Banksy Calls for a Cease-Fire in Gaza

 

 

On December 22, 2023, the world-renowned and controversial anonymous artist Banksy took a stand on the Israeli airstrikes occurring throughout the Gaza strip, which have taken the lives of tens of thousands of innocent and helpless Palestinian men, women, and children and destroyed entire neighborhoods, communities, and familial bloodlines. At first glance, the piece could be interpreted as utterly harmless, simplistic, and meaningless, but when analyzed in light of the ongoing instances of violence and bloodshed in Palestine, which are attributed to the use of carpet bombings and air-to-air missiles by the Israeli military, the work sparks questions and encourages conversation surround the ethics behind airstrikes and the implications of “war,” if one can even classify the conflict as so. The Instagram post, displayed on Banksy’s official public Instagram account with a following of 12.6 million and pictured above, displays a stop sign at a busy intersection in southeast London defaced with three planes in a downward direction. The planes appear to be military-style drones, which are typically used to execute carpet bombings and drone strikes like those that have been occurring in Gaza over the last seven months.  

When conducting a cultural study on a piece of artwork by Banksy, it is important to recognize that the way the anonymous curator displays his pieces could be considered by some to be a form pornography if classified as distasteful graffiti. That said, the work itself grasps the attention of people regardless of the content it is evoking. The defamation of a traffic sign is particularly jarring because it cannot be as easily covered up or removed as would be painting over the side of a building. Also, this stop sign's geographical location is at a busy intersection, frequented by traffic and pedestrians. Given these particular circumstances, it would not be far-fetched to presume that the artist intended for this piece, and the political message behind the content, to be observed, discussed, and pondered by many. The work builds overt resistance against the Israeli’s relentless bombardment of the Gaza strip using government-funded aircrafts and explosives, and the use of social media to promote the critique of Israel’s offensive actions on Palestinian civilians further reiterates the artists calling for a cease-fire. Even after the sign was stolen by two men with bolt cutters, the thought-provoking artwork and its underlying intending statement persisted to circulate the internet, newspapers, and social media platforms.  

In terms of looking at this in conversation with cultural representations of war, I found the execution of the controversial statement through the artwork to be tastefully minimalistic. I could just as easily advocate for the intended message being a critique for the use of airstrikes on occupied civilian cities and communities in general, but the association to Gaza seems legitimate, especially given that in 2005, the artist had canvassed several other thought-provoking and controversial paintings on the Israeli-Palestinian boarder known as The Standing Wall in the West Bank. The artist has previously established their solidarity with Palestine regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict that has been ongoing for decades. I personally enjoy the work of Banksy very much, but the stop sign piece, when considering the alluded context and message behind the physicality of the art, was especially successful in its ability to convey such a polarizing issue using such simplistic images in ordinary settings. There is also something enticing about the anonymity behind the artist, because by maintaining the consolidation of their identity, they are removing the potential for implicit and explicit biases any audience members my carry with them upon their initial interaction with the artwork.  

 

 

Marines Call it the 2000 Yard Stare

The image above is famously known as the “Marines Call it the 2000 Yard Stare”. Before discovering its actual title, this is an image that I recently discovered as it was circulating as a meme on platforms such as Reddit and X. It has been used to emphasize the shock of realization in a specific situation. For example, user Beaulooo on X used the image in response to finding out that the game Rainbow Six Siege came out eight years ago, saying “8 YEARS?????”. Aside from being used as memes, this image has a deeper story connected to war culture and the reality of those who serve in war.

“Marines Call it the 2000 Yard Stare” was created by Thomas Lea from El Paso, Texas. According to Ashley White, “From 1941 to 1946, Lea traveled more than 100,000 miles documenting life in the service during WWII, documenting important historical events like the bombing and sinking of the USS Wasp by Japanese torpedoes” (White). Over his time, he produced art that embodies the experience of war and how it is defined. Lea aimed to produce content as realistic as possible, saying, “I did not cuddle up with personal emotion, moral notion, or political opinion about War with a capital W. I reported in pictures what I saw with my own two eyes, wide open “ (Huard). 

