Tiger Hill Partners Represents the Foundation for the Development of Western Syria in Washington
Syria has a long and rich history of peaceful coexistence among diverse ethnicities and cultures, including Christians, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and other minorities. Some estimates indicate that 40-45% of Syria's pre-war population comprised ethnic and religious minorities. After years of civil war and tragedy, the Syrian people yearn for a unified state that protects all ethnicities and religions and upholds human rights.
To achieve this goal, the Foundation for the Development of Western Syria has contracted with Tiger Hill Partners. Together, we look forward to working with policymakers in Washington to ensure that the human rights and protection of all Syrians — including Christians, Druze, Alawites, moderate Sunni Arabs, and other communities — are a top priority.
"We are honored to support the Foundation's mission a to promote and consolidate a peaceful, inclusive, and prosperous future for Syria," said Milan Dalal, Founder and Managing Partner of Tiger Hill Partners. "Our team is committed to ensuring that the rights of all Syrians, including Christians, Druze, Alawites, Kurds, moderate Sunni Arabs, and other minorities, remain central to U.S. engagement in Syria's transition."
The Foundation for the Development of Western Syria is a non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting stabilization, reconstruction, and inclusive governance across western Syria and throughout Syria, with a particular focus on protecting vulnerable communities and fostering interethnic and interfaith cooperation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
4 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Religious Opposition to Trans Healthcare Is a New Phenomenon
Conservative Christian political organizations, including the Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council are celebrating the Supreme Court's June 18 decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti. The case upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming healthcare—including hormone treatments and surgical interventions—for transgender minors. Various conservative Christian leaders have similarly claimed that the high Court's ruling affirms the scientific and divine reality of biological sex. The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, for example, issued a press release describing Tennessee's law as 'built upon the framework of biblical convictions' defending 'the historical and biological definition of sex.' In an amicus brief filed for this case last spring, the U.S. Conference of Catholics Bishops put it more directly: religious opposition to gender affirming healthcare is 'long-held and universally applied.' But history tells a different story. Reactions from Christian leaders to gender-affirming healthcare were far more diverse in the past. There was no historical consensus on the topic, as far-right conservative Christians today claim. And, in fact, some leaders from denominations that vocally oppose such care in the current moment once chose to support the decisions of doctors and transgender patients who pursued medical interventions. We can see how religious reactions to gender-affirming healthcare have become more conservative by looking at how various Christian leaders responded to the opening of the Gender Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1966, compared to their opinions of that same clinic (and others like it) today. The Hopkins clinic was the first of its kind in the U.S. to offer gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adults and children. When it opened, a range of clergy, including from conservative traditions, supported it. Fast forward to today—on the heels of a decades-long conservative family values movement—and that very same clinic is now being vilified by conservative religious leaders. The pioneering Johns Hopkins clinic is cited in the Tennessee bill at the center of the Supreme Court case as a site of child abuse carried out by the psychologist who was one of its first directors, Dr. John Money. Read More: SCOTUS' Blow to Trans Rights Is History Repeating Itself News of the clinic first broke in 1966 with a story published in The New York Times. Newspapers across the country followed suit, describing the medical techniques taking place there—procedures that were then called 'sex reassignment surgery' or 'sex change operations.' It is perhaps surprising that the clinic opened at a time when the U.S. was two decades into its Cold War mission that positioned the traditional nuclear family—structured around heterosexuality and gender difference—as what made America superior to the USSR, which by contrast treated men and women alike as mere workers in the Soviet state. Yet, the clinic appeared at a time when cracks were becoming more visible in America's idealized traditional family façade. Movements for women's liberation and gay and lesbian rights were newly afoot and fighting for greater social acceptance and legal protections. The modest gains these movements had made by 1966 would only escalate in the coming years, before triggering a conservative backlash. The Hopkins clinic fit squarely into the desire of these movements to offer Americans alternatives to the rigid gender roles and compulsory heterosexuality of the Cold War era. The Hopkins clinic also opened its doors at a time in the mid-20th century that historians have called the 'golden age of medicine.' Several important scientific advancements in medical treatments had recently been made, and (especially white, male) doctors then enjoyed widespread respect as a result. By the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, some areas of medicine, such as psychiatry, would face increasing criticism, including from social movements representing women and LGBT people. But in 1966, Americans were, for the most part, still extremely trusting of medical institutions and the expertise of doctors, especially at top medical schools like Johns Hopkins. In this atmosphere, instead of opposing the clinic, conservative Christian denominations were largely silent about its opening. Denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Roman Catholic Church did not issue official statements condemning the medical care the clinic offered, as they have done in recent years. To the contrary, some religious leaders supported transgender people's access to gender-affirming care. For example, the President of the Maryland Council on Churches and an Episcopal priest, Reverend John N. Peabody, said publicly that gender affirmation surgeries, if used responsibly, 'would be in accord with Christian teachings.' 