China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi attends the 14th EAST Asia Summit Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in the 57th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting at the National Convention Center, in Vientiane, Laos July 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Chalinee Thirasupa/File Photo

JNS.org – Two recent developments suggest that a concerted effort is underway to reframe the international human-rights architecture that emerged from World War II, by shifting the focus away from freedom of conscience to “economic, social and cultural rights,” and by redefining what is meant by the term “genocide.” These shifts may well herald a new era that will see authoritarian states like China and Iran hauling liberal democratic nations before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court with allegations of systemic human-rights abuse, with Israel especially—as a democratic state surrounded by foes seeking its elimination—serving as a convenient and frequent target.

The United Nations co-hosted a human-rights conference last week with the Chinese regime in the city of Huangzhou. The idea of China as a beacon of human rights is, of course, more worthy of a headline in a satirical magazine than as a serious proposition, but the very fact that a regime that received a 9/100 “Not Free” rating in the most recent Freedom House global survey can be taken at face value is a disturbing sign of how far international institutions have strayed from an agenda that stresses democratic, accountable institutions and individual freedom as the bedrock of any human-rights regimen.

In his speech to the conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized that China had made great strides in its pursuit of “economic, social and cultural rights,” effectively excluding from consideration those areas on which Beijing was criticized by Freedom House: the ubiquitous presence of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the daily lives of citizens, the absence of a free media and the expunging of civil society—those groups and associations that function free of state interference. Wang was enthusiastically backed up in this assertion by Volker Turk, the Austrian diplomat who heads the UN’s Human Rights Council, a body that has spearheaded some of the loudest and most outlandish accusations against Israel over the past year, and which still retains an annual agenda item focused on supposed abuses by Israel and no other state.

The underlying concept here is that human rights should be grounded in “state development,” realized through rising salaries, anti-poverty initiatives and state-provided housing. Theoretically, it’s perfectly possible for a state to make progress on these goals while denying its citizens basic civil and political rights. China has now elevated this approach into a state doctrine, leaning on other states, particularly in the developing world, to follow suit.

The eminent historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin proposed a critically important distinction between “negative liberty” and “positive liberty.” Negative liberty accents the right of individuals to live free from state interference in matters of conscience, assembly and life choices. Positive liberty subordinates the individual to the state, presenting freedom as the right of the state as an independent collectivity to set developmental goals whereby living standards rise—though there is no guarantee of that—in exchange for women and men submitting to its authority in those decisions that, in liberal democratic states, would be theirs alone.

One might reasonably argue that the ideal state fuses elements of both negative and positive liberty so that individuals can exercise freedom of religion while receiving a state-subsidized education. But that’s not what China has done. Instead, over the last couple of decades, China’s ruling Communists have lifted the great majority of the population out of poverty while becoming more repressive politically to the point of brutally punishing entire minorities, like the mainly Muslim Uyghurs in the northwest, with the goal of homogenizing what is an ethnically and religiously diverse population.

The US State Department, among others, has described China’s persecution of the Uyghurs as a “genocide,” but any mention of their plight, which includes more than 1 million Uyghurs interned in concentration camps, was absent from the U.N.-sponsored parley in Huangzhou. At the same time, the understanding of the term “genocide” that has prevailed since the Genocide Convention came into force in 1951 is now under threat, which potentially means that states like China, which commit this crime, will escape scrutiny, while those that do not, like Israel, will find themselves in the dock.

In its latest report on Israel and the Palestinians, which falsely depicted Israel’s war against the Hamas rapists and killers in the Gaza Strip as a war of extermination directed at all Palestinians, Amnesty International complained that the Genocide Convention was inadequate, claiming that it doesn’t account for the fact that states can invoke national security to mask their genocidal intentions. That argument has now been taken up by the Republic of Ireland, which has become a veritable cauldron of anti-Zionist antisemitism in the 14 months since the Hamas-led atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Announcing Dublin’s decision to support the specious case against Israel brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice, Irish Foreign Minister Micheál Martin advocated for a revision of the legal understanding of genocide, arguing that “a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes genocide leads to a culture of impunity in which the protection of civilians is minimized.” Put another way, if your enemy is a terrorist organization that deliberately hides its weapons and its fighters among civilians, you risk being accused of genocide if you deploy your military in response to their attacks. Were the mass murderer Yahya Sinwar, who met his fate at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza, still alive, there is little doubt that he would regard that evolution of understanding as among the greatest of his achievements.

The Jewish experience of antisemitism has been described as a pattern that progresses from “you have no right to live among us as Jews” to “you have no right to live among us,” and ultimately, to “you have no right to live.” That same pattern can, more or less, be applied to the cases of genocide since World War II. In Rwanda in 1994, for example, the largely defenseless Tutsis were the subjects of all sorts of demonic conspiracy theories depicting them as “cockroaches” as the period of mass killing during the summer months of that year approached.

