RSS
Why Antisemitism, Anger and Intolerance Have Infected America’s Ivy League Colleges — Part Two
We recently examined the alarming escalation in antisemitism seen on US college campuses — specifically at the Ivy League universities of Harvard, Yale, Cornell, and Columbia — since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7.
In this second part, we will look at the remaining four Ivy Leagues, charting how America’s most elite educational establishments have become havens of intolerance, and why so many of their students harbor such hatred toward both Jews and the State of Israel.
University of Pennsylvania
Two weeks before Hamas’ barbaric rampage through southern Israeli communities resulted in the biggest loss of Jewish life in a day since the Holocaust, the University of Pennsylvania was embroiled in an antisemitism scandal when notorious Jew-hating musician Roger Waters was invited to speak on campus during an anti-Israel festival.
Waters, who is best known as a founding member of the rock band Pink Floyd and for goose-stepping on-stage while dressed as a Nazi, was asked to address attendees at the “Palestine Writes Literature Festival” before he was banned from campus following a backlash by critics who had noted that the event was scheduled to coincide with the Jewish High Holiday period, thus reducing the likelihood of Jewish students protesting antisemitic speakers.
In the lead-up to the festival, which went ahead as scheduled with Waters speaking remotely, numerous incidents of antisemitism were recorded on campus, including a swastika that was drawn inside the school’s Stuart Weitzman School of Design, and the arrest of a man who entered the Penn Hillel and screamed statements such as, “F—k the Jews” and “They killed JC,” a reference to the myth that Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.
In light of the Waters controversy, UPenn President Liz Magill belatedly announced her personal commitment to addressing antisemitism at the college, adding: “The University of Pennsylvania has a long and proud history of being a place for people of all backgrounds and faiths, and acts of antisemitism have no place at Penn.”
How utterly hollow those words were.
In the days and weeks after Hamas terrorists murdered and kidnapped more than 1,200 Israeli civilians, UPenn has again allowed antisemitism to rear its head on campus.
The university administration’s first statement to condemn the Hamas atrocity was more than a week after the massacre took place. On Sunday, October 15, Magill sent an email to the university community. “I want to leave no doubt about where I stand,” it said. “I, and this university, are horrified by and condemn Hamas’s terrorist assault on Israel and their violent atrocities against civilians. There is no justification — none — for these heinous attacks…”
However, the email apparently only came after Jon Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah and former US ambassador to China, Russia, and Singapore, told Magill that his charitable organization, the Huntsman Foundation, would be pulling donations from the university over the issue of antisemitism.
For some UPenn students, though, the email’s failure to mention Palestinians was akin to not recognizing their “existence,” and they organized a mass walkout of classes in response.
Videos and photos taken of the protest show students chanting slogans such as, “Intifada, Intifada,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Israel, Israel, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.” A handful of students reportedly harassed a rabbi who was manning a tefillin stand on the route marchers took.
Other wealthy UPenn donors have since followed Huntsman’s lead and pulled funding from the college, including Marc Rowan, who contributed more than $50 million in 2018, and Steve Eisman, who demanded his name be removed from a university scholarship.
NEW Canary Mission profile. Tara Tarawneh, a student at @Penn & writer for Penn’s student newspaper, glorified the massacre of Jews at a pro-Hamas rally: “I remember feeling so empowered and happy…I want all of you to hold that feeling in your hearts.” https://t.co/38Lj7qBtQ5 pic.twitter.com/MxDrYMLGWx
— Canary Mission (@canarymission) November 5, 2023
Princeton University
In August of this year, Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli wrote a letter to Princeton University’s senior leadership about a book that was approved to go on the syllabus of the Near Eastern Studies Department’s “Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South” course.
The book, “The Healing Humanities: The Right to Maim,” written by Jasbir Puar, falsely claims that Israel harvests the organs of Palestinians and that the country has a policy of trying to maim Palestinians.
Despite the text promoting a modern-day blood libel, Princeton’s President Christopher L. Eisgruber refused to remove the text from the syllabus on the grounds that it would be “censoring” the curriculum.