The painting was featured in Life magazine in 1945. It features a soldier with a wide-eyed, deserted stare in the midst of the chaos of war. Behind him, we see smoke, tanks, and soldiers. The distant gaze possessed by the soldier can be attributed to post-traumatic stress disorders that cause dissociation among soldiers and veterans. Thomas Lea described the soldier's experiences in his painting as “He left the States 31 months ago. He was wounded in his first campaign…. Two thirds of his company has been killed or wounded but he is still standing. So he will return to attack this morning. How much can a human being endure?” (Dailey and Warner). These traumatic war experiences can lead to the effects depicted in this painting. It is common for soldiers to see and undergo things that can be very traumatic and detrimental to their psychological health. This image does a good way of encapsulating the aftershock of soldiers throughout their war experience for the viewers' grasp and comprehension. 

The painting “Marines Call It the 2000 Yard Stare” resembles Chris Kyle's experience in American Sniper. After returning home from war on his tours, Kyle seemingly suffers from PTSD and dissociation. There are multiple scenes in the movie where Chris Kyle exhibits dissociation due to war effects comparable to the one displayed in the painting. In one scene, he stares in front of his television, wholly shut out from his family around him, both audibly and visually. In another scene, Chris Kyle is at a child’s birthday party where he zones out as his wife speaks to him. He then blacks out and attempts to attack a dog that was playing with a child. It gets to a point where his wife begs him to be human again, showing that this affects not only the soldiers but their relationships as well. 

Parallel to the “Marines Call it the 2000 Yard Stare”, Chris Kyle also exhibits levels of dissociation on the battlefield itself. In his first kill, we see Chris Kyle with a firm eye on his sniper and target. The audience hears the focus of his breath and muffled noise after he makes his kill. He shuts out everything around him, making it comparable to the image as the unnamed soldier is distant from the commotion occurring behind him.

This cultural study of the famous painting “Marines Call It the 2000 Yard Stare” has forced me to reflect on war culture and its psychological effects on those participating in it. It appears that disorders such as PTSD and dissociation are something that is normalized or come with the territory for most soldiers, and this saddens me. Being a part of war, you must make many sacrifices, and mental health appears to be one of the biggest. It makes me contemplate if I would be able to handle an experience of that nature and trauma. Soldiers go into war already knowing that there is a potential that they will not come back the same. Not only are they going into a war between nations or territories, but potentially with themselves.

Works Cited

Dailey, Jason I., and Christopher H. Warner. “The 2,000 Yard Stare.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 30 Apr. 2015, ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13121682.

Fawcett, Kirstin. “Tom Lea Created Some of World War II’s Most Powerful Images.” HistoryNet, 14 May 2020, www.historynet.com/tom-lea-created-some-of-world-war-2s-most-powerful-images/.

Lacy, Robert. “Notes from a Nightmare Century.” The American Interest, 8 Aug. 2017, www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/01/notes-from-a-nightmare-century/.

White, Ashley. “World War II Battlefield Paintings Featured in Life Magazine Now in Lafayette Museum.” The Daily Advertiser, Lafayette Daily Advertiser, 10 Nov. 2022, www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2022/11/10/world-war-ii-paintings-once-in-life-magazine-now-at-hilliard-art-museum/69626604007/.

“Be All You Can Be:” Redefining War and the Army

“Be All You Can Be:” Redefining War and the Army

Sarah Boumlouka

Military enlistments have reached a 40-year low in 2020, with a 58% decline from 1980. The number of applications to the military dropped by 73% over the same time (USA Facts). These startlingly dropping numbers leave the Army’s marketing department an enormous task: grabbing the attention of potential recruits. The Army’s newest campaign, “Be All You Can Be,” particularly the video, “First Jump,” is the Army’s attempt to redefine current negative connotations of war into positive connotations to improve public opinion on the Army.     The video opens with a black screen and a small yellow star that expands and grows into the shape of the US Army logo.  

Starting the video with a star (a soldier) growing into the logo of the Army mirrors their campaign slogan “Be All You Can Be.” It implies that the army brings growth in soldiers by allowing them to gain a mystery trait, experience, etc., that they would otherwise be missing. 

While the video does not explicitly explain what the Army offers someone’s growth, it implies this element as a positive experience through the calming music and scenic imagery. 

    For example, here is a frame from early in the ad: 

    And a shot from inside the helicopter: 

 

The music and images create a calming atmosphere, attempting to dismantle negative connotations of war– and, subsequently, the military– as violent and chaotic. The Army is forming a connotation of beauty war by fostering a calm and positive mood, a strategy crucial in capturing potential recruits’ interests. 

