Venezuela opposition leader María Corina Machado argued that a successful democratic transition for her country would rapidly transform the nation’s economy and reverse years of instability, reshaping the region’s political landscape.

Machado told the New York Post in an interview that such an outcome would define Trump’s foreign policy legacy, comparing it to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

‘The legacy to the world is going to be huge,’ she explained. ‘You’re going to have a prosperous Venezuela and the region.… If you make a comparison in history, this would mean for the Americas as much as the fall of the Berlin Wall had for Europe. It’s equivalent.

‘For the first time in history, you will have the Americas free of communism, dictatorship and narco-terrorism for the first time,’ she added.

Machado said she intends to return to Venezuela soon to help drive a democratic transition despite the risks she faces under the country’s current government.

‘I need to be there. I want to go back as soon as possible,’ Machado said.

Her planned return would come at a pivotal moment for Venezuela, as interim President Delcy Rodríguez leads a U.S.-backed transition following the removal of Nicolás Maduro.

Rodríguez, a close ally of Maduro, was sworn into office on Jan. 5 after U.S. forces ousted the ex-leader and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their compound in Caracas during a military operation.

The duo were flown to New York and arraigned in federal court on multiple charges to which they pleaded not guilty.

Rodríguez has since been working with the White House and has spoken with President Donald Trump by phone.

Machado, however, voiced deep reservations about Rodríguez’s leadership, warning that the transition risks falling short without a broader break from the Maduro-era government.

‘If Delcy Rodríguez stays, nothing truly changes,’ she told the Post. ‘There will be no rule of law, no trust, no stability. Venezuelans will not come home under a criminal.’

A battleground district House Republican is wading into the redistricting war that has seized the U.S. with his own new proposal to crack down on ‘partisan gamesmanship.’

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., has introduced a bill called the Fair Apportionment and Independent Redistricting for Maps that Avoid Partisanship (FAIR MAP) Act, which would impose new guardrails on the process of changing congressional districts across all 50 states.

The bill would bar states from drawing districts for or against a specific political party or candidate and ban the creation of new congressional maps more than once a decade following the U.S. census.

It comes as election watchers eye Virginia and Maryland as the latest states whose Democrat-led legislatures could move to redraw their congressional boundaries ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Earlier this month, a state Supreme Court judge in Lawler’s own home turf of New York ruled that New York City’s lone Republican-held district is unconstitutional and must be redrawn — handing potentially a consequential win to Democrats.

Lawler said of Democrats’ push in his state, ‘[Gov. Kathy Hochul] and [House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’] scheme to redraw New York’s congressional districts months before an election is a blatant power grab and misuse of public office.’

The growing redistricting war was kicked off last year when Texas’ GOP-led legislature approved a new congressional map that could give Republicans as many as five new seats in the House of Representatives come the November elections.

Redistricting normally occurs every 10 years after the U.S. census is taken to ensure that seats in the House are reflective of each state’s population. And while there’s a patchwork of state laws aimed at blocking those districts from being redrawn along partisan lines, there is no current federal standard.

In addition to banning mid-decade redistricting in most cases and creating a federal gerrymandering standard, Lawler’s bill would also create a host of new provisions dictating how those populations are ultimately counted and how disputes can be resolved.

The bill would block state and local courts from legal redistricting fights, for example, leaving it to federal judges to weigh in on those fights.

It would also mandate that just U.S. citizens are counted toward state populations when creating new maps — something that could take a significant amount of power away from sanctuary jurisdictions that can currently factor numbers of illegal immigrants who cannot vote when apportioning districts.

The legislation also includes new electoral provisions like barring ranked-choice voting in federal elections, requiring photo ID for voting in those elections, and banning same-day registration in federal elections.

Lawler was among the House Republicans who forcefully came out against the growing redistricting war last summer, when leaders in Texas and California were going toe-to-toe with threats to redraw their maps.

But it does not appear likely as of now that his bill will get taken up for a House-wide vote, given House GOP leaders’ prior insistence that redistricting is a states’ issue.