“Those who disagree with a book, or a syllabus, are free to criticize it but not to censor it,” he wrote. “Such arguments are the lifeblood of a great university, where controversies must be addressed through deliberation and debate, not administrative fiat.”
However, one must question the sincerity of Eisgruber’s view about fighting censorship, considering the fact that under his tenure, Princeton scrubbed the name of America’s 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, from its public policy school on the basis that Wilson’s “racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.”
Incidentally, as Michael Goldstein pointed out in the Jewish Journal, the inclusion of Puar’s antisemitic tome in the curriculum actually marked the second time the “Israelis harvest Palestinian organs” blood libel had been legitimized on campus. Just months before the Puar controversy, professional Palestinian activist Mohammed El-Kurd, who has accused Israelis of eating Palestinian organs and lusting after their blood, was paid to give the Edward Said lecture at the university’s English Department.
Many in Princeton’s undergraduate student body have also been gunning to pass a resolution in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which seeks to isolate and eventually dismantle the Jewish state.
What followed a March 2022 vote on BDS was reminiscent of something out of a banana republic. In total, 44 percent of students voted in favor, 40 percent voted against, and 16 percent abstained, which was supposed to mean the resolution immediately failed, because abstentions prevented a majority.
However, a dispute ensued about how abstentions would be counted, with Eric Periman, then-president of the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP), which sponsored the resolution, arguing the pro-BDS camp had won.
Around the same time that PCP was pushing for Princeton to support BDS, the group made crystal clear its real target when it held a protest outside the campus Center for Jewish Life (CJL), in which protestors held signs with phrases commonly used by Hamas such as, “from the river to the sea” and during which PCP President Periman suggested Princeton’s Jewish students were complicit in human rights violations.
Dartmouth College
Two pro-Palestinian students were arrested at Dartmouth last month after they allegedly trespassed on the grounds of the university’s Parkhurst Hall late at night and threatened to “escalate” and take “physical action” against college administrators in a document titled the “Dartmouth New Deal,” which demands the school divest from “Israeli apartheid.”
“You have until the first day of the winter term to publicly address our demands and outline a plan to meet them. If you fail to do so, we will escalate and take further action,” the document reportedly warned.
The arrests followed at least one pro-Palestinian rally in which attendees reportedly chanted, “Israel is a terror state.”
Breaking News:
Around 1AM today, Hanover Police arrested two pro-Palestinian protesters who were camped on Parkhurst Hall’s front lawn, charging them with a misdemeanor for criminal trespassing. The two students were released on bail later in the morning. pic.twitter.com/PSNBncJ0SC
— The Dartmouth Review (@DartmouthReview) October 28, 2023
However, while Dartmouth has grappled with more isolated incidents of anti-Jewish hatred on campus, including a swastika being carved on the college green and a public menorah being shot at with pellets, it should be noted that the general response by the university leadership to the Israel-Hamas war last month has been commendable.
Spearheaded by a group of Middle Eastern academics at the college, two public forums were set up on October 9 that featured professors from Israel, Lebanon, and Egypt discussing the conflict, which were attended by hundreds of students in-person and online.
Encouraging students to attend the forums, the university’s President Sian Leah said: “I watched with growing horror the Hamas attack on Israel this weekend, the escalating violence, and the devastating loss of life, especially among civilians… In every conflict, one of the most important roles a university can play is to help us understand it, and to make a space for dialogue and community.”
Leah’s dither-free response to the attacks, which was in stark contrast to the leaders of so many other colleges, was a welcome change from her predecessor Philip Hanlon, whose role in attempting to hire BDS-supporting Professor N. Bruce Duthu as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences had been criticized as another “chapter in the school’s history of anti-Semitism.”
Brown University
Brown’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an organization that has a well-documented history of disseminating vicious anti-Israel propaganda and vilifying Jewish students, was already organizing pro-Palestinian campus protests as Hamas terrorists were still cutting their bloodsoaked path through southern Israel.
In addition to organizing several student walkouts, the group posted on October 12 a statement to its Instagram account in which it claimed Israel was responsible for the Hamas massacre, and stated that it stands in “solidarity with the Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation.”
