Uncategorized
How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports
(JTA) — Decades before Sandy Koufax sat out the first game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur, and 18 years before Greenberg chased Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record in the late 1930s, a college athlete made some overlooked Jewish sports history.
Arnold Horween, a burly Chicagoan, became the first Jewish captain of the Harvard University football team in 1920 — an achievement that sent ripples through American culture.
Horween, who would later play and coach in the early years of what would become the NFL, was born to Jewish immigrants from Ukraine. He became a star player at Harvard, helping the Crimson go undefeated in both 1919 and 1920 after returning from serving in World War I. (His brother Ralph also played at Harvard and in the NFL, and they were the first and only Jewish brothers to play in the NFL until Geoff and Mitchell Schwartz.)
But it was Horween’s unanimous selection as the team’s captain, and more importantly, his appointment in 1926 as the team’s coach, that would prove unprecedented.
“In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson, the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes,” said Zev Eleff, the president of Gratz College and a scholar of American Jewish history.
Eleff explores Horween’s story and its impact in his recent book, “Dyed in Crimson: Football, Faith, and Remaking Harvard’s America,” released earlier this year. He traces the history of Harvard athletics in the early 1900s, exploring how Horween, along with Harvard’s first athletic director, Bill Bingham, altered the landscape of America’s most prestigious college.
Horween’s ascendance came at a time when Harvard instituted quotas to limit the number of Jewish and other minority students it accepted — a practice the school would employ throughout the 1920s and 30s. His story also took place amid a political landscape that featured the rise of Father Charles Coughlin, the antisemitic “radio priest,” and the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Eleff underscores in the book, Horween did not fit the model of a “Boston Brahmin,” the class of elite, Christian, aspirationally manly men whose supremacy was unquestioned at Harvard Yard. Horween broke that mold, instead instilling a team culture where a love of the sport was almost as important as winning — the Ted Lasso effect, if you will.
“Dyed in Crimson” also uses early 20th century Harvard as an allegory for the broader theme of how sports can change society.
“The theme of the book, something that’s uniquely American, is how the periphery can influence the mainstream,” said Eleff. “How people on the sidelines can really make an influence.”
Eleff spoke to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about how Horween’s story fits into the pantheon of Jewish American sports legends and what it says about Jews’ ability to succeed in America.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Let’s dig into Horween’s story. I liked the idea of him as like an earlier version of Koufax or a Greenberg, but to be honest, I had never heard of him. Why do you think his story isn’t as well known as other Jewish athletes?
I think it has everything to do with the emergence of Major League Baseball. College football was America’s sport in the 1910s and 1920s. It was a big money sport, when there was very little money outside of the New York Yankees. And I think that Horween’s star started to sort of decline with Harvard football, but also the emergence of other sports.
The other reason is because the idea of the Jewish ballplayer loomed large. The New York Giants, for decades, tried to identify a Jewish superstar. They actually passed on Greenberg. There was a thought after Greenberg that there was Jewish DNA for baseball, and the signing of Koufax was directly linked to this notion. It was this eugenics-like link that you need a Jewish ballplayer. For the Giants, it was ticket sales. So the commotion about Greenberg and Koufax is more about Jewish identity. And baseball is, as a professional sport in New York, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, different than college football, particularly in New England at this time. Frankly, Jews lived near the Polo Grounds, they didn’t live near Harvard Yard.
Arnold Horween shown in The Baltimore Sun on November 16, 1927. (Wikimedia Commons)
For Horween, obviously he’s not at the level of a Greenberg or Koufax talent-wise, but he also didn’t seem to care as much personally about his Jewish identity. You write in the book that there were some Jews who took issue with the fact that Horween was not practicing, but there were also many Jews who were simply proud he was Jewish. What do you think about that dynamic?