‘Voting rights and equal representation only work if the system itself is fair, transparent, and trusted. My FAIR MAP Act puts clear guardrails around congressional redistricting, ends mid-decade political map rigging, and ensures that federal elections reflect the voices of lawful voters, not partisan gamesmanship,’ Lawler told Fox News Digital. ‘Every voter deserves confidence that the system is fair and that their vote counts the same as anyone else’s.’

A cohort of Senate Republicans plans to launch a targeted task force aimed at tackling fraudsters in the wake of the Minnesota fraud scandal.

Republican members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee announced that they would form a task force dedicated to rooting out fraudsters abusing federal funding.

The seven-member panel will be led by HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., who has cranked up efforts in recent weeks to crack down on fraud, particularly in Minnesota.

‘Our tax dollars are supposed to help American families, not line the pockets of fraudsters,’ Cassidy said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘HELP Committee Republicans are committed to rooting out this fraud and ensuring Americans’ tax dollars are used responsibly.’

The long-running, nearly six-year-long investigation into alleged fraud in Minnesota gained new attention and traction among Republicans and the White House earlier this year.

The scandal, in which federal prosecutors estimate that up to $9 billion was stolen through a network of fraudulent fronts posing as daycare centers, food programs and health clinics, has dominated the bandwidth of many in the GOP and spurred the Trump administration’s deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents into Minneapolis.

The majority of those charged, so far, in the ongoing investigation are part of Minnesota’s Somali population. The Trump administration has taken steps outside the deploying of ICE agents to target Somalis in the area, too, including ending protected status for the population and launching investigations into whether the fraudulent activity is connected to al-Shabab, a terrorist organization based in Somalia.

The task force will delineate its focus into three prongs: health, education and labor and pensions.

Those three subgroups will be led by Sens. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., Roger Marshall, R-Kan., who will lead the health-focused section, Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., Jon Husted, who will lead the education-focused group, and R-Ohio, Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., and Tim Scott, R-S.C., who will chair the labor-and-pensions-focused section.

But the task force’s announcement comes at a precarious time, as lawmakers hurtle toward what could be another government shutdown fueled in large part by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) actions in Minnesota. 

That situation comes after Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled their plan to reject the DHS funding bill following the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Alex Pretti on Saturday by a border patrol agent. Cassidy, along with a handful of other congressional Republicans, demanded that the incident receive a fulsome and thorough investigation. 

Still, Cassidy’s effort is not the first time he’s forayed into the Minnesota fraud scandal.

Earlier this month, the lawmaker led the entire Senate GOP in a letter to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, demanding that he provide receipts on several issues, and warned that failure to do so could lead to several streams of federal money flowing to Minnesota drying up.

That effort was centered on several requests, like how often the state conducted on-site monitoring, inspections or investigative visits to childcare facilities that received federal dollars.

Senate Republicans specifically wanted examples of any information uncovered on fake children, false attendance records, over-billing, ineligible enrollments, and shell or fake business structures, among other demands from Walz.

Speaking to global leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a blunt warning to Europe about its self-defense.  

‘Europe needs to know how to defend itself,’ he said, arguing that the continent still isn’t ready to stand on its own without U.S. backing.

Zelensky’s remarks reflected a growing anxiety across Europe — that decades of reliance on American protection left the continent ill-prepared for a more dangerous era. While European countries have contributed troops, weapons and money to conflicts from Afghanistan to Ukraine, the ultimate backstop for NATO’s security has remained Washington.

President Donald Trump has openly challenged that assumption, repeatedly warning NATO allies that U.S. protection should not be taken for granted, and insisting the U.S. needed to take Greenland from Denmark

Before he ruled out the use of force to wrest control of the island, European officials had worried about a military dust-up between Western powers would mean the end of NATO.

‘Maybe we should have put NATO to the test: Invoked Article 5, and forced NATO to come here and protect our Southern Border from further Invasions of Illegal Immigrants, thus freeing up large numbers of Border Patrol Agents for other tasks,’ Trump mused on Truth Social Thursday.

Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. may not defend allies that fail to invest in their own security rattled the alliance and pushed European governments to pledge sharp increases in defense spending.