Were such a genocide to repeat itself now, its practitioners would be well advised to depict themselves as a state authority pursuing the laudable goal of collective social development, criticizing the existing Genocide Convention as a product of Western imperialist thinking about human rights that allows countries like Israel—and, by extension, the United States and other nations with democratic constitutions that limit the various powers of the state—to escape the charge. And yet, as we hurtle towards this outcome, our own leaders remain excruciatingly silent on the fundamental threat this approach poses to our liberties and our values.

The post Turning Human Rights Upside Down first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Israeli troops during counterterrorism activity in Tulkarem, northwestern Samaria, September 2024. Photo: IDF.

JNS.org – The Israel Defense Forces and the Defense Ministry must soon make significant decisions about the future structure and capabilities of the military, prompted by lessons learned from the war it has fought since Oct. 7, 2023, and the changing threat landscape.

In the coming months, the IDF will have to propose a multi-year force-building plan, which needs to receive government budgetary commitment to be implemented, to replace the previous plan, Momentum, which began in 2020 and continued until the war broke out.

Momentum helped establish a network-centered war machine, in which IDF branches cooperated to quickly detect and fire on enemy targets. Momentum argued that seizing enemy territory isn’t the most important thing, placing the emphasis instead on destroying enemy capabilities.

Eado Hecht, a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and an analyst specializing in military theory and military history, told JNS there are several lessons for the IDF to learn from the war.

“Starting about 30 years ago, the IDF adopted an incorrect theory of future wars based on an incorrect appraisal of the direction of international politics in general and in the Middle East in particular,” Hecht said.

This mistaken assessment was a local version of “the end of history fallacy,” he added, the expectation that major wars and conflicts were a relic of history. Instead, the expectation was that modern technology and revolutions in warfare would enable Israel to make do “with only counter-guerilla, counter-terrorism capabilities,” and that hi-tech intelligence and air force capabilities would be sufficient to defeat any threat.

This theory led the IDF to downgrade its ground forces, Hecht noted, leading to a huge reduction in size, in which units were canceled and tens of thousands of personnel discharged from service, alongside the removal of a wide variety of weapon types from use. “Fields of knowledge necessary to conducting massed ground maneuvers were erased from training regimens,” he said.

“The first lesson of this war is that what became derogatorily known as ‘the old-type wars’ were not old or gone—they still exist and still require the same type of forces they did then and the same type of military theories, doctrine and training they did then. The IDF needs to relearn and rebuild its capability and competence in conducting massed ground forces maneuvers,” said Hecht.

“The second major lesson of the war is that the IDF had reduced its size to a point where it was barely capable of doing what was needed, in fact less than what was needed,” he said.

Two-front wars

While in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the IDF was able to carry out defensive and offensive operations on two fronts simultaneously, against armies stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah, in the current Swords of Iron war, the IDF could defend on two fronts but only conduct offensive actions on one front at a time, Hecht said. Even on one front, the IDF had to act sequentially rather than simultaneously attack enemy forces across the board.

“The IDF will have to again increase the size of its ground forces. The answers to the questions ‘How much does it need?’ given the size and character of the future threats, and ‘How much can it expand?’ given the size of Israel’s manpower pool and economy, create a difficult tension that will have to be resolved gradually over the coming years,” said Hecht.

“In my opinion, the IDF needs three more maneuver divisions—but raising them will be very difficult, especially in regard to acquiring the necessary amount of equipment,” he added.

Hecht said that a third lesson is “the need to rebuild the reserves component of the army. The IDF not only reduced their numbers but also deliberately reduced their training—compelling it to retrain many units before employing them because people no longer remembered their skills.”

He highlighted the importance of traditional weaponry, saying the “fourth major lesson is that the weapons of old are still important. During the war, nobody asked for more keyboards and fancy equipment, everybody wanted more tanks, more artillery and more [armored] bulldozers. Some new tools are very useful—especially small drones and quadcopters—and every unit should have them, but they do not change the fundamentals of ground combat. They are an extra capability; they do not replace the veteran capabilities that were reduced because the IDF believed they were no longer needed.”

Finally, he said, Israel will have to adapt to the need to conduct long wars, which require large forces and large ammunition stockpiles, as well as spare parts, accompanied by enhanced wartime production to reduce the dependence on United States aid.

Hecht added that the IDF proved itself highly capable of conducting focused, powerful air-to-ground campaigns, as well as special operations and counter-guerilla operations, but that these do not replace the need for traditional massed ground operations.

Lengthen mandatory service?