There becomes a sort of disconnect between lived religion and the perception and what they come to represent — the mantle that they wear almost towers above the practice. Horween eschewed the opportunity to claim the mantle of Jewish leadership, Jewish celebrity. But we do see in its moment that he is the topic of rabbinic sermons, that The American Hebrew and other Jewish press are reporting on him. They are elated. In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson — it’s hard for people to realize, but in the moment when they were part of the big three [alongside Princeton and Yale] — the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes.
One of the parts of this book that I enjoyed learning about is the extent to which college football in the early 20th century was all about honor, masculinity, gentlemanliness. And at the time, that kind of stands in contrast to how Jews were viewed — that Jews were not masculine, Jews couldn’t fit into that mold of the “Harvard man.”
Being on the sports team, that was probably far beyond Jewish expectations. Not to say that Jews could not be athletic, but very often the varsity players weren’t picked for their talent but rather their surnames. What the sea change at Harvard is, [within] gentlemanly culture — in which “gentlemanly” is a Protestant, Christian masculinity — Horween is not Protestant. What allows him a pathway into that elite group is that drive to win. And as a player, he’s good luck. He never loses. He becomes a signature player for victory who even wins the Rose Bowl.
But as a coach, he subverts that. What he and Bill Bingham do is their campaign isn’t necessarily for winning, it’s for having fun, it’s for enjoying the game.
In the 1910s and 20s, college football was the peak of American sports, but that’s certainly not the case anymore. What do you think would be the modern comparison for someone like Horween?
Is Becky Hammon with the Spurs, the first woman [to act as] head coach in basketball, something like that? Or the very important discussions about people of color as coaches in the NFL? Sports and education are, for some reason or another, where change is made in American life. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 ends, at least officially, segregation. Title IV, what is basically American law for anti-discrimination based on sex, is based on women’s college sports. You have the breaking down of color barriers and Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Vietnam. You have the first [openly] gay athletes, you have questions of breaking the glass ceiling for women and Serena Williams.
It’s absolutely 100% true that sports doesn’t matter. Who wins the World Series is of no great consequence to most people’s lives. Although it’s interesting, if you drive up I-95 on a Sunday, you will see that the bumper stickers and the flags change. There is some sort of passion, obviously, about sport. But it’s absolutely true that for some reason or another in the 20th century and 21st century in American sport, really important social and cultural decisions, and political decisions, are made in American sport.
Zev Eleff, president of Gratz College and author of “Dyed in Crimson.” (Courtesy)
Another main topic in the book is that the goal for immigrants, especially Jews, was Americanization, assimilation — that to become part of the mainstream was the marker of success. But that seems to be the case for Jews in a very different sense than it is for Catholics and for Blacks.
The major contribution of this book to American Jewish history beyond telling this story is to complicate notions of Americanization. Jews and Catholics in particular view Americanization very, very differently. The Catholic experience is to create parallel systems. If you’re a good Catholic boy with immense football talent, play for Notre Dame, play for Boston College. Don’t play for the Protestant mainstream. Cream them on the football field. Create parallel systems.
The Jewish experience is not so. Outside of Orthodox day schools in the early 20th century, it was anathema, it was considered almost heretical, for American Jews to [go] to private schools. To the contrary, the so-called golden citadels of the public schools — that is the agent of Americanization. Jews don’t establish their own educational systems. They somehow Americanize and acculturate into the mainstream. We don’t compete with Harvard, we get into Harvard.
Thinking about the antisemitism of that time — the quotas, Father Coughlin, all of that — how do you think that compares to what we’re seeing today?
Historians disagree about the 1920s. Was it a time of great prominence of American Jews? There was affluence in the roaring ’20s. There were institutions that were created, there was creativity, from the Orthodox and Mordecai Kaplan certainly, across the board, the Jewish Theological Seminary. American Judaism was at a certain high point in the 1920s. At the same time, there were quotas, and there was rising antisemitism. I think today we also have to deal with the tension of, on the one hand, there are great opportunities for Jews in the United States; at the same time, there is antisemitism. And so from the 1920s to the 2020s, 100 years later, you see a model for how to grapple with those tensions.
