On July 26^th, 2024, the Paris Olympics commenced with 10,500 of the best athletes from 206 different countries. The Olympics is the highly anticipated competitive event held every four years where athletes compete for a bronze, silver, or gold medal. It is also two weeks of sportsmanship that knows no international bounds. In the 2021 Tokyo Olympics, Gianmarco Tamberi of Italy and Mutaz Essa Barshim of Qatar tied for first in the high jump final but they both requested to share the gold medal instead of having a face-off. Many other instances of kindness and good behaviour demonstrate that nations can come together and celebrate accomplishments and challenges.

But, just like how the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics occurred at an unprecedented and uncertain time before Russia invaded Ukraine, the Paris Olympics is occurring while Russia continues its assault against Ukraine and the war in Gaza sees no end in sight. Although the Olympics come at a sensitive time in history, the world can learn a lot by watching this event. Because of the conflicts happening at the same time as the Olympics, some nations are facing controversies and criticisms even though the athletes have no affiliation with their government’s actions.

Furthermore, the Olympics is the biggest platform to advocate and create awareness. Still, the International Olympic Committee (I.O.C.) has forbidden athletes from protesting or showing their support either during the competition or the medal stand. This is a problem because athletes should be allowed a voice in consideration of world affairs. Nations’ responses have been to stay silent and/or to silence their athletes. Additionally, although the I.O.C. banned Russia and Belarus from competing in the Olympics, the organization did not ban Israel, rejecting Palestine’s request to do so. This may get mixed reactions and cause conflict for those who align in support of Palestine and group Israel’s wrongdoings with Russia.

It is clear why the I.O.C. banned Russian and Belarusian athletes from competing, although it is unfair because they were declared guilty by association and took no part in causing one of the biggest humanitarian crises in history. If that was the route and qualifications that the I.O.C. was taking in banning countries, Israel would have been banned too. Again, Israeli athletes are blamed for something they did not do, but it would have been expected for Israel to be banned also. Because of the exclusion of the two countries and the inclusion of Israel, it conveys the message that the I.O.C. does not deem Israel as the perpetrator of an ongoing humanitarian crisis. According to USA TODAY, the President of the I.O.C. Thomas Bach said that “the Olympics are “not a competition between countries or governments” but “among athletes.” He could not have said this any clearer but even then, his words do not match his actions because if he meant what he said, he would not have banned Russian and Belarusian athletes from competing.

Furthermore, Israeli athletes are being threatened by other athletes, and according to Reuters, “will receive 24-hour protection during the Paris Olympics.” The French government ought to protect these athletes to reduce harm to others. The war in Gaza or Ukraine will not end if people are assaulted or attacked for something that is their government’s fault. It will only send a message that violence is the answer to everything.

Things should have been done differently but because precedents have been established, it is difficult to move forward. The Olympics have banned countries from competing before, for example, in 1920, multiple countries were “banned due to their role and involvement in World War I,” according to Al Jazeera. Other examples are Germany and Japan being banned for their role in World War II. This demonstrates that barring countries from participating in the Olympics is not unprecedented, it is almost punishment for a country when they do something against the morals of the I.O.C. Although athletes from those respective countries took no part in the destruction of the wars, they were banned from competition. That being said, there has to be a better solution to reprimand countries accordingly without costing athletes’ hard work. Banning countries from competing does not eliminate or prevent conflict. It will encourage conflict instead.

Regarding the limitations put on advocacy, it is not fair for the I.O.C. to forbid athletes from using their voices to spread awareness about what is going on and to demand change. Although it shows resilience from Ukrainian and Palestinian athletes, who are present to compete despite living in war-torn countries, their presence is not enough to educate and inform people. There needs to be mass advocacy to promote change.

The Olympics is a great opportunity for countries to show unfiltered sportsmanship, kindness, and humaneness for the world to witness. It is inspiring to see respect where language is not a barrier to kindness and is central to international relations. With the respect that these athletes have for one another, people around the world will likely be inspired to do the same.