Mediaboss Marketing

Charlotte Bingham 27 had never traveled outside the United States until last fall, when she enrolled at Syracuse Strasbourg in France, one of Syracuse Universitys five study abroad centers. The first-year student wasted no time exploring the historic, diverse city, built on an island in the River Ill and straddling the French-German border.

Strasbourg is ideal for undergraduates because unlike most metropolitan cities, its safe, welcoming and easy to explore, says Bingham, a Long Island native majoring in international relations. I made it my European hometown.

She also discovered Strasbourgs importance as a geopolitical hub. A symbol of peace and postwar reconciliation between France and Germany, the city houses major global institutions, including the European Parliament; the European Court of Human Rights; and the Council of Europe, a human rights organization that sponsors the World Forum for Democracy.

In November, Bingham was one of 10 Syracuse students who, as part of their coursework for Politics of the European Union (PSC 405) and European Human Rights (PSC 429), had the rare opportunity to serve as official rapporteurs at the World Forum for Democracy. As notetakers, they reported on key discussion points at the three-day event, which was attended by representatives from more than 80 countries and focused on defending democracy and human rights.

I saw the world in a new, three-dimensional way, recalls Bingham, whose reporting on the proceedings was included in the forums final summary. Programs like Syracuse Strasbourg help me make sense of the world, seeing it as a community of people rather than an impersonal map of lines and borders.

Center Director John Goodman agrees, noting a new agreement between the University, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary in Strasbourg, and the Council of Europe. The new partnership is a gem of an opportunity for students and faculty alikethe first of its kind between a U.S. institution and the Council of Europe.

We recently caught up with Goodman as well as Bingham, Nathaniel Hasanaj 25 (international relations), William Johnson 25 (history and social studies education) and Grace Reed 25 (broadcast and digital journalism) to discuss Syracuse Strasbourg.

Tell us about the World Forum for Democracy.

Johnson: It brought together business leaders and representatives from governments, youth delegations and non-governmental organizations to examine the state of democracy in the world. Many attendees presented initiatives designed to improve democracy and the quality of life for others.

Bingham: One presenter who stood out to me was a public policy analyst from Kenya. She talked about the People Dialogue Festival, where Kenyans from all walks of life meet to discuss governmental, social and economic issues. That this is done against the backdrop of different cultural experiences, like food, music and dance, is fascinating.

Hasanaj: The forum enables political decision-makers and activists to debate solutions to key democratic challenges. Its based on the three values of the Council of Europe: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

I saw the world in a new, three-dimensional way. Programs like Syracuse Strasbourg help me make sense of the world, seeing it as a community of people rather than an impersonal map of lines and borders.

What was it like serving as a rapporteur?

Reed: Each of us attended a lab group or a forum talk, where we took official notes and formed opinions about various initiatives being presented. [Reeds lab, titled The Art of Dialogue: Can Empathy Deliver Peace?, featured presentations of four such initiatives.] After discussing our findings with other rapporteurs, we decided which projects should proceed to the final round.

Hasanaj: My lab was titled Women Building Peace, and it explored ways to make peace negotiations more inclusive. One presenter was the founder of the South Sudanese Women Intellectuals Forum, which uses social and broadcasting media to promote a free, just and equitable society. Her presentation was not only informative and well structured, but also extremely passionate. Listening to her made me realize why women and girls in war-torn countries like South Sudan are often marginalized.

Johnson: As rapporteurs, we helped determine which initiative was most popularand would receive the Council of Europes prestigious Democracy Innovation Award. I learned about pressing issues, like the environmental and health impacts of mining in Ghana and Serbias clean water crisis. As a future social studies teacher, Im interested in how these kinds of issues affect government and society.

The Universitys new partnership with the Council of Europe creates experiential opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students. What are your thoughts on it?

Goodman: The agreement is an outgrowth of the Universitys Academic Strategic Plan, which emphasizes study abroad and student engagement with real-time public issues. It provides a dozen internships for students studying in Strasbourg. It also fosters unique research opportunities for students and faculty.