In addition to these scenic images and music, the images of the soldiers themselves provide a sense of camaraderie. When the screen shows the soldiers sitting next to one another, they are all smiling. One man, presumably the head, screams at the others to stand up, but it doesn’t feel aggressive. The soldiers stand comfortably, and line up to jump out of the helicopter. The scene even includes two soldiers doing a handshake. 

Immediately after jumping out of the helicopter, we see this message in front of a soldier: 

                     

Then, the camera pans to all the soldiers’ parachutes and finishes the message: 

                      

And as they land, there is a shot of the soldier smiling and laughing. 

                            

    This differs from the Army’s typical “fight-for-your-country-because-it’s-cool-and-rugged” approach, instead opting for a more gentle, interpersonal, connection-based appeal to the Army. It implies that soldiers are happy and unable to achieve their “greatest victories” without the Army and their peers.

This idea furthered by the ending “Be All You Can Be,” where soldiers are laughing and conversing in the background. 

            

But what does “Be All You Can Be” even mean? What does it imply about being a citizen of this country, or at least, from the military institution’s point of view? If joining the military is needed to become “all you can be,” then would one be an incomplete person without it?       

This slogan is meant to give the viewer FOMO. They are made to feel that they would be missing out on something if they did not partake in the Army, and, based on the positive nature of the video, this something is an experience positive and crucial. 

However, this slogan is ironic: we often find that soldiers lose a part of themselves due to the war or military. For example, in Full Metal Jacket, we watched the military training turn Pyle, a formerly happy and easy-going recruit, into a shell of what he once was. Instead of gaining or growing as the ad suggests, Pyle– and other soldiers– tend to lose due to the military. We can confirm this with the extreme amounts of cases of mental health issues within the veteran communities. The Army knows this and knows its reputation, so this attempt to rebrand itself and war is in hopes of changing the effects of growing public disapproval. 

“This video proves that my and this generation's anti-war efforts and attempts at holding the military accountable for their wrongdoings have had an impact. The military has changed its approach from a more rugged appeal to recognizing the disconnect between its values and the current generation’s values. It is a resultant attempt to create a more gentle image of the military. 

Something else this study reveals is my skepticism towards marketing narratives that aim to reshape public perception. In a media-saturated world, messaging can greatly influence beliefs and behaviors. This has led me to question the motives behind campaigns and their broader effects have on societal values. My analysis highlights a fundamental doubt regarding the effectiveness and sincerity of marketing narratives that alter public perception, signaling the importance of transparent communication and ethical messaging practices.

Works Cited

USAFacts. (2023, November 24). Is Us military enlistment down? https://usafacts.org/articles/is-military-enlistment-down/#:~:text=Slightly%20more%20than%20148%2C000%20people,time%2C%20from%20768%2C532%20to%20205%2C105. 

YouTube. (2023, November 6). First jump | be all you can be | U.S. army. YouTube. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luc9saxt_YQ 

Eye on Palestine & the New York Times

                           By: Chelsie Almonte

In recent months, the long-standing issue of the genocide of Palestinians has become more visually accessible through Instagram. The platform’s owner, Meta, claims that their initiative for Instagram is to provide a “safe and inclusive” site where individuals can be “inspired, express themselves, feel closer to anyone they care about, and turn a passion into a living.” However, as events have unfolded, Instagram has become a place where people can be educated, informed, and interact with current events such as the genocide of Palestinians. Significantly, one can observe how Instagram pages advocate for justice and even how major media outlets like the New York Times cover the issue. It is clear that war is no longer limited to the nations or states involved in the conflict — we all have a role to play. 

As someone interested in media and cultural studies, I compared and contrasted how the New York Times Instagram page covered the Israel–Palestine War in relation to Eye on Palestine, an Instagram page whose sole initiative is to spread awareness of Palestine. That said, The New York Times has been brought to criticism by other media outlets as it became apparent the phrasing of events and coverage was biased in favor of Israel in comparison to Palestinians. Many have found that within the early months of the issue, the New York Times was passive in indicting deaths of Palestinians as murdered or killed while stating that Israelis were “massacred.” Beyond media outlets, protests were issued within New York Times headquarters as their passiveness continued within articles. While the New York Times page seems to center discourse on the issue as something far beyond reach, Eye on Palestine uses its page to inform while further encouraging viewers that their voice matters against the genocide. That said, I focused on recent coverage of the destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital by Israeli forces and in what ways these two different pages reported on this event. Noteworthy, I could only find two posts covering the 2-