What do you hope, more than anything else, someone takes away or learns from your book?
It’s a book that begins like a punch line: a working class Protestant, a Catholic and a Jew walk into a football field. But it ends with something I think a lot more pronounced, which is, it’s a story about change. As a historian, I study change, particularly in American Judaism, broadly in American religion and Jewish Studies. Change is the best asset that a historian has to study. I wasn’t interested in just finding another Sandy Koufax story, replicating that story. This is a story that isn’t just about a Jew who happened for his moment to become quite successful and quite famous, or a Catholic or a former mill hand turned first athletic director in college history. It’s really about how people on the periphery influence the mainstream.
—
The post How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
China Expresses Outrage Over Senior Taiwanese Official’s Reported Trip to Israel
A Taiwan flag can be seen on an overpass ahead of National Day celebrations in Taipei, Taiwan, Oct. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ann Wang
China has strongly condemned a senior Taiwanese official’s reported secret trip to Israel, describing the issue of Taiwan as a “red line” for the Chinese government and warning the Jewish state not to send “wrong signals” to those pushing for the island’s independence.
The Reuters news agency reported on Thursday that Taiwan’s high-profile Deputy Foreign Minister Francois Wu made a recent, previously unpublicized visit to Israel, citing three sources familiar with the trip.
China considers Taiwan, a nearby island run by a democratic government, as a renegade Chinese province that must be reunited with the mainland — by force, if necessary. Due to pressure from Beijing, few countries have formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Israel only recognizes Beijing but not Taipei, which has been increasingly looking to Israel for defense cooperation.
Taiwanese diplomats travel abroad, but trips to countries such as Israel are rare.
The anonymous sources told Reuters that Wu had visited Israel in recent weeks. Two of the sources said the trip happened this month.
China responded with outrage to the reported trip.
“The one-China principle is the consensus of the international community and a basic norm of international relations,” China’s embassy in Israel said in a statement. “It is also the prerequisite and foundation for establishing and developing diplomatic ties between China and countries around the world, including Israel.”
The embassy then invoked the China-Israel Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, which states that Israel recognizes that the Chinese government “is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.”
Describing the issue of Taiwan as a “red line,” the embassy said it “firmly objects” to Israel’s reported contact with Taiwanese officials.
“The Taiwan question concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and constitutes an inviolable red line at the very core of China’s core interests,” the statement continued. “The Chinese side firmly objects to any form of official exchanges with the Taiwan authorities, which seriously violate the one-China principle. We once again urge the Israeli side to faithfully abide by the one-China principle, correct the erroneous actions, and stop sending any wrong signals to separatist forces advocating Taiwan independence, so as to uphold the overall interests of China-Israel relations through concrete actions.”
Taiwan’s foreign ministry has declined to comment on whether Wu visited Israel.
“Taiwan and Israel share the values of freedom and democracy, and will continue to pragmatically promote mutually beneficial exchanges and cooperation” in areas such as trade, technology and culture and welcome more “mutually beneficial forms of cooperation,” it said in a statement.
Israel‘s foreign ministry has similarly not commented on the matter.
An Israeli official told Israel Hayom that the visit took place but downplayed its importance. The official reportedly said that Wu met with two members of Israel’s parliament, known as the Knesset, from the Opposition and the Coalition. However, Israel’s Foreign Ministry boycotted the visit as part of its policy of non-confrontation with Beijing on the issue of Taiwan, according to the report.
Still, Taiwan views Israel as an important democratic partner and has been a strong backer of the Jewish state since the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza.
In October of this year, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te said that Israel is a model for Taiwan to learn from in strengthening its defenses, citing the Biblical story of David versus Goliath on the need to stand up to authoritarianism.
“The Taiwanese people often look to the example of the Jewish people when facing challenges to our international standing and threats to our sovereignty from China. The people of Taiwan have never become discouraged,” he said. “Israel’s determination and capacity to defend its territory provides a valuable model for Taiwan. I have always believed that Taiwan needs to channel the spirit of David against Goliath in standing up to authoritarian coercion.”