It's extremely rare and valuable for students, especially undergraduates, to work inside an organization like the Council of Europe, which represents more than 700 million people. Thanks to our 50-year presence in Strasbourg, the University has direct access to working practitioners in major international bodies.

Hasanaj: As the so-called Capital of Europe, Strasbourg offers many pre-professional learning opportunities and experiences. Some of the ideas I encountered at the World Forum of Democracy have broadened my perspective, something that probably wouldnt have happened otherwise. I feel more independent and have a deeper understanding of Europeanespecially French and Germanhistory and culture.

Reed: Studying abroad in Strasbourg, I developed a greater sense of autonomy and resilience while advancing my future career through opportunities like the World Forum of Democracy. I now see the worldand the people in itin a new way.

This story was published on January 10, 2024.

Read more:
Studying Abroad While Defending Democracy and Human Rights - Syracuse.edu - Syracuse University

Campaign 2024 is just getting underway, but President Biden already has framed it as a fight to save American democracy. That’s true no matter who wins the Republican presidential nomination.

If it’s Donald Trump, the threat to democracy is obvious. Having already instigated one failed coup attempt, he won’t hesitate to reject the voters’ verdict if he’s defeated again in November.

And if he wins, Trump has vowed to sic the Justice Department on his political enemies and pardon the Jan. 6 rioters, defining treason down for future insurrectionists.

Even a Biden victory, though, would only be a reprieve from our deeper dilemma: Public confidence in democracy is cratering.

Last week, the Gallup Organization reported that the number of Americans who say they are satisfied with the way our democracy is working has sunk to a record low of 28 percent.

Such public alienation provides fertile soil for Trump’s cynical cultivation of “deep state” paranoia among right-wing populists. Outside the Trump cult, however, Americans seem more upset about the atrophy of the government’s power to help them solve their problems.

This institutional impotence confronts Democrats with an inescapable dilemma. As believers in an active government, they need to prove to skeptical voters that they can make it more responsive and effective. But that will require facing down important party constituencies, such as public sector unions and progressive activists more passionate about making government bigger than better.

Why does U.S. democracy seem so broken? One answer comes from Philip Howard, a lawyer and author whose books grapple with the causes of today’s public sector dysfunction.   

In his latest, “Everyday Freedom,” Howard cites the buildup since the 1960s of laws and rules that were intended to ensure procedural fairness, but in practice have chipped away at officials’ authority to do their jobs.  

Modern law, he says, has created “an elaborate precautionary system aimed at precluding human error.” Public officials have learned it’s safer to hide behind highly prescriptive laws and regulations than to risk using their judgment, moral intuition and common sense to solve public problems.

No government can codify the “correct” answers to life’s myriad problems and puzzles. Citizens have conflicting interests and demands. Public authorities are hired to reconcile those interests and make reasonable trade-offs that weigh individual claims against the common good.

But instead of protecting individual rights, modern laws have weaponized them to block such compromises, says Howard. “America is suffering from a crisis of human disempowerment.”

He offers many examples: Classroom teachers who lack authority to deal with disruptive students; police departments that can’t fire or disciple rogue cops because of union contracts; environmental reviews that create multiple veto points for opponents to endlessly delay the issuing of permits to upgrade the nation’s energy and other infrastructure.

To his list, I’d add larger systemic failures that leave frustrated citizens wondering whether they’re stuck with a “can’t do” government forever.

A dramatic example is the chaos on our southern border. There were nearly 250,000 illegal crossings in December, a one-month record. U.S. authorities have released more than 2.3 million migrants at the border since President Biden took office three years ago.

The federal government’s chronic failure to secure the border, enforce laws against hiring illegal aliens and welcome more willing workers through legal channels reflects badly on our country’s democratic competence.