On Dec. 5, Army Radio reported that the IDF would be purchasing some 15,000 quadcopters, enlarging its Combat Engineering Corps and creating new infantry units that would have access to advanced armored personnel carriers. In addition, female field observation soldiers will be armed with personal firearms, as part of changes to the ground forces, and observation posts will be moved away from border areas, following lessons learned from the Oct. 7 surprise assault by Hamas.

The IDF is also seeking to lengthen mandatory service to 36 months for most male soldiers to boost personnel numbers. The report said the ground forces have been conducting force build-up processes already during the war over the past year, aimed at creating a larger and better-equipped ground army.

On Nov. 25, the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Finance announced in a joint statement that the Ministerial Procurement Committee approved billions of shekels in procurement and force-building projects for the IDF.

The acquisitions were made in line with the recommendations of the Nagel Committee, which was established in August 2024 to provide consultations on the security budget and the future of Israeli military force building. The committee approved several acquisitions, including the Reshef project—the next navy corvette—as well as the acquisition of hundreds of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs).

The post IDF Relearning the Basics While Modernizing for Future Threats first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Esau and Jacob reconcile. Photo: Francesco Hayez.

JNS.org – Who do you think is more likely to succeed, a yeshivah student with limited secular education or a university graduate with a degree? I imagine the statistics would confirm that the latter usually do better in terms of salary packages and income.

But increasingly, we are seeing a shift in that divide. A woman in South Africa recently shared her experiences in the workplace on LinkedIn, and it elicited a huge response in the online community. Esther Ekoko had several degrees but couldn’t find a job for years. She explains that employers are no longer interested in degrees but in experience, initiative and the skills an individual brings to a company.

She acknowledges the importance of education, but as a formerly unemployed with multiple degrees, her fortunes improved when she learned two digital skills: copywriting and data analysis. Her advice to job-seekers was that a degree is not enough; learn a skill and network.

This week in Parshat Vayishlach we read the dramatic story of the reunion between the estranged twin brothers, Jacob and Esau. Jacob’s messengers report that Esau is coming with murder on his mind, seeking to avenge Jacob’s procurement of the birthright and the blessings of their father, Isaac. Jacob prepares for war should it be necessary. He also prays to God for his family’s safety and employs a significant diplomatic initiative by sending his brother a huge gift of hundreds of animals stretching for miles.

Where did Jacob acquire so much wealth? The answer is that after working for his father-in-law, Laban, for 20 years, he left with enormous numbers of livestock. His gift to Esau was a fraction of what he had amassed in the farming business.

But Jacob was a yeshivah bucher, a student whose education was exclusively in Torah. He is described in the Bible as “a dweller of tents,” a reference to the proverbial “Tent of Torah.” Could this naive yeshivah student rival his brother Esau, who never stepped into a yeshivah and was a man of the world? Yes. When Esau protested and begged Jacob to keep the large gift he had sent him, Jacob declined and said he had all that he needed. Jacob was a very wealthy man.

May I be so bold as to suggest that we are now seeing many such “Jacobs” today, whose main education was studying Torah and who have done exceptionally well in a broad variety of businesses. We can debate over whether Talmudic study has sharpened their minds to succeed in business, or it is the blessings from God above (or both), but the bottom line is that the sands are shifting, and we should take note.

John Major was the youngest prime minister of England in the 20th century. Only much later did he reveal that he was a high school dropout. Guess what, he wasn’t impeached.

Now, I’m not suggesting that we raise a generation of dropouts, but we could use a rethinking and reassessment of our educational system. Is it working? The disrupters are making huge changes in today’s world. Perhaps we need some disruption in our educational system, too.

We are currently witnessing a serious breakdown in the world of higher education with many of our students becoming so “liberal” as to lose all common sense. Traditional family values are despised, and every type of “alternative” lifestyle is praised—all in the name of enlightenment and a so-called “progressive” philosophy of life. People would do well to heed the advice of scientist Carl Sagan, who was the first to advise us to “keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!”

And, of course, the Palestinian agenda has been adopted by many American students who are completely ignorant of the history of the Middle East and have no idea which sea or river they’re chanting about. It may as well be the Mississippi. They simply get caught up in the popularity of the campus movement of the day. Today, “Free Palestine” is the flavor of the month. I hope by next year they get back to saving the whales or the ozone layer.

Albert Einstein famously said that “education is what you’re left with when you’ve forgotten everything they taught you in school.” We need values just as much as we need facts. It’s more important to be a mensch than to have a master’s.

And when you consider the raw, blatant and brazen antisemitism on college campuses today, we could do with a serious reset and rethink. No wonder talk show host Dennis Prager advises parents not to send their kids to college. Just look at what the deans of the top Ivy League universities had to say last fall about calls of genocide on their campuses regarding Jews. That it depends on the “context!”

Maybe we should all take a leaf out of Jacob’s book and pay more attention to the study of what’s really important in life. Who knows? We may become millionaires, too.

The post Degrees or Direction? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.