Whether we like it or not, immigration is the reality of our world today. This fact, in addition to the fact that it can become an opportunity with proper individual and organizational management, also has its own challenges. Among other things, one of the challenges that arise for immigrant communities and the immigrant generation is the identity crisis. The crisis of identity is a broad and multidimensional debate, but with a simpler view, this crisis among the second and third generation of immigrants is caused by a duality – on the one hand, they inevitably have to reject the relatively strict traditional-religious behavior of their parents, and on the other hand, they cannot fully absorb the secular and civil values ​​of the host society.

At the same time, these second and third generation immigrants need a series of rituals, education and ceremonies in which they can feel themselves and find a sense of belonging. Because they have rejected the worn-out advice of their parents, they lose their respect, attention and empathy.

But on the other hand, they are not respected outside when they face the more important and larger part, that is, the host society. That is, because they cannot be successfully absorbed into the host society, they do not attract attention and respect from there and are isolated. While as human beings they need attention and respect from others – to be someone for themselves and to be known and honored with the title they like. If we want to explain the identity problem in simple language, this is it. Of course, this is not a general case. There are so many young people who are successfully recruited and busy with their daily work and are in positive interaction with institutions and human groups in their field of work every day. This is a huge success in terms of integration. But naturally, there are those whose absorption process in the host society is disturbed due to various reasons.

They are thirsty for attention and seeking respect because of the aforementioned emptiness. In this case, they are waiting hard for someone, an institution or a group to be found under its order to become meaningful signifiers even at the cost of obeying or blindly following. Because following also reminds at least that they are human and some people need to follow them.

Immigrants want to be respected by the host countries as it strengthens the sense of belonging to the community

Due to this need, many addresses with religious, ethnic and cultural names have been created among immigrants and usually they all offer some kind of identity product. Because they know that the immigrant community needs things to remind them that they belong to a certain nation, race, or religion in times of identity crisis. They have a special past and history, and based on their ancestral religion, they will be treated in a special way in heaven.

Also, in this world, angels always have a good opinion of them. When they feel that they have been rejected from the reality of society due to the difficulties of immigration, it is natural for them to take refuge in imaginary sources and ask for respect and attention from there.

This seemingly makes their existence meaningful and strengthens their sense of belonging to the same group, but on the other hand, it further separates them from the main body of the host society. This separation is not only deep, but sometimes becomes a factor resistant to assimilation and integration.

Efforts should be made so that the situation does not reach a point where that vacuum is formed or reaches a critical level. The way to avoid this gap is absorption and integration. Being absorbed is not easy for immigrants; Therefore, a practical solution should be considered for it. For this, it is good to ask: What helps us to become like the society or people of our host country or second home? What do they have? What do we have in common?

In response, it should be said: Our first and most important contribution is in “citizenship”. That we are citizens of a certain country and being a citizen requires commitment and sacrifice. If we reach this civic understanding that citizenship is a principle prior to other elements of identity such as religion, religion, language and ethnicity, I think we have traveled an important part of the way. It is the only umbrella that can cover everyone equally, so that no one feels left out.

The good thing about this umbrella is that in order to join it, no immigrant needs to become a Christian first to become a citizen of a certain country, or to be white first to qualify for citizenship. It is enough that they respect the rights and freedoms of the members of the society.

This is the result of the maturity of human history, which is steered by Western civilization, and now Western countries also consider themselves obliged to comply with it.

Of course, this has not always been the case in the West. For example, more than half a century ago in Germany, Jews were legally ineligible for German citizenship as long as they insisted on their Jewishness. The granting of citizenship, which is actually the granting of the right to live again, regardless of religion, ethnicity and region, based only on being “human”, is an unprecedented achievement in human history, which is implemented in first world countries.

The identity loss and wandering shows itself in various forms.

The phenomenon of migration and the lack of compatibility of new arrivals with the new environment is not a new thing. For example, after the industrial revolution in the 19th century, these same countries faced the problem of identity crisis. Due to the impact of the industrial revolution, people suddenly moved from the surrounding areas to the cities, and those who had just arrived in the city had exactly the same situation as today’s immigrants, who are thrown from the third world countries to the center of the largest cities of the first world countries, and it is impossible not to get lost.

This identity loss and wandering shows itself in various forms. The problem of internal migration in Western countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, caused by the mass migration of rural people to the cities, was solved by gradual integration. Today, the challenge of immigration to these countries can only be managed with sustainable and intelligent integration.

But what is important is the implementation of this integration in the healthiest way and with the least cost for the host society and the immigrants. Integration is inevitable, it just needs to be managed well. If integration does not take place, urban life with its own nature and the whole issue of government-nationality and national identity of these countries will face danger and no country likes this.

One can think about those who just arrived in the city two centuries ago, how it was hard for them to lose their local dialects and customs and religious and regional traditions, but now their current generations who were born in the city, grew up and educated in the city, are basically urban and they do not have the accent of their great-grandfathers nor their customs. They are either from London or from Manchester or from Birmingham and all of them are English and they have nothing to do with their villages.

Current immigrants also have to go through such a process. That is, they should be absorbed in the urban life and civic values ​​and nationality of the host countries. As Fukuyama, a contemporary political scientist, says “although with the victory of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Salafist movement in Saudi Arabia in the same years, the assumption that Muslim immigrants in Western countries should maintain their independent religious institutions was strengthened.”

Several decades of bad experiences of some migrants in West have led to the creation of far-right parties and their stance against immigrant

Even today, this strategy is being implemented by the Islamic Republic in all parts of the world under various titles under the guise of religion and under the name of religious freedom. But the result of creating an island and intervening and demanding the isolation of same-religious groups from the rest of the host society is creating a rift and the illusion of a dual identity, which, if it becomes acute, can even create security problems for the host society.