The spread of massive homeless encampments in our major metros also is emblematic of the government’s inability to deliver on its fundamental responsibility to provide public order and safety. Last year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that 650,000 people were homeless.

This is partly a housing crisis, an economic crisis and a mental health crisis. Most shamefully, in the name of individual rights and “freedom,” our society has dumped hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people, many of whom can’t take care of themselves, into our city streets and parks.

Another example is the states’ failure to modernize America’s outdated K-12 public school system. We’re stuck with an early 20th century model that offers one-size-fits-all schools micromanaged by district bureaucrats whose hands are tied by rigid union contracts.

Our legacy public school systems are failing many Black and brown students in low-income communities. Chicago, for example, spends $18,000 a year per student yet only 15 percent of high school students rate as proficient or better at reading and 14 percent at math.

U.S. students in supposedly “good” suburban schools aren’t hitting it out of the park, either. The latest international comparison of student achievement ranks them 28th in math proficiency.

Whereas Howard’s books focus on the substitution of rules and legal processes for human judgment, these three examples point to new political dynamics — the rise of cultural politics, identitarian ideologies and separate partisan versions of reality — that shrink America’s common ground and make it difficult for elected leaders to forge consensus around anything. 

Nonetheless, both strains of analysis agree that ineffectual governance corrodes the social trust necessary to sustain a healthy democracy. People who don’t believe the government can help them solve their problems are less disposed to trust and cooperate with others, and more susceptible to populist strongmen who promise to help them regain power over their lives.

American democracy once seemed capable of grand achievements: Defeating fascism and Japanese imperialism, putting a man on the moon, dismantling barriers to equal rights for Blacks and women and building the international alliances and economic institutions that enabled the democracies to prosper and prevail in the Cold War.

The challenge for Biden and the Democrats this year isn’t just to keep Trump out of the White House. It’s also to commit to making government work again and restoring America’s reputation as a “can do” democracy.

Will Marshall is the founder and president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Visit link:
Beyond partisan deadlock, theres a nation in search of can do democracy - The Hill

To read the headlines, one could be forgiven for thinking that democracy is in terminal decline around the world. Yet for all the challenges we face, 2024 is set to be a historic year for elections. Nearly 100 countries are scheduled to hold electoral contests, and more than half the global population lives in countries that will go to the polls.

No election is perfect, but billions of voters turning out to hold their leaders accountable and elect new ones represent a compelling case that autocracy is not the wave of the future.

Not all of these elections will be free or fair. Some, in countries such as Russia and Iran, will be outright shams. But this volume of electoral activity is a testament to the very real progress that has been made in advancing political freedom worldwide. Indeed, the fact that more people will be voting in Asia than live in China is a reminder that Beijing’s totalitarianism makes it an outlier even in its own region.

This is not to understate the serious threats facing the free world. Authoritarian aggression is on the march, from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to the Hamas-Iran assault on Israel to China’s menacing of Taiwan. Autocrats are also playing offense by deploying economic coercion and sophisticated campaigns of political interference against free societies.

The case of Taiwan — which will hold general elections on Jan. 13 — is instructive. Contrast Taiwan’s vibrant democracy with the faltering top-down regime in mainland China, and you’ll understand one of the key reasons Beijing cannot tolerate an independent Taiwan. The mere fact of millions of Taiwanese going to the polls shows citizens of mainland China that there is no inherent cultural reason they should not also be a self-governing people.

The democratic model has repeatedly demonstrated its superiority to authoritarianism. Authoritarian governments inevitably become sclerotic, insulated from reality, and unable to deliver for their people precisely because they lack free elections that reflect the genuine priorities of citizens. Leaders lack the knowledge they need to make good decisions in the absence of political competition, which might otherwise generate fresh approaches to policy challenges and allow the free exchange of information.

This makes authoritarians far more vulnerable to economic, social, and political instability. It also leaves them open to catastrophic strategic mistakes, such as Putin’s belief Ukraine would fall without a fight.

