Maps, although seemingly objective representations of the world, have enormous power. They shape our understanding of space, determine the directions of our travels and define political boundaries. But beneath the façade of neutrality lies the potential for manipulation.

The history of warfare is replete with examples of maps being used to dehumanize the enemy. Some of them are very obvious. Satirical maps were created by all sides of the First World War, depicting Europe as a series of caricatures intended to dehumanize enemy states and push a narrative of victory in the war.

Other examples are less obvious. During the Vietnam War, the US military created maps that marked specific regions of Vietnam “free fire zones”, meaning that any person or activity inside this zone could also be considered hostile and a goal for military force. This tactic effectively worn out the civilian population from the map, treating your complete area as an enemy stronghold.

The dehumanizing effect of maps comes from their inherent abstraction. Maps simplify reality by reducing a fancy landscape teeming with life and history to lines, symbols and colours. While needed for clarity, this simplification often results in the removal of the human element.

For example, the map below shows the locations of known Russian military and ground attacks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The map uses symbols to simplify the conflict. We later learned that one of these cartoon-like icons represents Bucha massacre in which Russian forces reportedly killed 458 Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war.

Fueling conflict

Maps may also be used to bolster the “us versus them” mentality that fuels conflict. They create a visible distinction between “our side” and “theirs”, clearly marking enemy territory.

The day before Genocide in Rwanda in 1994, extremist Hutu media produced maps which divided Rwandans based on ethnicity: Hutu and Tutsi. These maps were not only geographical representations, they were identification and tracking tools.

Maps often used contrasting colours to sharply separate Hutu and Tutsi areas. This visual distinction created a transparent separation between the in-group (Hutu) and the out-group (Tutsi), promoting the concept Tutsis are not part of the material of Rwanda.

Some maps went further, using symbols similar to machetes or snakes to represent Tutsis, depicting them as brutal and dangerous. These maps were widely distributed through newspapers and radio broadcasts. They not only identified Tutsis, but additionally served as visual propaganda to justify violence against them.

This visual separation promotes a way of distance and difference, making it easier to perceive the enemy as an abstract threat fairly than other people. Propaganda maps exploit this effect by exaggerating the dimensions of enemy territory or depicting the enemy population as faceless masses.

Removing an individual from the map

The IDF’s introduction of grid maps to Gaza in December 2023 introduced one other way of dehumanizing the population. Like free fire zones throughout the Vietnam War, Israel divided Gaza into over 600 blocks, ostensibly to assist evacuation of civilians.

Any block on the map that may be reached via a QR code found on leaflets and social media posts can receive evacuation warnings before that square is bombed. However, support staff do warned that the map risks turning life in Gaza right into a “battleship game” in which the flattening of any given grid square is justified by the looks that it’s an empty spot on the map.

Maps also influence the best way we, as observers, perceive conflicts. This may extend beyond the battlefield. Maps often depict refugees as a homogeneous mass, leaving out the person histories and desires that drove them from their homes.

In the early stages of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for instance, the BBC got here under fire in the case of one map that shows the movement of refugees with arrows. People on social media he suggested that these symbols commanded invasion fairly than flight. In response to criticism, the BBC updated the map to make use of proportional circles as a substitute.

Homework is completed

The dehumanization inherent in war maps is just not inevitable. For example, including civilian infrastructure and population density in military maps could be a constant reminder of the human costs of conflict. Oral histories and community map projects can even offer alternative perspectives on the land, highlighting the human histories often erased by military cartography.

The conflict in Gaza has shown that lessons are being learned about how you can higher use maps during conflict. Reutersfor instance, maps were used together with other textual and visual elements to assist tell a fuller story and complete what maps alone could never achieve.

Ultimately, maps are tools that may be used for good or evil. We must strive to look beyond the lines and symbols and remember the people whose lives are affected by the conflicts depicted on the maps.

Sitting in Wadi Araba under the blazing midday sun, senior Jordanian officials and their Israeli counterparts signed the declaration historic peace agreement in 1994, which ended a long time of conflict between the two countries. It was the second peace agreement that Israel had signed with an Arab country, witnessed by then-US President Bill Clinton, greater than a decade after peace was made with Egypt.

At the same time, artillery fire from southern Lebanon in protest hit targets in northern Israel, with the shelling attributed to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Party of God. Now, 30 years later, Hezbollah dam northern Israel continues in the face of the devastating conflict in Gaza and the escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran. People throughout Jordan feel this manner taken to the streets demanding that King Abdullah tear up the peace agreement.