Even so, European leaders continue to acknowledge how central U.S. power remains to NATO’s defense. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has pointed to the American nuclear umbrella as the alliance’s ‘ultimate guarantor,’ alongside a strong U.S. conventional presence in Europe.

‘We are still having a strong, conventional U.S. presence in Europe,’ Rutte said, ‘and, of course, the nuclear umbrella as our ultimate guarantor.’

Security analysts say that long-standing guarantee shaped Europe’s choices over time.

‘For much of the post–Cold War period, it is fair to say that Europeans underinvested in defense, partly because threats were low, and partly because a series of U.S. presidents did everything they could to convince Europeans that we would stay there forever,’ Barry Posen, a professor of political science at MIT, told Fox News Digital.

‘Trump was right to argue that Europeans have been slow to fix up their forces as the situation changed — as Russia pulled itself back together and became more demanding and threatening, and as China also grew its power,’ Posen said.

But Posen warned that driving a wedge inside NATO carries risks. ‘The problem Trump faces is that ‘conditional commitments’ make challenges more likely,’ he said. ‘And then we would still have to decide what to do. As a great power, in the event of an actual challenge, we might not wish to look weak.’

Over time, those choices carried political consequences. With American power serving as the backstop, defense spending was easier to restrain than politically popular domestic subsidies such as healthcare, pensions and education, which became entrenched in European politics.

As defense demands rise, governments are running into those constraints. In Italy, officials have warned that boosting military spending to meet NATO commitments would strain an already tight budget, where pensions and social benefits account for a large share of public spending.

Germany found a way to buy time. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Berlin created a €100 billion special defense fund — financed through new borrowing and kept outside the regular budget — to rebuild its military without immediately cutting other spending. The move jump-started rearmament while shielding popular social programs from near-term cuts. But the fund is temporary. Once it runs out, sustaining higher defense spending will require permanent budget decisions inside a system built around strict fiscal rules and expansive social commitments.

John Byrne of Concerned Veterans for America said Europe’s dependence on the United States runs deeper than defense budgets. Even as European governments pledge more spending, Byrne said they still lack the senior-level experience needed to run NATO operations without U.S. leadership.

‘They don’t have the experience,’ Byrne said, pointing to the fact that large, multinational military commands have overwhelmingly been led by American generals for decades. ‘That institutional knowledge still sits almost entirely with the United States.’

Byrne said that gap matters in a crisis. Running complex, coalition military operations requires years of practice at the highest levels, he said — something that cannot be fixed quickly, even with higher spending.

‘You can buy equipment,’ Byrne said. ‘You can’t instantly buy command experience.’

During his address at Davos on Thursday, Zelenskyy questioned whether Europe has the power  or the will  to act independently if assumptions about U.S. protection change.

‘Europe still feels more like geography, history, tradition, not a real political force, not a great power,’ Zelenskyy said.

He warned that European leaders continue to plan around expectations that may no longer hold. ‘To believe that the United States will act, that it will not stand aside and will help,’ Zelenskyy said. ‘But what if it doesn’t? This question is everywhere in the minds of European leaders.’

The World Health Organization on Saturday warned that America’s withdrawal from the agency will make the country and the world ‘less safe.’

The globalist body said in part of a January 24 statement that it ‘regrets the United States’ notification of withdrawal from WHO – a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe.’ 

‘We hope that in the future, the United States will return to active participation in WHO,’ the statement noted.

The U.S. announced its withdrawal from the WHO last week, after President Donald Trump got the ball rolling on his first day back in office last year.

‘Today, the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), freeing itself from its constraints, as President Trump promised on his first day in office by signing E.O. 14155,’ U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in part of a January 22, 2026, joint statement.

‘Going forward, U.S. engagement with the WHO will be limited strictly to effectuate our withdrawal and to safeguard the health and safety of the American people. All U.S. funding for, and staffing of, WHO initiatives has ceased,’ their statement said.

They claimed the WHO ‘pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests.’ But the WHO pushed back.

‘This is untrue. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, governed by 194 Member States, WHO has always been and remains impartial and exists to serve all countries, with respect for their sovereignty, and without fear or favor,’ the WHO said in its statement.