Alliances between democracies are stronger than those of autocracies because they are rooted in common values. America supports the rise of one Asian giant, India, in part because it is a democracy. China’s opaque authoritarianism, in contrast, makes its power so menacing to free societies on both sides of the Pacific.

Or consider how NATO rallied together in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In contrast, authoritarian partnerships are far more brittle, subject to disruption and distrust. Does anyone really believe that the Sino-Russian axis could be as strong as, for instance, the relationship between the U.S. and Japan?

Economically, democracies outperform autocracies. Their citizens are, on average, six times wealthier. Culture is not the driver here, but politics, as we see in comparing North Korea with South Korea. According to the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Index, “66 percent of the variation in prosperity around the world can be explained by freedom.”

This makes sense: Property rights, rule of law, and sound institutions secure capital and investment, promote entrepreneurial aspiration, and generate inclusive growth with minimal corruption. An astounding 86 percent of global portfolio investment comes from the U.S. and U.S.-aligned countries — with few indicators to suggest that China and its benighted vassal states will supplant them any time soon. In China, capital flight now exceeds inbound investment, attesting to the systemic weaknesses of Xi Jinping’s centralized and politically-directed economic model.

It’s no accident that the global expansion of democracy occurred at a time of unprecedented American power. U.S. leadership has created the conditions in which free markets and free people can thrive. Conversely, when the United States turns inward, authoritarian malefactors have been quick to fill the vacuum.

If the free world is to prevail over the tyrants who seek its destruction, America must stand up for our democratic friends and lead, not retreat. That means investing in the conditions for free and fair elections in developing democracies, and creating inroads with potential partners who are being courted by authoritarian powers. It also means defending democracies under assault — like Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan — and doing everything in our power to support the forces of democratic change, such as the women-led protest movement in Iran.

Those who argue that Americans don’t care about foreign policy should consider the lessons of history. American presidents suffer when they are viewed as abdicating our global leadership role. President Biden’s public approval rating turned negative when he abandoned Afghanistan.

What’s more, polling by the Reagan Institute suggests that a clear majority of Americans (7.5 out of 10) want the U.S. to maintain its global leadership role, and almost 3 in 4 believe that Washington, wherever possible, should stand up for human rights and democracy in international affairs.

As we look ahead to 2024, we must be clear-eyed about both the promise and the peril that confronts us. The historic volume of democratic elections is one reason for optimism, and one that America in particular should celebrate.

Daniel Twining is the president of the International Republican Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working in more than 100 countries to advance democracy.

Read more from the original source:
The free world should celebrate 2024 as a landmark year for democracy - The Hill

One of Donald Trumps most consistent election messages is that Joe Biden, not he, is the threat to democracy. The New York Times has an excellent story explaining how this message, which Trump summarizes as BAD (Biden Against Democracy), is designed to neutralize Trumps most important political weakness.

The article puts this strategy in the context of Trumps lifelong habit of accusing his opponents of whatever Trump himself is doing in order to muddy the waters and foster cynicism. But there is another aspect of this argument the article does not consider: BAD is not only a Trumpian schoolyard taunt but also an argument that is being advanced by putatively serious conservative intellectuals.

The literal version of Trumps argument which casts Biden as an authoritarian tyrant who stole the election and is now hell-bent on imprisoning his opponent is obviously promoted by his most enthusiastic supporters. But the main purpose of the claim is to turn the democracy question into a tie. Maybe Trump has been a bad boy (January 6 and all that), the argument will go, but Biden has also threatened democracy. Since both candidates are authoritarians, we might as well vote for the one who will support our favorite domestic policies.

This version of the argument is especially attractive to conservatives who have locked themselves into an anti-Trump posture but wish to create a permission structure to support him as the lesser evil.