Jordan has long been seen as a pillar of stability in the Middle East. He is an ally of the US and cooperated with Washington during the War on Terror, while other Arab states were deeply opposed. However, the Hashemite kingdom currently finds itself in a precarious situation.

Since the bombing of Gaza began in October 2023, anti-Israel sentiment has increased dramatically across the Arab world. This anger was felt strongly in Jordan.

The country provided shelter to many Palestinians who were displaced from their ancestral homes in 1948 – an event generally known as the Nakba. And Jordan is now home to estimators 3 tens of millions Palestinians. This means that events in the West Bank and Gaza have reverberations in Jordan.

The pressure is rising

While there have been demonstrations across Jordan since the starting of the Israeli bombing, they’ve intensified in recent weeks. Since March 24, protests have been occurring in the capital of Jordan, Amman (including outside Jordan). Israeli Embassy), in addition to in Karak and Irbid.

The protests began as an expression of support for Hamas and opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza. But protesters are starting to direct their anger at the Hashemite court, the administrative and political link between the king and the Jordanian state.

They called for an end to the peace agreement, a halt to exports of goods to Israel and a severance of diplomatic relations with Israel. These moves are almost not possible considering Jordan reliance with the help of the US, a key ally of Israel. However, the pressure on the Hashemite court is undoubtedly growing.

Protesters expressed anger over the events in Gaza, in addition to fear that Jordan could be affected by the forced displacement of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. These fears will not be groundless, as the events of 1948 show. Perhaps much more disturbing are the Hashemite court accusations by some protesters that the king was “in cahoots” with the Israelis.

Fearing an escalation of the protests, the Jordanian government is trying to limit them. Clashes between protesters and security forces broke out near the Israeli embassy and the Baqaa refugee camp arrestssparking criticism from human rights groups and increasing anger amongst people on the streets.

Pressure on the Jordanian state can be growing from other sources. Funding for the UN aid agency Unrwa has been cut amid allegations that its staff were involved in the October 7 attacks. Jordan has been directly affected as Unrwa provides essential services to over 2 million refugees in the kingdom.

Regional instability

Jordan’s geographic location in the heart of the Middle East means that unrest in the Hashemite kingdom poses a serious challenge to neighboring states, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt. On April 5, the heir to the throne of Saudi Arabia and de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman called King Abdullah and expressed Saudi Arabia’s support for the measures taken by the Government of Jordan to maintain Jordan’s security and stability.”

Regional news outlets have also come out against protesters, portraying them as Iranian or Islamist puppets. Opinion in Al-Arabiya he argued that “Islamist groups want to profit from (ongoing protests in Jordan) … and recreate the revolutions of the Arab Spring.” The Arab Spring was a wave of pro-democracy protests and uprisings that took place across the Middle East and North Africa in 2010 and 2011, difficult some of the region’s entrenched authoritarian regimes.

At Asharq Al-Awsat, former editor-in-chief Tariq Al-Homayed: he suggested that the unrest in Jordan would enable Iran to extend its supply lines to the Mediterranean, giving Iran “a foothold on the border between Saudi Arabia and Egypt.” Another newspaper “Okaz” taken over that the unrest in Jordan was part of “Iran’s project to expand Tehran’s influence” in the Middle East.

This combination of Islamist and Iranian threats could appear counterintuitive given their different political and sectarian characteristics. Islamists similar to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood follow Sunni Islam, while Iran sees itself as a leading Shiite power. However, after the Gaza war began and the contours of regional politics modified, the two camps became increasingly close.

The common anti-Israel stance is where the two sides come together. These were Islamist groups in addition to individuals utilized by some as a means of countering the Shiites and, consequently, Iran’s gains after the 2011 Arab uprisings.

However, in recent years, Islamist groups similar to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have been watched considered the fundamental threat to internal and regional security from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries due to their long-standing criticism of the rulers in Riyad and Abu Dhabi.

As the Middle East moves away from its eventful days normalization that characterised the spring and summer of 2023, Jordan stays on the precipice. Bringing peace to Gaza is a needed step toward reducing tensions in the Hashemite kingdom, but this alone is probably going to be insufficient.

Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr.who died on March 20, 2024 at the age of 95, was seen as legend for heroism in battle.

But despite his military successes, Gray, who served as the twenty ninth Commandant of the Marine Corps from 1987 to 1991, will eternally be related to one of the darkest days in US military history: Bombing of barracks in Beirut On October 23, 1983, over 300 people died in a terrorist attack, including 241 American service members under Gray’s commandalthough he was in the United States at the time of the attack.