He made the remarks during a dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Taiwan.
That same month, Wu met in Taipei with Yinon Aaroni, Director General of Israel‘s Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs, while in September Taiwan President Lai Ching-te met six Israeli lawmakers at his office.
Taiwan has a de facto embassy in Tel Aviv, while Israel has a similar representative office in Taipei. There is no similar arrangement between Taiwan and the Palestinians, with whom China has a close relationship. China recognized a Palestinian state in 1988. Taiwan has said it does not plan to recognize a Palestinian state.
Lai in October announced a new multi-layered air defense system called “T-Dome” to defend itself against a possible future attack by China. It is partly modeled on Israel‘s air defense system.
Lai told the AIPAC dinner that T-Dome had been inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, as well as US President Donald Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defense shield.
“I believe that trilateral Taiwan-US-Israel cooperation can help achieve regional peace, stability, and prosperity,” he said.
The Chinese embassy’s statement chiding Israel this week came days after China slammed the Jewish state earlier this month for recently joining a United Nations declaration condemning Beijing’s human rights record.
Israel had endorsed a US-backed declaration, signed by 15 other countries — including the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan — that expressed “deep and ongoing concerns” over human rights violations in China.
In a rare move, Jerusalem broke with its traditionally cautious approach to China — aimed at preserving diplomatic and economic ties — by signing on to the statement. The signatory countries denounced China’s repression of ethnic and religious minority groups, citing arbitrary detentions, forced labor, mass surveillance, and restrictions on cultural and religious expression.
According to the statement, minority groups — particularly Uyghurs, other Muslim communities, Christians, Tibetans, and Falun Gong practitioners — face targeted repression, including the separation of children from their families, torture, and the destruction of cultural heritage.
In response, China’s Foreign Ministry accused the signatories of “slandering and smearing” the country and interfering in its internal affairs “in serious violation of international law and basic norms of international relations.”
Meanwhile, Beijing continues to strengthen relations with Iran, whose Islamic government openly seeks Israel’s destruction, and expand its influence in the Middle East.
China, a key diplomatic and economic backer of Tehran, has moved to deepen ties with the regime in recent years, signing a 25-year cooperation agreement, holding joint naval drills, and continuing to purchase Iranian oil despite US sanctions.
China is the largest importer of Iranian oil, with nearly 90 percent of Iran’s crude and condensate exports going to Beijing.
Iran’s growing ties with China come at a time when Tehran faces mounting economic sanctions from Western powers, while Beijing itself is also under US sanctions.
According to some media reports, China may be even helping Iran rebuild its decimated air defenses following the 12-day war with Israel in June.
These diplomatic moves come amid an already tense relationship with China, strained since the start of the war in Gaza. In September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Beijing, along with Qatar, of funding a “media blockade” against the Jewish state.
At the time, the Chinese embassy in Israel dismissed such accusations, saying they “lack factual basis [and] harm China-Israel relations.”
That same month, however, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank, released a report showing China has increasingly used state media and covert campaigns to spread anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives in the United States.
The report examined how China’s state media portrays Israel and the United States as solely responsible for the war in Gaza, depicting them as destabilizing actors while spreading anti-Israel and antisemitic messages.
“It is evident that China and its proxies play a significant role in the current wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the United States,” Ofir Dayan, a research associate in the Israel-China Policy Center at INSS, wrote in the report.
According to Dayan, China’s dissemination of anti-Israel narratives is not intended to directly harm Israel but rather to undermine the US, while preserving its valuable diplomatic and economic ties with Jerusalem.
“Israel is used as a tool to advance Beijing’s claim that Washington destabilizes both the international system and the regions where it operates,” the report said.
While China’s primary aim is to target the United States, Israel ends up suffering “collateral damage” as a result, the study found.