At one such campus rally, an SJP member was captured on film telling the crowd: “Palestinians will die for justice and will die to return to our land. Glory to our martyrs from the river to the sea … Palestine is the hope of the world.”
Apparently, explicitly supporting a proscribed terrorist organization that is sworn to the destruction of both Jews and Israel is not enough to get the group banned from Brown’s campus.
Although Brown University’s President Christina H. Paxson has opposed calls for the college to adopt a pro-BDS stance, the school’s response to antisemitism among the Brown community has been criticized, particularly after several high-profile incidents at the college over the past two years, including swastikas drawn around campus and antisemitic threats directed toward Brown Hillel.
It is not so difficult to explain why so many students — many of whom would proudly describe themselves as “anti-fascist” — are so intolerant toward Jews and Israel.
Wall Street Journal columnist Barton Swaim described the scenes on American campuses as a product of the Marxist theories that have been taught for decades in higher education establishments:
That’s why they particularly hate Israel—a wealthy nation among neighbors whose poverty is relieved only by oil revenue. Israel is the one country in the Middle East where ordinary people stand a good chance of creating prosperity for themselves and their families. For modern progressive academics, weaned on the Marxian concept that wealth is the result of exploitation, that is precisely the reason for Israel’s guilt. They can’t behold its prosperity without concluding that the Jews have stolen their wealth from their neighbors.”
And that is the crux of it: for American students, Israel and Jews are privileged, and privilege is the new original sin.
The post Why Antisemitism, Anger and Intolerance Have Infected America’s Ivy League Colleges — Part Two first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Mother of Rescued Israeli Hostage Noa Argamani Passes Away After Battling Brain Cancer
Noa and Liora Argamani before Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel. Photo: Screenshot
Liora Argamani, 61, mother of rescued Israeli hostage Noa Argamani, passed away on Tuesday in Tel Aviv’s Ichilov Hospital after fighting stage 4 brain cancer.
Noa, an only child, was rescued from Hamas captivity in Gaza in a daring operation from Hamas captivity on June 8. Her mother passed away less than a month later.
The kidnapping of Argamani and her partner Avinatan Or — who still remains in Hamas captivity — at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel on Oct. 7 was captured in a heartbreaking video, sparking international outcry. Argamani was held hostage by Hamas for eight months before Israeli forces rescued her along with three other hostages: Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv. The commander of Israel’s elite Yamam division who led the mission, Arnon Zamora, was mortally wounded in the operation.
In a video released on Saturday night, before her mother passed away, Argamani recounted how she longed to see her parents while she was kidnapped. “My biggest worry in captivity was for my parents,” she said.
Argamani eulogized her mother at her funeral held on Tuesday. “My mother, the best friend I ever had, the strongest person I have known in my life,” she said. “Thank you for the 26 years I had the privilege of being by your side.”
The official X/Twitter account for the State of Israel also mourned the elder Argamani’s passing, writing, “We are devastated to share that Liora Argamani, mother of rescued hostage Noa Argamani, has passed away following an intensive battle with cancer. Our hearts are with Noa and Yaakov Argamani. May Liora’s memory be a blessing.”
Although Noa Argamani reunited with her mother before her passing, rescued hostage Almog Meir Jan’s father passed away from a heart attack only hours before he was rescued. According to a relative in an interview with Israeli broadcaster Kan, Meir “died of grief” and “a broken heart” over his son’s captivity.
On Oct. 7, thousands of Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists invaded southern Israel from neighboring Gaza, killing 1,200 people and kidnapping 250 others as hostages.
Several hostages were released as part of a temporary truce in November, and others have been rescued, both dead and alive, by Israeli soldiers conducting rescue operations. About 120 hostages remain in Gaza; it is unclear how many are still alive.