week siege on the Al-Shifa Hospital on the New York Times page. The post titled "Israeli Army Withdraws From Major Gaza Hospital, Leaving Behind A Wasteland" is the first of the two posts. Though its titling is far better than what has been seen before, this post doesn't cover half of the devastation. Within the following few slides of this post, the photos focus on the Israelis who brought reporters to the major hospital despite the horror that the Palestinians were undergoing surrounding the destruction. In viewing these photos, the New York Times depicts this current event as a "war" experienced by only one sector of people instead of getting the whole picture. It creates distance for us civilians to avoid taking part in resisting the genocide of Palestinians. 

In comparison, Eye on Palestine has countless posts and videos concerning the destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital. Beyond focusing on the destruction of the building, they have posts that center on Palestinians who have been affected. Immediately, one can spot the difference between the New York Times, which only shows half of the story. In contrast, Eye of Palestine posts photos of Palestinians searching the rubble and surrounded by the buildings of the hospital that can no longer be in use. They additionally include videos and pictures of the surrounding area of the hospital, which included people's homes that were destroyed as well. As contemporary art that we have seen concerning the occupation of Iraq, Eye of Palestine humanizes the war. It provides insight into the innocent lives that have been physically and psychologically damaged by a one-sided war. As a result, it impacts civilians such as us to take part in resisting the aid of Israeli forces. That includes taking part in boycotts of companies such as Starbucks, condemning New York Legislation pouring taxes to aid the Israeli Army, taking part in protests, and much more. 

Along with the photo seen above, Eye on Palestine included videos that show the hospital's surroundings, which were affected. The video consists of Arabic and English, allowing it to reach a far larger population. However, it goes without saying that the New York Times did not take the initiative to include their titles or captions in another language. This barres off those who can engage with the post and can, as a result, be informed of tragedies taking place.  People's homes were destroyed, and yet the New York Times's page did not show any coverage beyond the hospital. As stated, Eye on Palestine humanizes the war and showcases that real lives are being affected, furthering various viewers to see that this war is not beyond their reach. At the same time, the New York Times defines this war as an issue we can only be informed of but cannot take part in changing; however, that is far from the truth.  

To conclude, as someone who has the privilege to speak out on this issue, I take every chance I can get. As I have argued, war is no longer farfetched as it can be seen through devices at our fingertips. The difference between before and now is how someone will interact and be a voice for those under scrutiny or become a bystander to the horrors others face. 

Sources: 

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/ 

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-times-protest-gaza-ceasefire-c1482efbb3f767a0898a3d20f9647bc2 

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5RDrvgLDzu/?img_index=1

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5NIzDCq6dt/?img_index=6

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5OIGH4qv9s/

https://about.meta.com/technologies/instagram/ 

"Masters of the Air" and the Longing for a Simple War

 

“Masters of the Air,” a new Apple TV produced television series, tells the true stories of the crews of American airmen, particularly those of the “Bloody” 100th Bomb Group, as they carried out aerial bombing raids on Nazi Occupied Europe during the Second World War. Produced by Gary Goetzman, Tom Hanks, and Stephen Spielberg, the show is a continuation of two previous World War Two shows that Goetzman, Hanks, and Speilburg produced: Band of Brothers (2002) and The Pacific (2010), with the former focusing on infantrymen in Europe following D-Day and the latter focusing more broadly on Marines in the Pacific theater of the war. Each of these shows, in addition to being focused on the experience of American soldiers, share similar characteristics. First, they are exceptionally well crafted with intense attention to historical detail and accuracy, and with extremely high production value. “Masters” even ups the ante some with a reported budget of 250 million dollars for nine episodes. As the New York Times wrote in its review, “the first–and for many viewers, perhaps, sufficient observation to be made about “Masters” is that the money, more than ever, was right up there on the screen.” Interspersed with delving into the men’s lives in and around the base (and later in POW camps), the show miraculously recreates numerous massive aerial combat sequences involving hundreds of planes. Most impressively, these sequences rarely betray their unreality. They are not only stunning in their visual realism, but utterly visceral in their representation of what aerial combat felt like inside the aircraft. Perhaps the aspect of the show (and this is also true of the earlier World War Two shows from this production team) that I find most commendable is that they create combat sequences that are spectacular, without allowing them to become pure spectacle. It is impossible to walk away from this show without a renewed understanding of just how utterly horrible war can be. I, rather naively, never gave much thought to what happened inside the aircraft during these bombing raids and aerial battles. That has changed. The show does not shy away from graphically showing the horrific injuries and deaths that airmen met. As the show continues, the sickening rates of attrition take their toll and many characters beloved in early episodes are dead. Before raids in later episodes, it is almost possible to feel the fear of the men through the screen. They know the horror many of them will face and so do we.