The daughter of a senior Iranian official who publicly criticized U.S. involvement against President Donald Trump regarding intervening in Iran’s protests has reportedly been fired from her teaching post at a top U.S. college.

The Emory Wheel, Emory University’s news outlet, reported the School of Medicine Dean announced in an email Jan. 24 that Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani was no longer a university employee.  

Ardeshir-Larijani was an assistant professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory’s medical school.

‘The announcement follows a Jan. 19 protest where Iranian-American demonstrators gathered outside Emory’s Winship Cancer Institute to oppose the employment of Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani by the University,’ the outlet said.

Ardeshir-Larijani’s Emory faculty page and her Emory Healthcare pages were also no longer visible online.

The nonprofit Alliance Against Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) claimed that Ardeshir-Larijani had lived and worked in the U.S. for several years.

The group also cited the professional profile on Emory Healthcare’s official website as showing a listing for a woman called Ardeshir-Larijani who is a U.S.-trained hematologist-oncologist and practicing in Atlanta.

The claims had first drawn attention amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the outbreak of protests and reports of deaths during an intense crackdown from Dec. 28.

Trump warned of potential U.S. action in response.

In a Jan. 2 Truth Social post, the president warned that if Iran ‘violently kills peaceful protesters’ the U.S. ‘will come to their rescue,’ saying ‘we are locked and loaded and ready to go.’ 

Trump’s remarks prompted warnings from senior Iranian officials, who said any American interference would cross a ‘red line.’

Ali Larijani had posted on X that U.S. interference in Iran’s internal affairs would ‘[destabilize] the entire region’ and ‘[destroy] American interests.’

‘The American people must know that Trump is the one who started this adventure,’ he wrote, ‘and they should pay attention to the safety of their soldiers.’

AAIRIA responded by urging U.S. authorities to review the immigration and visa status of Ardeshir-Larijani and her husband.

The group urged officials to determine whether continued residence in the U.S. aligns with U.S. law, national security considerations and principles of accountability and human rights, in a statement shared online.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., also called on Emory to dismiss Ardeshir-Larijani and the state’s medical board to revoke her medical license.

Ardeshir-Larijani’s dismissal also arrived two weeks after sanctions had been placed on her father by the Treasury Department, who said that he ‘is responsible for coordinating the response to the protests on behalf of the Supreme Leader of Iran and has publicly called for Iranian security forces to use force to repress peaceful protesters,’ and has publicly defended the regime’s actions.

Ali Larijani has portrayed the U.S. as a hostile power in the past.

A 2018 report by The Washington Times highlighted what critics described as a double standard among Iranian officials whose relatives live or work in Western countries.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment and Emory University for comment.

One of the key negotiators who helped end the last government shutdown won’t support a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill, further adding to the likelihood of another closure. 

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday that he could not support the current, six-bill funding package as is because it included the DHS funding bill. King was a pivotal figure in ending the last shutdown, and was one of only eight Senate Democratic caucus members to join Republicans to end it. 

King, like other members of the Senate Democratic caucus, is infuriated by the death of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old nurse who was shot dead by a border patrol agent in Minneapolis on Saturday. 

Congressional Democrats have railed against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents entering Minnesota and elsewhere, but begrudgingly agreed to support the DHS bill until the chaos over the weekend unfolded.

‘I hate shutdowns,’ King said. ‘I’m one of the people that helped negotiate the solution to the last — the end of the last shutdown, but I can’t vote for a bill that includes ICE funding under the circumstances.’ 

King’s resistance to the package comes after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced that Senate Democrats would not support the legislation, increasing the odds of a partial government shutdown by the end of the week. 

It also comes on the heels of ICE entering King’s home state of Maine for operation Catch of the Day, where Democratic Gov. Janet Mills is running to beat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in a pivotal Senate race that could determine the balance of power in the upper chamber.  

King argued that there was an ‘easy way out’ of the funding snafu — Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could separate out the DHS funding bill and let lawmakers vote on the remaining five bills.

