One thing the Hamas/Israel conflict has conclusively demonstrated is that the fashionable hypothesis, so prevalent in the West, that force is never the answer, is both flawed and dangerous. Projecting strength early and, in a measured way, can often avert more painful and costly outcomes later.

Take the recent targeting of Jewish communities by anti-Israel activists in Western capitals. When authorities responded with platitudinous word salads, protests spread and violence flared. The few who supported Israel, were removed ‘for their own safety’.

But it isn’t just Jews who need protection. Democracy itself is under attack. By refusing to apply force, those sworn to uphold fundamental democratic principles allow tyranny to rule and equality under the law to become a theoretical construct. Symbolic of this capitulation was the closure of the Australian Prime Minister’s electoral office to avoid political fallout from a confrontation with pro-Palestine demonstrators.

This civilisational agnosticism saw Australia, Britain, France and Canada formally recognise a non-existent Palestinian state. Rather than bring peace, they naively emboldened Hamas fanatics to resist ceasefire offers and inflict more misery on innocents. Hamas is well practised at using human shields to persuade soft-headed Western leaders not only to betray democratic Israel but to make ‘from the river to the sea’ seem an achievable goal.

Western submission is not new. A decade ago, President Barack Obama, along with Britain, France, Germany and the European Union, sided with China and Russia in a deal that would ensure Iranˈs nuclear program would be ‘exclusively peaceful’. Framed as a choice between war and peace the agreement saw the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran provide a cash infusion of around $200 billion. Much went to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is unlikely that the 7 October attacks on Israel could have happened without Iran’s continued support.

Predictably, Iran’s nuclear non-proliferation promises counted for nothing. Tehran repeatedly failed to cooperate with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and it exceeded its low-enriched uranium limits which it upgraded to levels with no peaceful application. In reality the deal was a dereliction of duty and little more than an Obama vanity project.

Indeed, President Trump’s military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities did more to preserve nuclear non-proliferation than a decade of kumbaya diplomatic theatre.

Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of the West’s reluctance to project strength is China.

US President Bill Clinton epitomised the West’s gullibility when, in 2000, he declared, ‘By joining the World Trade Organisation, China is not simply agreeing to import more of our products, it is agreeing to import one of democracy’s most cherished values: economic freedom. When individuals have the power… to realise their dreams, they will demand a greater say.’

What Clinton failed to realise is Chinese leaders also understood this. They were well aware the market-based reforms introduced by Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping which had propelled China to become the world’s second-largest economy also posed an existential threat to the Chinese Communist party.

It’s why they appointed Xi Jinping president. To the world he may appear a kindly, simple peasant, but in reality he’s an old fashioned Marxist-Leninist with no time for individual freedom. Indeed, he sees empowerment of individuals as a ‘bourgeoise fallacy’ and free speech, equality under the law and other human rights, as having to be ‘controlled’ or ‘delayed’.

Through multiple purges he has put his beliefs into practice and made it clear that no one is safe. By expanding his authority and through intense central planning, he has ensured politically, socially and economically, the Chinese people do what he says.

Meanwhile, China continues to demonstrate to its Western champions that hope is an overrated virtue. Having achieved WTO membership, Beijing ignores the protocols of accession by pursuing beggar-thy-neighbour hidden subsidies, employing slave labour, practising intellectual property theft, applying market access restrictions and engaging in massive intervention in currency markets to keep its currency weak. Their purpose is to make the world dependent on Chinese exports. They succeeded, as China’s dominance in pharmaceuticals, solar panels, EVs, critical minerals and many other goods confirms.

Indeed, thanks to China’s growing assertiveness and the West’s reckless complicity, Beijing has a virtual grip on the United Nations, giving it a licence to ignore international agreements and conventions.

It is this neglect of national responsibilities which saw the gormless Barack Obama hail the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement as an ‘historic day’. He and his Western co-signatories seemed oblivious to the massive wealth transfer they were gifting Beijing at huge financial and social cost to their own economies.

In the decade since signing, Beijing, while extolling the virtues of the Paris Agreement, has been responsible for around 90 per cent of the growth in global CO2 emissions.

Beijing’s disregard for WTO protocols and Paris emissions targets not only boosted China’s economic growth but, by extension, its military spending. Today, China boasts the world’s largest military force with 2.2 million active personnel. Actual defence spending now accounts for more than four per cent of GDP, or around one trillion dollars a year. Meanwhile, the West apathetically watches on. Perhaps decades of Marxist indoctrination have trivialised democratic beliefs? Rather than China embracing democracy, the West has adopted socialism, secured by America’s hypothetical defence umbrella of the West.

Until President Donald Trump. That defence umbrella is no longer a given.

Moreover, Trump’s withdrawals from the Paris Agreement, the WHO, the UN Human Rights Commission, Unrwa and Unesco are a major diplomatic and financial blow to pro-China globalists.

While they will characterise these actions as the demise of the international rules-based order, they are  in reality, along with the imposition of tariffs, a demonstration of political and economic strength, intended, without bloodshed, to shift the global balance of power westward.

Time will tell, but at least Donald Trump has drawn an unambiguous line in the sand. How many more Western leaders will find the courage to follow his lead?