From the point of view of isolated groups and individuals, citizenship does not have a special meaning, nor does it bring duties and obligations. According to them, religion or ethnicity is the factor of unification, not citizenship. The occurrence of religiously motivated terrorist attacks in Western countries, as well as the joining of second and third generation Muslim immigrants from Western countries to extremist groups in the Middle East, can be understood under this logic.

Several decades of bad experiences of Muslims in Western countries have led to the creation of far-right parties and their stance against immigrants and Muslims in those countries. The emergence of populist nationalism is due to the feeling of danger that immigrants have taken their identity from them and they don’t want to be confused with immigrants.

That is, in the host countries, which are mostly western, there is also a group that does not like immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, to be integrated into them. According to them, Muslim immigrants should not pollute their culture and identity – so to speak.

But again, due to the blessing of the secular age and the secular government, their words are not taken into account, and they are willing to give citizenship to Muslims and follow the policy of multiculturalism, with all the possible dangers and sometimes bad memories of some of them – that one day maybe the important principle of “citizenship” will be institutionalized in them.

The Israeli army, which entered the buffer zone in Syrian territory shortly after the overthrow of the Baathist regime in Syria, is signaling a long-term presence in the region. Amid accelerating ceasefire negotiations, Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz has announced that Israel will maintain security control in Gaza, mirroring its approach in the West Bank.

Israeli media reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the continuation of the occupation of the buffer zone on Mount Hermon, initiated after the fall of the Baath regime, until the end of next year. While officials initially described the occupation as temporary, subsequent reports indicate plans to extend it through the winter months and potentially beyond.

According to a report on Channel 12 News, Netanyahu instructed the Israeli army to maintain its occupation in the buffer zone on Mount Hermon until the end of 2025. His visit to the area yesterday, alongside Defense Minister Katz and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, underscored the government’s commitment to the region. In a statement, Netanyahu emphasized that the occupation would persist “until an arrangement is found to ensure Israel’s security.”

Defense Minister Katz further instructed the army to fortify the region, describing Mount Hermon as “the eye of the State of Israel.” This position reflects a broader strategy of long-term security control.

The incursion into the buffer zone, established under a 1974 agreement between Israel and Syria with United Nations peacekeepers, has faced widespread condemnation. Countries including France, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan have criticized the move as a violation of international law and Syria’s territorial integrity. Israel contends that the agreement is no longer valid due to the Syrian army’s withdrawal from posts following the collapse of the Damascus government.

In Gaza, Defense Minister Katz has stated that Israel will maintain security control over the region after dismantling Hamas’ military and governmental infrastructure. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Katz clarified that Israel’s approach to Gaza would mirror its strategy in the occupied West Bank. The West Bank, while partially administered by the Palestinian Authority, remains under tight Israeli security control, with frequent military operations.

Diplomatic efforts for a ceasefire in Gaza have been hindered by disputes over Israel’s insistence on maintaining forces in key areas. According to The Wall Street Journal, both Palestinians and some Israelis have expressed concerns that “security control” may evolve into a prolonged military occupation.

Members of Netanyahu’s Likud party and allied coalition groups have advocated for tighter control in Gaza, including the establishment of Jewish settlements. The construction of a vast security corridor, referred to as Netzarim, has further heightened tensions. This infrastructure includes military bases, checkpoints, and other installations, effectively dividing Gaza.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, including Gaza and the West Bank, violates international law. The ICJ has stated that such occupations must remain temporary and outlined the legal responsibilities of an occupying power toward the population.

Diana Buttu, a former legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), told The Wall Street Journal that Katz’s comments, combined with Israel’s ongoing construction of military infrastructure, signal a shift toward “outright military control” over Palestinian lives in Gaza.

Negotiations for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange in Gaza are ongoing, though Israeli media report that Hamas remains unconvinced about a permanent truce.

CIA Director Bill Burns is set to meet Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in Doha. This follows two days of talks between Hamas and Israeli delegations in the Qatari capital. Axios, citing an Israeli official, reported that Burns will discuss the status of the indirect negotiations with his Qatari counterpart.

Israeli state television KAN disclosed on December 16 that an Israeli delegation with “limited powers” traveled to Doha to negotiate a ceasefire and prisoner exchange. Hamas issued a statement confirming the potential for an agreement, provided Israel refrains from imposing new conditions. “In light of the serious and positive talks that took place in Doha under the auspices of our Qatari and Egyptian brothers, Hamas confirms that it is possible to reach an agreement on a ceasefire and prisoner exchange if the occupation stops imposing new conditions,” the statement read.

Additional negotiations are occurring in Cairo. Sources close to the talks told Reuters that an agreement might be signed in the coming days. Mohammed al-Hind, deputy head of Hamas’s ally Palestinian Islamic Jihad, also met with Egyptian officials as part of these discussions.

Adam Boehler, recently appointed as the U.S. special envoy for the hostages by President-elect Donald Trump, was in Cairo for discussions with Egyptian officials. Boehler met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday and is expected to travel to Doha today. The Biden administration is reportedly collaborating with Trump’s team to finalize a ceasefire before the presidential inauguration on January 20.

Despite progress, major hurdles remain. White House spokesperson John Kirby expressed cautious optimism in an interview with Fox News, noting, “We have come to this point before, but we have not reached a conclusion.” Israeli sources echoed these sentiments, citing significant unresolved issues. The Walla news website reported, based on three senior Israeli officials, that while progress has been made, major disagreements persist.

Hamas insists any agreement must include a commitment to ending the war and the occupation. Israel, on the other hand, proposes a short-term ceasefire of one to two months in exchange for the release of hostages. Additionally, Hamas has agreed not to participate in Gaza’s post-war administration under certain conditions, though it has not retreated from its primary demand: a permanent end to hostilities and occupation.