However, should that happen, the House would still have to weigh in. The lower chamber won’t return to Washington, D.C., until next month, all but ensuring a partial government shutdown by Friday unless lawmakers can reach a compromise agreement. 

‘Let’s have an honest negotiation,’ King said. ‘Put some guardrails on what’s going on, some accountability, and that would solve this problem. We don’t have to have a shutdown.’

President Donald Trump said Sunday that it was ‘too late’ to halt construction of a new ballroom at the White House, despite a newly filed lawsuit challenging the project.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump described the ballroom as ‘a GIFT (ZERO taxpayer funding) to the United States of America,’ estimating its cost at $300 million and saying it was financed through private donations.

Trump said the lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, criticizing the group for filing it after construction was already underway.

‘Why didn’t these obstructionists and troublemakers bring their baseless lawsuit much earlier?’ he wrote.

Trump added that the East Wing was ‘changed, built and rebuilt over the years’ and that ‘it bore no resemblance or relationship to the original building.’

On July 31, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the planned construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom. The sprawling ballroom will accommodate approximately 650 seated guests and will stay true to the classical design of the White House.

The White House does not have a formal ballroom, and the new ballroom will take the place of the current East Wing of the White House. 

Since his return to office, Trump has wasted no time in reshaping the look and feel of the White House and the National Mall.

Trump has previously unveiled a new monument dubbed the ‘Arc de Trump,’ which is planned to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary next year.

He said the large arch, a near twin of Paris’s iconic Arc de Triomphe, will welcome visitors crossing the Arlington Memorial Bridge from Arlington National Cemetery into the heart of the nation’s capital.

Trump’s taste for opulence is unmistakable in the Oval Office, where golden accents now decorate the nation’s most iconic workspace, a reflection of his personal style.

Since then, Trump has added gold accents throughout the Oval Office to include decorative details along the ceiling and around the doorway trim. Even the cherubs inside the door frames were given a gilded makeover.

Outside the Oval Office, the Trump administration unveiled the ‘Presidential Walk of Fame,’ a series of portraits of past presidents now displayed along the West Wing colonnade.

The portrait of former President Joe Biden features his signature, created with an autopen, a machine that holds a pen and reproduces a person’s handwriting through programmed movements. The Trump administration has also installed several large mirrors in gold frames along the walkway.

Trump also said he renovated the Lincoln bathroom in the White House because it did not reflect the style of President Abraham Lincoln’s era. 

‘I renovated the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House. It was renovated in the 1940s in an art-deco green tile style, which was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,’ Trump wrote in an Oct. 31 Truth Social post.

President Donald Trump praised the soldiers of the United Kingdom who served alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan on Saturday, clarifying his previous criticism of NATO allies.

Trump had earlier criticized NATO troops who served in Afghanistan, arguing they had stayed ‘a little bit back’ from the frontlines during the conflict. His statement was met with outrage in the U.K., however, where Prime Minister Kier Starmer called it ‘insulting and frankly, appalling.’

‘The GREAT and very BRAVE soldiers of the United Kingdom will always be with the United States of America! In Afghanistan, 457 died, many were badly injured, and they were among the greatest of all warriors,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.

‘It’s a bond too strong to ever be broken. The U.K. Military, with tremendous Heart and Soul, is second to none (except for the U.S.A.!). We love you all, and always will!’ he continued.

The social media post partially walks back his previous criticism of NATO, made during an interview on Fox Business.

‘We have never really asked anything of them,’ he said. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that, and they did. They stayed a little back, little off the front lines.’

Starmer’s office says the prime minister raised the issue with Trump during a phone call this weekend.

‘The Prime Minister raised the brave and heroic British and American soldiers who fought side by side in Afghanistan, many of whom never returned home,’ a spokesperson said. ‘We must never forget their sacrifice.’

Trump’s initial remarks also drew a direct rebuke from Prince Harry, who served two tours in Afghanistan.

‘I served there. I made lifelong friends there. And I lost friends there,’ Harry said.

‘Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defense of diplomacy and peace,’ he added.