The most enthusiastic source of support for this argument is the anti-anti-Trump right at traditional conservative organs like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the National Review. Rich Lowry, NRs editor-in-chief, has churned out a string of columns straining to make the case that Trumps opponents are just as much to blame for authoritarianism as he is. One recent Lowry column insists that if Biden really cared about democracy, hed quit the race. If Joe Biden were, as a matter of principle, devoted to defending democracy at all costs, he argues, obviously the first thing he would do would be to step aside for some younger, more capable, less radioactive Democrat with a much better chance of beating Trump. (Lowry does not entertain the obvious possibility that Biden genuinely, if perhaps erroneously, considers himself Trumps strongest opponent.) Instead, he argues that Biden doesnt really care much about saving democracy. So why should anybody else?

In another recent column, he concedes that Trumps critics are sincerely, and to some extent understandably, alarmed by his conduct after the 2020 election and how hes branded his political comeback as a revenge tour. But Lowry argues that they are therefore going to react to a potential Trump victory in undemocratic ways:

At least some portion of the Left will convince itself that only a color revolution can save the country.

Prior to the 2016 TrumpClinton contest, one school of Trump supporters posited that it was the Flight 93 election possibly the last chance to save the country. The consequences of failure were so awful that anything was justified to win. Now, thats the way the Left feels, except Trump won his Flight 93 election, and Joe Biden could well lose his.

If so, there will be much to fear from democracys self-styled defenders.

So, you see, this hypothetical future of left-wing behavior that mimics Trump just shows that Trump is no worse than his enemies. Suppose I steal Lowrys wallet, and when he calls me a thief, I point out that his angry rhetoric is a justification for stealing back my money what else would you do against a thief? I suppose he will agree that we are now moral equals with regard to theft.

George F. Will recently insisted in a column that Joe Biden is, like Trump, an authoritarian recidivist mostly stymied by courts and that alarmism over Trumps contempt for democracy distracts attention from the similarity of Trumps and Bidens disdain for legality.

What is the authoritarian offense of Bidens that renders him equal to Trump? I will let Will explain the despotic Biden actions that threaten the republic in all its bloody particulars:

Biden nominated Ann Carlson last March to be administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Two months later, when it was clear that the Senate would not confirm her, Biden withdrew the nomination. But less than five weeks after that, he named Carlson acting administrator. His impertinence would perhaps be limited, by the Vacancies Act, to 210 days, which would expire Dec. 26. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the act prohibits any person who has been nominated to fill any vacant office from performing that offices duties in an acting capacity.

Yes, you read that correctly. The equivalent of Trump openly threatening to lock up his enemies, use the military to crush protests, glorifying in violent attacks on his critics, deeming all elections he loses ipso facto stolen, and inciting a mob led by right-wing paramilitaries to storm the Capitol is Biden allowing Anne Carlson to serve as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Now, look. We can agree that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, like other federal agencies, should have a Senate-confirmed leader. And we can further agree that a system that allows presidents to use acting appointees to circumvent Senate confirmation Will notes later in the column this problem has been ongoing since at least the 1990s is broken and in need of reform.

But the idea that this now-routine approach to running the bureaucracy is remotely comparable to the behavior of a man who transparently idolizes dictators is not remotely tenable. It is not a way to hold Democrats to account for the normal failings of politicians. It is a way of running interference for Trumps scheme to undermine the foundations of the republic. Its adherents should at least have the self-respect to stop posing as Trump critics and unmask themselves as water carriers for his own campaign message.

Irregular musings from the center left.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

See the rest here:
'Biden Against Democracy,' the Right's Favorite Trump Rationale - New York Magazine

We are told that the case in which Israel is accused of genocide in Gaza, which has opened in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, could take years to reach a verdict.

So, let us save all of those 17 judges sitting in the ICJ and everybody else a lot of time and millions of euros. Israel is not guilty of committing genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza in its war of self-defence against the Islamic terrorists of Hamas.

In truth, Israel is guilty of being the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, and the only Jewish state on Earth. Defending those qualities has now caused Israel to be branded as uniquely criminal, not only by South Africa (which brought the ICJ case), but also across much of the world, including by many in Europe and the US.

