestinian women from all spectra coming together and marching for peace and justice, all the way up to the Prime Minister’s house. At the culmination of the march was a rally with speeches from women on both sides, who spoke of a shared future based on mutual association, understanding, solidarity, empathy, and hope.

This piece is about a group of Muslim women in India who’ve taken on the role of Islamic judges as a means of empowering themselves. Female judges thrived in Islamic antiquity but modern-day patriarchal norms have resulted in a monopolization of knowledge and its production as a realm exclusive to men.

These two pieces discuss masculinity in the backdrop of a Trump campaign and the fragility of the male ego.

A sociological explanation as to how Trump and the GOP as a whole are losing whatever hold they had of white college graduates.

A well-written article by Bret Stephens which reminds American conservative Jews about the history of right-wing antisemitism and how it has begun to resurface thanks to Donald Trump

An important reading on the psychology of victim-blaming and the culture surrounding it.

An opinion piece written by a disabled man making the case for why he and others with disabilities are more than just their disabilities and that they should not be boxed into this one category.

An uplifting piece about a synagogue that asks its congregation to remember that they too were once refugees during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

An explanation as to how liberals and progressives from the South and the Midwest have all slowly moved into eastern coastal states and clustered into environments with like-minded people, thereby imperiling the swing-state status of their former residential states and leaving large swaths of the country as conservative strongholds.