Uncategorized
Trump Plans to Appoint US General to Lead Gaza Security Force: Report
A drone view shows Palestinians walking past the rubble, following Israeli forces’ withdrawal from the area, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, in Gaza City, Oct. 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alkas
The Trump administration is planning to appoint an American two-star general to command the International Stabilization Force in Gaza, Axios reported on Thursday, citing two US officials and two Israeli officials.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
A United Nations Security Council resolution, adopted on Nov. 17, authorized a Board of Peace and countries working with it to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force in Gaza.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, who visited Israel this week, told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials that the Trump administration is going to lead the ISF and appoint a two-star general as its commander, Axios said.
The White House and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.
President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday that an announcement about which world leaders will serve on the Gaza Board of Peace should be made early next year.
The resolution, drafted by the US, described the Board of Peace as a transitional administration “that will set the framework, and coordinate funding for the redevelopment of Gaza” in line with Trump’s 20-point peace plan to end the war with terrorist group Hamas.
Uncategorized
Al Jazeera’s Academic Arm Denies Hamas Sexual Violence and Other Crimes
The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon
Al Jazeera Centre for Studies — the research arm of Qatar’s state-backed media giant — co-hosted an academic conference last week in Qatar’s Education City that whitewashed Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre, and dismissed UN-verified sexual violence and other terrorist acts as Israeli fabrications.
Al Jazeera partnered with Hamad Bin Khalifa University to host the November 29-30 gathering, titled “International Media and the War on Gaza: Modalities of Discourse and the Clash of Narratives,” which drew academics to “deconstruct Western narratives” and the alleged role of Western media outlets in producing “propaganda manipulating international public opinion.”
In a seven-page concept note describing the goals of the conference, Al Jazeera’s organizers charged the Western media with justifying “Israel’s right to self-defense” and spreading “propaganda” about terrorist groups like Hamas, which they refer to as a “Palestinian resistance faction.” The organizers also attacked media outlets for writing about what it refers to as “false reports” about Hamas terrorists “raping Israeli women.”
During Hamas’ assault on Israel, terrorists systematically employed sexual violence as a weapon of war, including rape against women and girls. A New York Times investigation detailed at least seven locations where Hamas terrorists committed such acts, including gang rape and genital mutilation. In December 2023, then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned Hamas’ use of sexual violence and described it as “beyond anything I’ve seen.”
According to the Dina Project, an Israeli group of legal and gender experts, Hamas used sexual violence in its massacre “as part of a genocidal scheme” meant to “dehumanize Israeli society.”
The organizers’ concept note and the conference’s program made no reference to Hamas’ genocidal charter, its embedding of military assets in civilian areas, or the terrorist group’s responsibility for prolonging the conflict. The conference instead provided a platform for Al Jazeera journalists and academics to explain away Hamas terrorism and denigrate Israel.
While it operates under strict Qatari media laws that limit free speech and freedom of expression, making criticism of the Emir and his policies punishable by law, Al Jazeera’s Centre for Studies refers to itself as an “independent research institution that aims to present a balanced understanding of the geopolitics of the MENA region and the Arab world in particular.” While it seeks to appeal to an audience with Western sensibilities, the center is far from the public-facing independent institution that it presents itself to be.
The center was established in 2006 to “provide research support to the editorial teams, correspondents and departments of Al Jazeera’s news channels.”
Al Jazeera Organizers and Speakers Push Hamas’s Agenda
Arafat Madi Shoukri, who works as a senior researcher for the Centre for Studies, organized the conference. In 2013, Shoukri was designated as a Hamas operative by Israel for his work with the Hamas-aligned Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR).
Shoukri has been photographed with Ismail Haniyeh, one of the architects of the October 7 massacre. He also directed the London-based Palestinian Return Centre (PRC), an organization with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has national branches that promote violent jihad and Hamas. In 2010, then-Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared the PRC an “illegal association,” referring to it as a “Hamas affiliated organization” that engages in “terror affiliated activities.”