The post Mother of Rescued Israeli Hostage Noa Argamani Passes Away After Battling Brain Cancer first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Fights Wars Knowing It Values Life, While Enemies Seek ‘Power Over Death’
Flames seen at the side of a road, amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, close to the Israel border with Lebanon, in northern Israel, June 4, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ayal Margolin
Though the most evident source of human governance is power, true power can never stem from war-making stratagems or capacities. In principle, at least, consummate power on planet earth is immortality, but such power is intangible and must be based on faith rather than science. All things considered, the promise of “power over death” holds primary importance in world politics. This is especially the case in the jihadist Middle East.
There are relevant particulars. The consequences of this sort of thinking represent a lethal triumph of anti-Reason over Reason. Such triumph, in turn, expresses the continuing supremacy of primal human satisfactions in war, terrorism and genocide. On this matter of world-historical urgency, scholars and policy-makers should consider the probing observation of Eugene Ionesco in his Journal (1966). Opting to describe killing in general as affirmation of an individual’s “power over death,” the Romanian playwright explains:
I must kill my visible enemy, the one who is determined to take my life, to prevent him from killing me. Killing gives me a feeling of relief, because I am dimly aware that in killing him, I have killed death … Killing is a way of relieving one’s feelings, of warding off one’s own death.
Whatever the standards of assessment, all individuals and all states coexist in an “asymmetrical” world. Certain state leaderships accept zero-sum linkages between killing and survival (both individual and collective), but others do not. Although this divergence might suggest that some states stand on a higher moral plane than others, it may also place the virtuous state at a grave security disadvantage. As a timely example, this disadvantage describes the growing survival dilemma of Israel, a still-virtuous state that must unceasingly bear the assaults of utterly murderous adversaries.
What should Israel do when it finds itself confronted with faith-driven enemies who abhor Reason and seek personal immortality via “martyrdom?” As an antecedent question, what sort of “faith” can encourage (and cherish) the rape, torture and murder of innocents? Must the virtuous state accept barbarism as its sine qua non to “stay alive”?
There are science-based answers. What is required of still-virtuous states such as Israel is not a replication of enemy crimes, but decent and pragmatic policies that recognize death-avoidance as that enemy’s overriding goal. For Israel, this advice points toward jihadist enemies. Of special concern is a soon-to-be-nuclear capable Iran and Iranian terror-group surrogates (e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah), notably anxious to acquire “power over death.”
Israel’s most immediate concern will be the expanding war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, a conflict in which the terrorist patron state (Iran) could display greater commitments to Reason than its associated fighting proxies. Nonetheless, even this relative reasonableness would devolve into brutish expressions of anti-Reason. What else ought Jerusalem to expect from adversaries who take palpable delight in the killing of “others?”
For Israel, there will be moral, legal and tactical imperatives. Though Reason will never govern the world, civilized states ought not plan to join the barbarians. In the best of all possible worlds, national and terror-group leaders could rid themselves of the notion that killing variously designated foes would confer immunity from mortality, but this is not yet the best of all possible worlds.
For the foreseeable future, the defiling dynamics of anti-Reason will continue to hold sway in Islamist politics. In Will Therapy and Truth and Reality (1936), psychologist Otto Rank explains these determinative dynamics at a clarifying conceptual level: “The death fear of the ego is lessened by the killing, the Sacrifice, of the Other. Through the death of the Other, one buys oneself free from the penalty of being killed.”
Israeli analysts will recognize here the elements of jihadist terror, of martyrdom-directed criminality that closely resembles traditional notions of religious sacrifice. In authoritative world law, moreover, jihadist perpetrators are always differentiable from counter-terrorist adversaries by their witting embrace of mens rea or “criminal intent.
Though Israel regards the harms it that unfortunately comes to noncombatant Palestinian Arab populations as the unavoidable costs of counter-terrorism, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally target Israeli civilians. Under international law, both customary and codified, the responsibility for Israel-inflicted harms lies with the jihadists because of their documented resort to “human shields. In law, such resort is unambiguously criminal. The pertinent crime is known formally as “perfidy.”
At a minimum, every virtuous state’s law-based national security policies should build upon intellectual and scientific forms of understanding. Ipso facto, a virtuous state’s “just wars,” counter-terrorism conflicts and anti-genocide programs should be conducted as contests of mind over mind. These contests should never be regarded as narrowly tactical struggles of mind over matter.