The horrific regime slaughter in Iran and President Trump’s aggressive campaign to acquire Greenland have resulted in the neglect of a major case now underway at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ last week began hearings brought by Gambia against Myanmar alleging genocide against the Rohingya people—about 1.4 million of whom live in Myanmar. Several other states have intervened in support of Gambia, which has presented the court with evidence it contends proves that Myanmar’s military forces committed a genocide against the Rohingya population. Myanmar vehemently denies the allegation.

While this case does not concern Israel directly, the ICJ’s determinations may have major ramifications for the case Israel is now defending at the tribunal against South Africa.

This is especially true since one of the judges hand-picked by Gambia to sit on its ICJ panel is South African national Navi Pillay. That would be the same Navi Pillay who recently rushed to publish a report accusing Israel of genocide before retiring as head of the UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry—a panel widely criticized for its flagrant institutional bias against Israel and the anti-Semitic remarks of its members.

In reality, South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel is riddled with flaws. It is also pushing to redefine a term that been held sacrosanct since the end of the World War II.

The term ‘genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Holocaust survivor who in 1944 strived for its incorporation into modern international law. That occurred in 1948 via the UN Genocide Convention.

The prohibition on genocide is considered a jus cogens norm—that is, a non-derogable rule accepted by all of the first-world community with no exceptions. The definition of ‘genocide’ requires no law degree to understand, and it should never, ever be politicized.

For a genocide to take place under Geneva, there must be acts committed ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.’ The phrase ‘intent’ here is of paramount importance.

South Africa’s pending case before the ICJ alleges Israeli intent to destroy the Palestinian-Arab population of Gaza. Israel, by contrast, (correctly) maintains that its recent actions in Gaza have been a just and proper military response to the war of annihilationist jihad and unspeakable atrocities launched against it by the Hamas terrorist organization on Oct. 7, 2023.

Israel’s ‘intent’ is to free Gaza from Hamas, to return hostages abducted and held by Hamas, and to ensure Hamas has no future role in Gaza and cannot undertake another October 7-style massacre. It repeatedly offered to end the war if Hamas laid down its arms and released all hostages.

Hamas, on the other hand, has shown a complete disregard for human life and has openly stated that its sacrifice of Gazan civilians is a cynical strategic necessity to turn public opinion against Israel. It has for years embedded military infrastructure within Gazan civilian infrastructure—schools, hospitals, UN facilities, mosques, and children’s bedrooms. Israel has waged a defensive campaign in one of the most complex operational environments of any modern war.

At the same time, it has worked with states and NGOs to allow and facilitate extensive amounts of humanitarian aid, rebuilt water supplies, coordinated the vaccination of young Gazans against polio, and helped coordinate and approve the evacuation of those in need of urgent medical care.

Israel repeatedly provides advanced warnings of impending military strikes and has held off strikes where intelligence of nearby civilians has come to light. For a fighting party to so often relinquish the element of surprise to reduce harm to the local civilian population of its enemy is extraordinary.

None of this constitutes a ‘genocide’—and clearly shows the lack of any intent by Israel to destroy the local Palestinian-Arab population in Gaza.

Nonetheless, since South Africa brought its case before the ICJ, numerous groups and states have leapt at the opportunity to join in on the anti-Israel campaign. This has ranged from tendentious so-called online genocide scholars to anti-Semitic mobs to deeply politicized NGOs. Amnesty International, for instance, shamelessly waited more than two years before publishing a report focusing on Hamas’ crimes on Oct. 7, while straining to remind readers of its slanderous accusation of genocide made against Israel a year prior.

Together, they have all been involved in a campaign to redefine the term ‘genocide’ to suit their narrative—all while ignoring the reality of Hamas’ own Nazi-esque barbarism.

The politically motivated efforts to undermine the concept should be of grave concern to us all. If successful, it will result in the ICJ’s further self-discrediting as an institution of political point scoring, rather than meaningful justice.

Israel has legitimately responded to genocidal attacks by a terrorist organization that has repeatedly called for its entire annihilation and the murder of all global Jewry—something it broadcast live to the world on Oct. 7, 2023.

The term ‘genocide’ is one too important to be cheapened. Those pushing for its redefinition must be stopped in their tracks.