Another characteristic of these shows, “Masters,” included, is that they center on the heroism of the American soldier. In “Masters of the Air,” there is a carefully crafted sense that each of the central characters (who are based on real airmen) is a “good man.” These men, though imperfect, care deeply for each other and look out for one another whenever they can. In battle, they conduct themselves competently and courageously. Never do we see them commit egregious moral errors. They also seem capable of tremendous restraint. In the final episode one of the central characters, Buck (Austin Butler), refrains from retaliating after a German child kills one of his fellow soldiers after they escape Nazi captivity. Instead, he yells at the child to run away. While it may be true that these men were, by and large, heroes who did extraordinary things when the moment in history made it necessary, it can seem at times that the show is afraid to depict anything that might call the morality or heroism of these men even slightly into question.

 In watching the show over numerous evenings, I repeatedly found myself wondering why World War Two shows like this are perennially marketable and popular. One obvious answer is that World War Two was among the most consequential, cataclysmic wars ever fought and thus will inevitably be an object of fascination. However, it also strikes me that there is some part of the American psyche (and of my own psyche) that longs for a moment in time when the justice of war was evident, when through all the horror of combat, destruction, and death, there was an inarguable righteousness of cause. The show, as many before it have, makes painstakingly sure that we know how evil the Nazis are. One of the show’s most disturbing moments comes when some of the American POWs see a train pulling away from a station, with hundreds of arms, presumably of Jewish prisoners, reaching out of the railway cars desperately for help. The show does not need to tell you where that train is going. Of course, as a viewer, there is tremendous satisfaction in seeing the horrific evil of the Nazis defeated and in celebrating the heroism of the people who did so. 

There is a classic cliche moment in the final episode where the POWs raise an American flag over the newly liberated prison camp and everybody erupts in raucous applause. Perhaps it is moments like these that led the New York Times to gently accuse the show of, “trying to celebrate 1940s style patriotism one time too many.” However, seeing an American flag flying over a Nazi prison camp is something I can celebrate. Of course, even in the Second World War, the United States was far from a perfect example of wartime conduct (see Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc.) and perhaps no combatant ever is. But it seems that many of our more recent wars, most notably Vietnam and Iraq, have lacked the clarity in objective, righteousness of cause, and crucially, victory, that World War Two had. It is perhaps for this reason that watching a film like American Sniper leaves me with far more ambiguous feelings, even though it is still seeking to depict a heroic American soldier. Chris Kyle (at least as he is depicted in the movie) might have been a good man and a great soldier, but questions about the justice, necessity, and outcome of the war he was fighting in are always in the back of my mind as I watch the film. While that may not make his character any less heroic, it still makes the viewing experience a far more complicated one. When I see the American flag on the poster for that film, it creates feelings of confusion and doubt. It’s a similar cliche use of the flag to the one in “Masters,” but in the context of a different time, a different war, and a different story, rousing even a momentary feeling that the flag represents righteousness and justice, at least for this viewer, is a far more difficult task. 

By: Rod Cardamone 

Link: https://tv.apple.com/us/show/masters-of-the-air/umc.cmc.7bxcni0vwgll9kmicq738k5q2

Works Cited 

Hale , Mike. “‘Masters of the Air’ Review: Hanks and Spielburg, Back at War .” New York Times https://tv.apple.com/us/show/masters-of-the-air/umc.cmc.7bxcni0vwgll9kmicq738k5q2. Accessed 4 Apr. 2024.

Western Intervention: Hypocrisy and Failures in the Middle East

In delving into the cultural landscape surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict, it becomes apparent that this longstanding and deeply entrenched issue evokes a plethora of perspectives and debates. Two particularly compelling viewpoints emerge from a political cartoon titled "Biden's hypocrisy for designating Ansarullah as terrorists," and Nicholas Kristof's New York Times opinion editorial titled "Israel, Gaza and Double Standards, Including our Own." These cultural artifacts offer a lens through which to examine the complexities and nuances of Western responses to conflicts in the Middle East, shedding light on the hypocrisy and double standards inherent in international discourse.