Israel together with all other states coexist in an international state of nature, a perpetually unstable condition that 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes correctly called a “state of war.” Despite being patently unreasonable, barbarous states and their fighting proxies subscribe to the proposition that “sacrificing” specifically reviled “others” (Jews) offers powerful “medicine” against their own deaths. Among other things, this proposition reflects a grimly ominous “triumph” of anti-Reason over Reason.
Our planet’s survival task is primarily an intellectual one, but unprecedented human courage will also be needed. For the required national leadership initiatives, Israel could have no good reason to expect the arrival of a Platonic philosopher-king among its retrograde enemies. For humane and Reason–based governance to develop, enlightened citizens of Islamic countries in the Middle East would first have to cast aside historically discredited ways of thinking about world politics and international law and do whatever possible to elevate empirical science and “mind” over blind faith and “mystery.”
Ironically, the legacy of Westphalia (the 1648 treaty creating modern international law) codifies Reason. We may discover murderous endorsements of anti-Reason in the writings of Hegel, Fichte, von Treitschke and various others, but there have also been voices of a very different sort. For the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the state is “the coldest of all cold monsters.” It is, he remarks in Zarathustra, “for the superfluous that the state was invented.” In a similar vein, we may consider the corroborating view of Jose Ortega y’Gasset in the Revolt of the Masses. The 20th century Spanish philosopher identifies the state as “the greatest danger, always mustering its immense resources “to crush beneath it any creative minority which disturbs it….”
Amid all that would madden and torment, the modern state and its proxies often “live” at the apex of anti-Reason. Before this self-destroying existence can change, humankind would first have to accept (1) the Reason-backed “sentence” of universal mortality or (2) the continuing supremacy of anti-Reason. If the second assumption is chosen, it could only make sense in a world wherein traditionally compelling promises of immortality were successfully “de-linked” from “religious sacrifices” of war, terrorism and genocide.
As the first choice is inconceivable for a species that has never generally accepted personal mortality, the second choice offers Israel its only realistic decisional context. To be sure, national and global survival amid anti-Reason can hardly be reassuring, but, at least for now, it represents the world’s only plausible prospect. As for convincing aspiring Islamist perpetrators that inflictions of war, terrorism or genocide on “others” could never confer “power over death” – this task becomes the single most important obligation of all civilized states and peoples.
Because the necessary starting point for all calculations is a world of anti-Reason, Israel will need to understand that political concessions (e.g., territorial surrenders and a Palestinian state) could never satisfy their lascivious foes.
Embracing a world of anti-Reason, these enemies are shaped by what Nietzsche calls “a world of desires and passions.” For them, such a world gives a green-light to the sordid pleasures of criminal barbarism so prominently displayed on October 7, 2023.
In essence, Iran, as mentor to the barbarians, represents the juridical incarnation of anti-Reason. A state of Palestine would add to the Iran-backed forces of anti-Reason. Iran-Palestine would present Israel with a unique existential hazard. Potentially, this hazard would be irremediable.
What next? To deal with conspicuously primal foes, enemies that seek “power over death,” Israel’s only prudential and law-based strategy should emphasize calibrated military remedies. In carrying out its soon-to-be-expanded operations against Hezbollah, Jerusalem ought never to forget that (1) its core adversary is Iran, not an Iranian terror-group proxy; (2) keeping Iran non-nuclear is an immutable national obligation; and (3) a Palestinian state could never satisfy Jerusalem’s adversaries and would inevitably become a “force-multiplying” peril of unprecedented magnitude.
Louis René Beres is Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue. He is the author of many books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war. A version of this article was originally published at JewishWebsight.
The post Israel Fights Wars Knowing It Values Life, While Enemies Seek ‘Power Over Death’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Internal Boycott of Iranian Elections Shows a Regime That Doesn’t Serve Its People
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting with a group of students in Tehran, Iran, Nov. 2, 2022. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, a landscape once rich with cultural and political heritage now suffers under the yoke of an authoritarian regime that has hijacked the once-sacred act of voting.