The conference featured as its keynote speaker Wadah Khanfar, a former director general of Al Jazeera, who has been linked to Hamas fundraising efforts, with evidence suggesting he helped coordinate Hamas paramilitary activity in South Africa. According to the Raya Media Network, a Palestinian outlet, Khanfar was “active in the Hamas movement” and a “leader in the movement’s office in Sudan.”
In May 2024, Khanfar praised Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack, proclaiming it “came at the perfect moment for a radical and real shift in the path of struggle and liberation.” Khanfar had a close relationship to the late Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, who leveraged Al Jazeera’s global reach to endorse terrorism against Jews, Israelis, and Americans and spread antisemitic narratives. Khanfar eulogized him at his funeral.
“There is a betrayal of the values of justice through capitalist savagery,” Khanfar said during his lecture, titled “The Grand Narratives of Western Media in Covering the War on Gaza: Manifestations of Political and Ideological Domination.” His lecture attacked Israel for “hastening the fall” of Western civilization, while ignoring Israel’s strategic role as a democratic anchor for the West in a mostly volatile and authoritarian region of the world.
Campus Reform reports that professor Ibrahim Abusharif, who spoke at the conference, co-founded and served as treasurer of the Quranic Literacy Institute, which was “later found by a federal jury to have laundered more than $1 million to Hamas” in a terrorism financing case. The publication reported that Abusharif taught the mandatory “Doha Seminar” for all American exchange students at Northwestern’s Qatar campus.
Mutaz al-Khatib, director of the Master’s Programme in Applied Islamic Ethics at Hamad Bin Khalifa University’s College of Islamic Studies, spoke at the conference on “professional ethics” in war coverage. On the day of Hamas’ October 7 massacre, al-Khatib posted on Facebook that, “What happened was merely a rehearsal that shows that liberating Jerusalem is possible.”
Fatima Alsmadi, a researcher at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, moderated a session and presented on Hamas spokesperson Abu Obaida’s “impact on international public opinion.” Abu Obaida, who was killed in an IDF strike in August 2025, reportedly employed “psychological warfare games against Israel” and attempted to make Westerners more “sympathetic” to Hamas.
Alsmadi claimed in her lecture that Israel has somehow “benefited” from Nazism. She praised Hamas propaganda efforts employed by Abu Obaida that weaponize Nazi imagery against Israel, seemingly endorsing a media strategy that perversely brands Israel as a Nazi state to legitimize Hamas terrorism and invert historical truth.
In the same session, Manal Mazahreh, an associate professor of mass communication at the University of Petra, in Jordan, claimed that, “The Jews are largely controlling the media in the world,” repeating an antisemitic trope used to justify hostility toward Jews.
In one session, Eman Barakat, an associate professor at the University of Science and Technology in Yemen, described the Israeli government’s social media presence as “digital warfare” and claimed it has manipulated public perceptions by labeling Hamas as “pure evil” and an “illegitimate group.”
Barakat focused her presentation on Israel Speaks Arabic, a Facebook page with more than three million followers. She assessed that the page described Hamas as “morally degraded,” “lowly,” and “cowardly,” and highlighted the group’s involvement in criminal and murderous activity. She warned her audience that such language “makes you imagine things” and might lead users to believe that “maybe what they are saying is true.” Barakat dismissed Hamas’ history of brutality and terrorism not only against Israel but against Palestinians and others.
Freedom House evaluates Qatar as “Not Free” in its annual Freedom of the World report.
Al Jazeera sells its content to major wire services like the Associated Press and Reuters. Al Jazeera has resource-sharing agreements
Until Doha stops using its universities and state media to whitewash terrorism, American institutions and companies need to reconsider their relationship with all platforms in Al Jazeera’s vast ecosystem. Continued partnerships and collaboration from Western organizations only emboldens the next denial and further justification for violence.
Toby Dershowitz is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Asher Boiskin is an intern. Follow them on X @TobyDersh and @asherboiskin