To the shame of Europe, in the ancient Dutch city of The Hague, the United Nations highest court is now staging one of the most grotesque spectacles of political theatre seen in modern times.

The formal title is Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). A more fitting title might be Gaza Through the Looking Glass because the case before the ICJ has stood reality on its head and turned the truth inside out, in the fantastical manner of Lewis Carrolls Alice stories.

Israel stands accused of the crime of genocide, essentially because it is waging war on the Jew-hating, genocidal murderers of Hamas.

The case offers a thin legal faade for a political vendetta against Israel. Under the UN Genocide Convention, for a state to be found guilty of genocide there must be a proven intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. South Africas lawyers argued in court that Israels campaign in Gaza was intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, religious and ethnical group.

In reality, there has been no intent on Israels part to destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza. Quite the opposite; the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have done more than any other army in wartime to try to limit civilian casualties, including targeting attacks on Hamas bases and warning people to evacuate.

Of course, war is a brutal business and there have still been thousands of civilian casualties. Not least because Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza as human shields, and builds military bases in highly-populated areas, hospitals, and schools. But lets be clear: the only part of the Palestinian group that the IDF has shown proven intent to destroy is that part involved in Hamas Islamist jihad to destroy Israel and kill Jews. To accuse Israel of genocidal intent is effectively to say that war is genocideif you are on what the woke deem the wrong side of history.

In this conflict only Hamas has demonstrated its proven intent to commit genocide. The war began with the pogrom Hamas terrorists launched against Israel on October 7th that left more than 1,200 deadthe bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Nazi Holocaustwith some 240 taken hostage. Hamas didnt only butcher, brutalise, and rape Jewsit boasted about its antisemitic pogrom, in Gaza and across social media, in a way that even the Nazis never did.

Hamas is proudly guilty of genocidal intent, of killing Jews for being Jewishcondemned out of its own mouth. Yet that truth has been turned upside-down, so that the Israelis fighting to eliminate genocidal Islamists themselves stand accused of genocide. And many in the West seem to accept that inversion of reality.

Some might have expected the central role of South Africa to at least raise questions about this case. The post-apartheid Republic of South Africa is widely regarded as a failed state, wracked by violent crime, oppression, corruption, and poverty. Even the UN and other Israelophobic global agencies are forced to rank South Africa well below Israel in their league tables regarding democratic rights and civil liberties.

Most of the majority black population appears no better off under the autocratic ANC regime than under the racist apartheid state, while the few remaining white farmers are subject to a campaign of violence that last year prompted South Africa-born Elon Musk to express fears of a genocide of white people in his homeland.

Yet now, by fronting the genocide case at the ICJ, South Africa hopes to posture on the moral high ground of global politics, looking down in judgement on the apartheid state of Israel (you see what they did there?). It has been joined by many of the worst repressive regimes in the world, all queuing to back anti-Israel resolutions passed at the UN that do not mention the Hamas massacres. Once again, the one Jewish state on earth is held to different standards than the rest. Why ever could that be?

Surely more doubts about this attempted show trial should have been raised by the fact that Hamas itself enthusiastically supports South Africa bringing the case to court. In an official statement, Hamas looked forward to the judges of the ICJ delivering a decision that does justice to victims and which demands that Israel stop the aggression. One might almost imagine that Hamas were innocent victims of injustice, perhaps on a par with the persecuted UK sub-postmasters, rather than an Islamist death cult that has sworn to repeat its antisemitic aggression of October 7th again and again and again.

Yet despite all of that, many in Europe and the West have joined Hamas in demanding that the ICJ find Israel guilty of genocide. The crazed Islamoleft scream that Israel is, in the words of a leading UK leftist, a society possessed with murderous mania. And such manic Israel-bashing is no longer confined to the radical fringes.