How a scientist currently conducting research on a project regarding this attackI am unable to help but notice that Gray’s death comes at this point wave of violence in Lebanon and at a time when U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East are once more targeted by Iran-funded Islamist groups.

Marines in Lebanon

Gray’s experience with U.S. involvement in Lebanon highlights the dangers faced by U.S. soldiers deployed to unstable areas.

On June 4, 1981he was assigned to command the 2nd Marine Division and all battalions that entered war-torn Lebanon between 1982 and 1984.

By then, the country’s civil war had been happening for six years. It began further April 13, 1975and like the current surge in violence in Lebanon, it has been fueled by events south of the country’s border.

Palestinians expelled or fleeing what became Israel in 1948 ended up as refugees in neighboring countries, including Lebanon. In 1964 Palestine Liberation Organization was founded to represent the Palestinian people and fight the Israeli occupation. By the mid-Seventies it had passed 20,000 PLO fighters They were in Lebanon and carrying out attacks on Israel.

However, their presence in Lebanon led to violence between Lebanese Christians and Lebanese and Palestinian Muslims. While some in Lebanon wanted peace with Israel, others desired to fight for the Palestinian cause.

Several gruesome massacres commemorated the first five years of the Civil War. In 1982, Israel began Operation Peace for Galileeinvaded Lebanon and occupied Beirut with the intention of destroying PLO forces.

The Lebanese authorities turned to Western powers for help. In August 1982, the governments of the United States, France, Italy and Great Britain created the so-called multinational peacekeeping force whose goal is to revive peace and stop fighting between the Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis.

This was not the first time Lebanon turned to the United States for help. ON July 15, 19581,700 marines arrived in Beirut able to fight as hostility broke out between Christians and Muslims. However, unlike in 1958, the fighting in the Eighties was far more brutal, and trench warfare had been raging for over five years.

Although most Lebanese welcomed foreign peacekeeping forces, many opposed them and viewed them as Western colonial interference in Muslim-majority countries.

The day of the attack

Then, October 23, 1983witnesses reported seeing a yellow Mercedes truck speeding towards the barracks where American service members were staying. It was carrying 10,000 kilos of explosives, and the force of the explosion leveled the constructing, killing 220 Marines, 18 U.S. Navy sailors, and three U.S. Army soldiers.

Just a few minutes later, a similar attack took place in the French Quarter, resulting in the deaths of: 58 French paratroopers.

To at the present time, this event stays the so-called deadliest single-day attack for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945.

Islamic Jihad, a pro-Iran Shiite group, admitted responsibility for attacks.

Gray, a two-star general, was The attacks were reported just after midnight. The Beirut barracks bombing was a personal matter for Gray; his soldiers were in Lebanon and he had visited them just a few months before the attack.

After the bombing, Gray was present 100 funerals service members killed. He too he resigned over this incident – the only senior officer to achieve this. His request was denied.

Lessons from 1983

Many parallels may be drawn between the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 and current events.

In August 1982 President Ronald Reagan expressed serious concern about Israel’s conduct in Lebanon and warned Israel against the offensive use of American weapons. In a telephone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Reagan described the Israeli siege of Beirut as a “holocaust”.“

A multinational peacekeeping force has been tasked to answer this human crisis evacuation of PLO fighters outside Lebanon to Tunisia. After completing this mission, American troops withdrew from Lebanon.

However, the escalation of violence caused their return. In fact, while the Palestinian fighters were evacuated, their families remained at home. Then, after assassination of Lebanese president-elect Bashir Gemayel On September 14, 1982, the Christian Falangist militia entered two refugee camps in Sabra and Shatila and killed over 2,000 Palestinian civilians. Israel was considered not directly liable for these massacres.

From this point on, American troops were not seen by Muslim militias as peacekeepers, but as allies of Israel and a partner in the crimes committed against Muslim civilians.

Forty years later, U.S. troops in the Middle East remain targeted for the same reason. As a result, US service members saw it increased hostility against them in the region.

There is one other similarity: like the group that claimed responsibility for the 1983 Beirut attack financed by Iransimilar to today there are groups liable for attacks on American bases in the Middle East.

Gray, inspired by the mistakes of the 1983 bombing sought reform Marines in the wake of tragedy, with a particular emphasis on intelligence gathering and understanding enemy groups.

And while it is right to honor a high-ranking military officer who dedicated his life to duty, it is equally vital to contemplate the causes that led to the deaths of those under his command – and the incontrovertible fact that many aspects influencing the 1983 terrorist attacks are still occurring .