The Rich World Revolts Against Sky-High Immigration | China’s Nuclear Taboo Isn’t as Strong as It Seems | Another Uprising Has Started in Syria, and more

in the stadium. The Israeli players could hear the shouts of the protesters from outside the ground in the silent stadium. 
“We had to scream the national anthem because the Scots didn’t play it on the stadium loudspeaker,” one Israeli player told Haaretz.
The Glasgow Euro 2025 qualifier match demonstrated that continuing to defer action on Israel could pose a growing risk of disruption for global soccer—and showed that fans possess a form of leverage that may be more effective than formal pleas to the FIFA council. Fear of disruption had prompted the authorities to stage the match behind closed doors, barring entry to fans. (Even then, hundreds of raucous protesters showed up outside the city’s iconic Hampden Park stadium, and one managed to delay the kickoff by sneaking inside and chaining himself to a goal post.)
Soccer in an empty stadium, as the COVID lockdown era reminded us, is a pale shadow of the spectacle that makes it the world’s premier (and most lucrative) TV viewing.
A sports boycott is no silver bullet to end Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza or its long-term denial of Palestinian rights. But a conditional ban on competing internationally in a sport with broad social popularity can destabilize the offending regime’s own sense of legitimacy by highlighting for ordinary citizens the abnormality of their reality in the eyes of the world

Another Uprising Has Started in Syria  (Charles Lister, Foreign Policy)
Six years ago, the Syrian regime conquered the southern province of Daraa, popularly known by millions of Syrians as the “cradle of the revolution.” That military victory represented a pivotal moment for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. After all, it was the last time the regime captured a sizable swath of opposition territory, and in doing so in July 2018, its impunity was laid bare for all the world to see. On paper, Daraa had been designated a “de-escalation zone” after months of intensive international diplomacy in which the United States had played a central role.
Despite that protected status, regime forces with heavy Russian military assistance proceeded to besiege Daraa; shell it to rubble; and after weeks of brutal violence, coerce it into surrendering. Washington’s most reliable umbrella of opposition allies, the Southern Front, was abandoned—advised to surrender by U.S. officials. Since then, the regime’s status has never been in question, as international actors have methodically backed away, fatigued and disinterested. Since that decisive moment, as far as many were concerned, Assad had won and Syria’s crisis was over, its effects contained.
In truth, Assad never “won,” —he merely survived, thanks to the consistently strong support of Russia and Iran, but also to that international disengagement. In the years since, the world’s interest in working to resolve Syria’s debilitating crisis has completely evaporated. In Washington today, the mere suggestion of doing anything more on Syria in policymaking circles draws exasperated gasps and sarcastic laughs, not attention.
And yet, in many ways, the situation in Syria is worse than it’s ever been. There are clear and sustained signs of an Islamic State recovery; a multibillion-dollar regime-linked international drugs trade; and ongoing geopolitical hostilities involving Israel, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and the United States. The regime’s grip over areas under its control has never looked more frail and unconvincing.