Belgiums deputy prime minister, Petra de Sutter, quickly broke ranks with the likes of Germany and the UK to demand that Europe must join South Africas case against the threat of genocide in Gaza. Many other EU member states, from Spain to Ireland, have accused Israel of slaughtering civilians and demanded an immediate ceasefirewhich, as Democracy Watch has argued all along, amounts to demanding that Israel surrender.

A glance through the 80-odd pages of South Africas application to the ICJ confirms that this is a political witch-hunt dressed up as a legal indictment; an attempted show trial disguised as an appeal for justice.

Their documented case to prove Israels genocidal intent rests largely on rhetoric rather than evidence. They cite the bellicose rhetoric of selected Israeli figuressuch as the defence minister who, in the aftermath of the barbaric Hamas massacres of October 7th, said Israel was at war with human animals. And they counterpose this to the shrill rhetoric of UN and other aid agenciessome of which, as reported by The European Conservative, are heavily involved with the Hamas authoritiessimply declaring that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza.

One particularly surreal section that leapt out of the court application was the allegation that Israel is guilty of genocide because it is Imposing measures intended to prevent Palestinian births through something called reproductive violence. It cites the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls asserting that, the reproductive violence inflicted by Israel on Palestinian women, newborn babies, infants, and children could be qualified as acts of genocide.

No doubt women and childrenand perhaps especially pregnant womenare suffering the consequences of the war in Gaza. But the claim that Israel must thus be guilty of reproductive violence is bizarre. Yet it is in tune with much of the media coverage of the war, which highlights claims that Gaza has become a graveyard for children and death zone for babies.

In 40 years of following war reporting around the world, I have never before seen such an emphasis on the suffering of children and images of dead babies. (Though far less attention is paid to the Jewish children killed and kidnapped on October 7th.) It looks like a campaign to demonise the Israeli state as uniquely cruel. And doesnt it conjure up a modern version of the ancient blood libel about Jews supposedly slaughtering Christian children? Perhaps we should be grateful that nobody has (yet) gone full blood libel and alleged that the Israelis are using Palestinians babies blood to bake their bread

Let us step back from the clouds of legalese, and remember what is at stake here. Israelis are engaged in an existential war against enemies who want to wipe their state off the map and drive the Jews into the Mediterraneanthe real meaning of that from the river to the sea slogan so beloved of the Western Left. Israels war against the genocidal Islamists of Hamas is also the frontline of a wider conflict which we have defined from the start as one between civilisation and barbarism.

Yet even to say that today is to risk being accused of endorsing genocide. If you think I exaggerate, look at the legal document South Africas lawyers have set before the International Court of Justice. There you will find, presented as incontrovertible proof of Israels genocidal intent, a December quote from prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he dared to suggest that This is a battle not only of Israel against these barbarians, its a battle of civilisation against barbarism.

Several years ago, in a left-wing demonstration in Europe, I recall a banner declaring that Civilisation Is Genocide. That self-loathing sentiment now seems to have colonised the institutions of the West, everywhere from the UN and the ICJ to the universities and the mainstream media.

As a result Israel, a democratic state founded in response to the Holocaust, the worst genocide in human history, which is now fighting for its civilised life against genocidal antisemites, finds itself cast in the role of global villain. At a time when Islamism threatens world peace, we are invited instead to focus on the alleged crimes of the democratic Jewish state in the frontline of fighting against it.

If there is a crime on display in The Hague, it looks like global conspiracy to commit perjury against the Israel people.

Whatever the ICJ rules, the Israeli government has vowed to pursue its war against Hamas. But the attempt to brand Israel as guilty of genocide is an important part of the wider campaign to isolate the only democracy in the Middle East and legitimise global intervention against it. So let all who believe in true justice and democracy continue to make our case clear. We are guilty of standing with Israel against Islamism; of standing with the Jewish people against antisemitism, old and new; and, yes, we plead guilty to standing for civilisation against barbarism.

Excerpt from:
DEMOCRACY WATCH Israel Is Only 'Guilty' of Fighting Against Genocide - The European Conservative