'How else,' he wondered, 'can these persons hope to attain any individual happiness or find any acceptance at all in our society?' Peabody's remarks appeared in an article in the Baltimore Sun titled, 'Clerics Approve of Sex-Change Operation.' The article queried 12 other Baltimore clergy, representing Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches. Though a small sample, their reactions were notably compassionate towards transgender people and supportive of the doctors who provided their care. A Baptist pastor affirmed simply, 'I'm all for it. I see no moral objection to it.' To be sure, there were critics of Johns Hopkins' Gender Identity Clinic in 1966, but the opposition was mostly contained within professional medical circles or scattered among newspaper editorials. A national, highly organized conservative family values movement did not mobilize until the early-to-mid 1970s, in response to national political fights over gender and sexuality—in particular, those catalyzed by opposition to legal abortion and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the Johns Hopkins Clinic and other university and private hospitals that offered similar healthcare to trans people in the late 1960s and early 1970s opened without facing widespread opposition. But soon, conservative Christian leaders and activists would align with conservative politicians, mostly in the GOP, to form what today we recognize as the Christian Right. Gender and sexuality were central to their cause, which advocated that Christian men and women were biologically and socially distinct, intended to complement one another in heterosexual and procreative marriages. This united evangelical Protestant and Catholic activists who shared this view. At its core, the 'pro-family' movement which began in the mid-1970s was an anti-trans articulation of the immutability of binary sex. But conservative activists at the time largely conflated trans people with 'homosexuals,' who were the official targets of many of their early campaigns. The Gender Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins would shut down in 1979, just as the Christian Right was gaining momentum and about to help send their chosen presidential candidate, conservative Republican Ronald Reagan, to the White House the following year. The hospital would not offer gender-affirming healthcare for nearly 40 years, until its Center for Transgender Health opened in 2017, joining numerous other clinics that were in operation across the country. Read More: Trump's Anti-Trans Attacks Won't Stop With Us In the 21st century, visibility and acceptance of transgender people has grown. At the same time, conservatives have expanded their agenda to explicitly target trans issues. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, released its first resolution opposing transgender identity in 2014, the same year that Time Magazine published its now famous cover story on the 'transgender tipping point.' Though the Roman Catholic Church spoke out against the social construction of gender in the 1990s, its first statement opposing transgender identity came in 2019. Although today's conservative activists claim that religion has always been on their side in opposing transgender identity and rights, the history of the Hopkins clinic offers a corrective. Religious opposition to gender-affirming healthcare was not inevitable nor universal. In fact, it is a relatively modern development in the unique American landscape that now blends conservative politics with conservative Christianity. Dr. Kelsy Burke is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and an Affiliate Scholar with the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). They are currently writing a book on the origins and evolution of the anti-transgender movement in the United States. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Family of Kurd executed by Iran deny allegations linking him with Mossad
Iran's judiciary has executed Kurdish porters under charges including "moharebeh" (enmity against God), and "efsad-e fel-arz" (corruption on earth). Iran's judiciary ordered the execution of three Kurdish porters on the day the ceasefire between Israel and Iran was announced, BBC's Farsi site reported on Friday, quoting the family of one of the three, who insisted that he was innocent. According to the report, the three were arrested two years ago on charges of collaborating with the Mossad by allegedly smuggling equipment to be used in the assassinations of Iranian officials. The judiciary is continuing arrests of dozens of Afghan refugees, Kurdish porters, and Iranian citizens on charges including "moharebeh" (enmity against God), and "efsad-e fel-arz" (corruption on earth), both of which can carry the death penalty. "If someone is even slightly guilty, would they go on their own feet to a place where they know they will be arrested? He was innocent," the cousin of one of those executed claimed. The daughter of one of the executed porters is asking for the autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq to assist in bringing her father's body home. His family reportedly stated that they will not believe their relative was executed until they see his body. However, the KRG told the BBC that they have not received a formal request to assist in returning the body. Kurdish porters often work across the border between KRG and Iran, transporting goods that are usually pre-packaged. The porters do not open the packages because Iranian buyers will only accept unopened goods, BBC reported. "Even if the Islamic Republic's claim is true, and these porters were transporting equipment for Mossad, Mossad would never tell them that it is for an assassination. Mossad can hide explosives in a pager, so it certainly can hide them in