The disenfranchised Iranian populace finds itself ensnared in a system where elections serve as nothing more than a spectacle of faux democracy, orchestrated to sustain the illusion of legitimacy for a government that has systematically eroded civil liberties and human rights.
The recent boycotts of Iranian presidential elections is not merely a passive act of defiance, but a pronounced indictment of a regime that has failed its people spectacularly. This boycott transcends mere political disillusionment; it is a profound statement against the regime’s propaganda machine that paints participation as a civic duty, while in truth, it is a coerced endorsement of a predetermined outcome.
Within this context, the roles of presidential candidates become clear. Figures such as candidates Jalili and Pezeshkian, perceived by the public not as pioneers of change but as stalwarts of the status quo, are emblematic of a broader political malaise. They are seen not as legitimate contenders for leadership, but as cogs in a machine engineered by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. His regime, epitomized by a relentless grip on power, manipulates every facet of governance — from the judiciary to the military — to ensure that no true opposition can emerge.
Khamenei himself stands as a paragon of dictatorial excess, embodying the antithesis of the democratic values he purports to uphold. His plans to establish a dynastic succession through his son, Mojtaba, reveal a blatant disregard for democratic processes and a preference for monarchical rule disguised as religious governance. This maneuver is not just a perpetuation of personal power; it is an affront to the collective will of the Iranian people, signaling that even the semblance of choice is a privilege granted by the ruling elite, not a fundamental right.
The boycott, therefore, is a critical expression of political maturity and historical consciousness by a society that, despite being shackled by fear and repression, recognizes the futility of participating in a predetermined play. Over the decades, Iranians have cultivated a sophisticated understanding of their political landscape, informed by repeated cycles of promised reforms followed by inevitable retrenchment. This has led to a collective awakening, where the electorate refuses to validate a corrupt system through participation in its rigged elections.
The implications of this silent boycott extend beyond the immediate context of electoral politics to touch upon the very legitimacy of the regime. The vilayat-e faqih system, which centralizes religious and political authority in the hands of the Supreme Leader, is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of democratic governance. It perpetuates a model of leadership that is inherently despotic, reminiscent of historical caliphates where rulers wielded absolute power, unaccountable to their subjects.
This model of governance has not only stifled political dissent but has also led to economic stagnation and social decay. Iran’s economy, heavily sanctioned by the international community and mismanaged by corrupt elites, teeters on the brink of collapse. The regime’s failure to effectively address these issues, combined with its oppressive tactics to suppress any form of dissent, has only deepened the resolve of the Iranian people to seek change.
The reformist factions within Iran, including groups like the Islamic Left and participants of the 1979 revolution, once heralded as agents of change, now find themselves in a precarious position. Their calls for reform, constrained within the parameters set by the regime, have failed to bring about any substantive change. Instead, they serve to perpetuate a facade of progress, even as the fundamental structure of the regime remains unchallenged.
As the regime continues to clamp down on dissent and tighten its authoritarian grip, the response from the populace has been one of increasing resistance. The silent boycott is an active strategy of non-compliance that challenges the regime’s authority and exposes its vulnerabilities. This growing undercurrent of civil resistance is a testament to the resilience of the Iranian people, who, despite enduring decades of repression, are increasingly determined to imagine and fight for a future that aligns with their aspirations for freedom and justice.
In conclusion, the silent boycott of elections in Iran represents more than a momentary expression of discontent. It is a profound challenge to a regime that relies on suppression and deception to maintain control. For the international community and observers of Iranian politics, this act of boycott is a crucial indicator of a shifting political consciousness among Iranians. As this political drama unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that the path to genuine reform in Iran must be paved with the active participation of its citizens, demanding and implementing a system of governance that truly represents their will and respects their rights.
Erfan Fard is a counterterrorism analyst and Middle East Studies researcher based in Washington, DC. Twitter@EQFARD.
The post Internal Boycott of Iranian Elections Shows a Regime That Doesn’t Serve Its People first appeared on Algemeiner.com.