Figure 1: “Biden's hypocrisy for designating Ansarullah as terrorists” via Nournews

The political cartoon offers a visually striking commentary on Western responses to terrorism in the Middle East. Depicting President Biden standing in a pool of blood, wearing around his neck the names of countries wherein the United States has been embroiled in conflicts, the cartoon effectively illustrates the irony of Western labeling of certain groups as terrorists while being implicated in conflicts that result in civilian casualties. By juxtaposing Biden's accusatory finger-pointing at a Palestinian man with the backdrop of Western interventionism, the cartoon exposes the inherent hypocrisy and double standards embedded within Western foreign policy, particularly in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Kristof's op-ed serves as a potent critique of the unequal scrutiny directed towards Israel's actions compared to other global crises. Kristof adeptly navigates the complex web of geopolitics, drawing attention to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comparison between Israel's response to the 10/7 Hamas attack and America's reaction to a similar situation – correctly resurrecting the bloody legacy of the war on terror post 9/11. Kristof exposes the underlying double standards at play, urging readers to critically assess the disproportionate focus on Israel's military actions in Gaza. Furthermore, Kristof highlights the stark disparity in attention given to Israel's actions compared to other humanitarian crises, such as the ongoing atrocities in Sudan. This comparison serves as a sobering reminder of the selective outrage that often characterizes international responses to conflict, underscoring the need for a more profound and compassionate approach to conflict resolution. Despite acknowledging the existence of Western-curated double standards, I resonate deeply with Kristof's assertion that it is “unconscionable to use the world’s hypocrisy, however invidious, to justify the deaths of thousands of children in Gaza.” (Kristof). The peril of employing a "whataboutism" mindset to legitimize war and state-sanctioned violence lies in its perpetuation of a cycle of unending conflict, stifling any potential for sociocultural advancement and unity.

Both cultural texts provide valuable insights into the complexities of war and state-sanctioned violence in the Middle East. The Israel-Hamas conflict is not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of deeper geopolitical tensions and historical injustices that have plagued the region. Perpetual war has become a defining feature of the Middle East, with conflicts often driven by complex political, economic, and ideological factors. The Israel-Hamas conflict is emblematic of this cycle of violence, perpetuated by decades of occupation, displacement, and marginalization. Moreover, Western powers have played a significant role in fueling this cycle of violence through military intervention, covert operations, and political support for certain actors in the region. The United States, in particular, has been deeply involved in the Middle East, often pursuing its own strategic interests at the expense of stability and peace. The Israel-Hamas conflict is just one example of how perpetual war has become normalized in the region, with devastating consequences for civilians caught in the crossfire. The ongoing violence perpetuates a cycle of trauma, displacement, and suffering, with no end in sight.

In confronting the Israel-Hamas conflict, it is essential to recognize the broader context of perpetual war and the interconnected nature of conflicts in the Middle East. Only by addressing the root causes of violence and injustice can we hope to break free from this cycle and build a more peaceful and just future for all. Both the political cartoon and op-ed serve as poignant reminders of the need for a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of conflict and the broader geopolitical dynamics that shape them; they challenge us to critically examine the role of Western powers in perpetuating injustice and inequality in the region.

Reflecting on this cultural study, I am struck by the stark contrast between the rhetoric of Western powers and their actions in the realm of international relations. As a student of humanitarian studies, I am deeply passionate about addressing global injustices and promoting peace. However, I am also acutely aware of the pervasive hypocrisy and double standards that characterize Western responses to conflicts like the one in Gaza. This study has reinforced my belief in the importance of challenging dominant narratives and advocating for more ethical and compassionate approaches to conflict resolution. It has also underscored the need for greater empathy and understanding in navigating the complexities of geopolitics.

By Hannah Black

Works Cited

Kristof, Nicholas. Israel, Gaza and Double Standards, Including our Own: Nicholas Kristof. New York: New York Times Company, 2024. ProQuest. 

“Biden’s Hypocrisy for Designating Ansarullah as Terrorists.” Nournews, 20 Jan. 2024, nournews.ir/en/news/161820/Biden’s-hypocrisy-for-designating-Ansarullah-as-terrorists.