cigarette or perfume boxes," BBC cited a KRG security official as saying. "We have no evidence that equipment has been smuggled from Kurdistan to Iran. Mossad has high-level influence in Iran and doesn't need porters in border villages," the official added. According to the report, the three Kurds were alleged to have been transporting equipment used by Mossad to assassinate nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Human rights organizations speak out against Iranian execution Human rights organizations are concerned that the executions were an attempt to "terrorize the population" of Iran rather than to punish the actual perpetrators of any crimes, following Israel's airstrikes in June. The three Kurds were executed "without a fair trial and based on confessions extracted under torture," BBC cited Director of Iran Human Rights, Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, as saying. Activists also condemned the executions as "rushed and unjust." Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
Syria's Islamist Regime Is Testing the West's Conscience—and Winning
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A sense of impending doom is growing among Syria's Christians, which comprise less than 10 percent of the country's population before the 2011 war. Despite promises Syrian President Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa made to President Donald Trump about upholding justice for all and protecting Syria's minorities, they are now becoming targets. This chilling development hit home for me recently when my friend, a Christian doctor from Hama, a city north of Damascus, recently found himself in a tense encounter with a Syrian soldier. During a minor disagreement, the soldier snapped, "Shut up, infidel," invoking a moniker that has deadly implications. Woman cries as Syrian Christians gather in the St. Elias Greek Orthodox Church on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria, on June 23, 2025, a day after a suicide bomber, allegedly linked to ISIS, blew up... Woman cries as Syrian Christians gather in the St. Elias Greek Orthodox Church on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria, on June 23, 2025, a day after a suicide bomber, allegedly linked to ISIS, blew up his explosives. More LAURIN STRELE/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images Following this threatening exchange, my friend attempted to escalate the matter within the government and gain the protections al-Sharaa had pledged. Instead, he was referred to a religious authority, one of the many new clerics who now holds power in Syria's parallel Islamist state structure. "Why are you complaining," the sheikh asked him. "You Christians are infidels." This was not an isolated case. It captures the reality of Syria under al-Sharaa, a state increasingly modeled on a hardline theocratic vision, where religious doctrine overrides civil law and where minorities no longer feel safe. Consider the recent massacre in Suwayda, a region with a Druze majority and a considerable Bedouin presence. Violence broke out between the local Druze and Bedouins, as it has in recent years. But, for the first time, the government intervened and took a side in the fight. Al-Sharaa's regime sent Islamist militias, armed with military-grade weapons and accompanied by drones, to join the local Bedouins in attacking the Druze. Similar to Hamas on October 7, the Islamist fighters in Syria uploaded gruesome videos to Telegram that included beheadings of Druze men, sexual assault of women and girls, executions, and torture. Reports from inside Suwayda described scenes of unimaginable horror. From the government's perspective the calculus was clear: The Bedouins are Sunni Muslims and therefore considered "believers." The Druze religion, which grew out of Shiite Islam and has its own unique beliefs and practices, is considered heretical. Among the dead in the Suwayda massacre were not only Druze but more than 20 Christians, including Reverend Khaled Mazhar, an evangelical pastor who had converted from the Druze faith. He was murdered alongside 12 family members. Weeks before the slaughter, a suicide bomber struck St. Elias Church in Damascus. The West largely ignored the attack, distracted by the Israel-Iran escalation. Yet the bombing signaled a terrifying new phase for Christians. For days, mangled bodies of worshipers remained in the church, with stray animals picking at the remains. Still, al-Sharaa remained silent. No words of condolence. No public statement. Instead, his forces confiscated security cameras in the neighborhood, prompting allegations that the attackers were former jihadists now operating under his patronage. This is not just a Syrian crisis. It is a global one. Granting legitimacy or "a chance" to this current Syrian regime is a catastrophic mistake. Doing so will only force the United States and its allies into future, costly interventions to root out terrorist networks emboldened by state power. While the international community is more focused elsewhere, Syria is undergoing a quiet but radical transformation. The formal institutions exist only for show. The real authority lies in the hands of Islamist clerics and militia leaders. The structure resembles ISIS, both in form and function. Israel, unlike many Western observers, understands the stakes. It took direct action to halt the massacre in Suwayda, forcing the Syrian regime's withdrawal. Ahmad al-Sharaa, rather than pursuing de-escalation, praised the Bedouin attackers and fanned the flames of sectarian violence. Some U.S. officials have reportedly expressed concerns over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "finger always on the trigger." But in light of Suwayda, perhaps the question is not why Netanyahu is so quick to act—but why others are so slow. In a region where unchecked extremism can lead to genocide overnight, hesitation is not wisdom, it is complicity. The moral burden now falls on Washington. Turning a blind eye to what is happening in Syria again would be a stain not just on American foreign policy, but on the conscience of the free world. Hadeel Oueis is a director of Arabic communications at the Center for Peace Communications. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
