Planet Labs PBC/AP

A satellite photo shows the military base known as Tower 22 in northeastern Jordan, near the Syrian border, Oct. 12, 2023. Three American troops were killed and at least 34 wounded Jan. 28, 2024, in a drone strike on the base, according to U.S. officials.

As news emerged that an Iran-backed militant group had killed three U.S. troops and wounded at least 34 other Americans at a remote outpost in Jordan with a drone, President Joe Biden vowed to strike back.

“We lost three brave souls,” he said Sunday. “We shall respond.” 

What that means, exactly, will go a long way toward shaping the extent to which the United States is further drawn into the spiraling Middle East clashes that the Biden administration has repeatedly vowed to avoid since Hamas’ devastating Oct. 7 attack on Israel. 

Just hours earlier, on a Sunday morning news show recorded before the attack, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasized that the U.S. decidedly does not “want to go down a path of greater escalation that drives to a much broader conflict within the region.”

This latest attack, however, seemed to underscore that the U.S. is already being drawn fairly far down this path. Amid this kind of escalation, analysts note, the desire to avoid war often runs headlong into the satisfying rallying cry for a hard-hitting military response.

Precisely who the recipient of this retribution should be, though, is a point of disagreement. What is clear, the Biden administration says, is that the attack was carried out by “radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq.”

The umbrella group for many of them, Islamic Resistance in Iraq, has claimed responsibility. Tehran for its part has denied a role in the attack, saying in a statement Monday that Iran had “no connection and nothing to do with” it.

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

That hasn’t stopped a number of Republican lawmakers from calling for strikes “directly against Iranian targets and their leadership,” as Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, put it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham demanded Mr. Biden hit “targets inside Iran,” a move he has been calling for since Houthis stepped up attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes in response, they say, to Israel’s post-Oct. 7 war in Gaza. 

Merely hitting back at Iran-sponsored groups won’t deter Iran, these lawmakers argue. Yet there are a number of options the Biden administration could choose short of striking Iran directly, analysts point out. 

This might include targeting members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen, as the U.S. did in 2020 when it killed the group’s commander by drone strike. 

“Whether or not it’s a good idea, Biden will have, at minimum, to take steps along those lines,” argues Rajan Menon, director of the Grand Strategy program at the Defense Priorities think tank. “Especially because this is an election year and the GOP, and above all [former President Donald] Trump, will flay him for being weak.” 

Future of U.S. troops in region

Overall, militias with suspected ties to Tehran have conducted some 170 attacks on U.S. bases in the Middle East since Oct. 7. Though the perpetrating groups have framed their efforts as a response to the Israel-Hamas war, they are also an opportunity to accelerate a long-standing campaign to expel U.S. forces from the region. 

General Brown said in his pre-attack TV appearance Sunday that he does not think Iran wants war with the U.S. Still, the violent activities of these militant groups, analysts say, are certainly in Iran’s interest. 

Among other pluses from Tehran’s perspective, they “align with its goal of raising the risks associated with an open-ended deployment of U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq,” Mr. Menon says. 

One of the ongoing questions in the wake of the Sunday attack, in which U.S. officials say the militia’s drone eluded U.S. air defenses by tailing a U.S. drone, is the extent to which these deployments of U.S. forces will continue.

The attack occurred at a U.S. outpost known as Tower 22, where some 350 U.S. troops are deployed and near where the borders of Iraq, Jordan, and Syria come together. 

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

President Joe Biden bows his head in a moment of silence for the three American troops killed Jan. 28, 2024, in a drone strike in northeast Jordan, while speaking that same day at the Brookland Baptist Banquet Center in West Columbia, South Carolina.

Tower 22 serves as a logistics supply hub, too, for the larger U.S. base at al-Tanf in Syria, a dozen miles away.

While this base was created to support operations against the Islamic State (ISIS) in northern Syria as well as training missions with the Iraqi army, it also serves to disrupt key supply routes used by Iran-backed militias that run from Baghdad to Damascus.

The Trump administration considered closing al-Tanf after the collapse of the ISIS caliphate, but then-national security adviser John Bolton boasted in his 2020 memoir that he helped persuade the president to keep it open.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also reportedly urged against the base closure, given the usefulness of an air corridor for Israeli strikes against Iran-backed militias in Syria.

Risk in either direction

Though tactically handy, these outposts have left U.S. forces vulnerable to attack. Earlier this month, several U.S. military personnel in the Anbar province of western Iraq were wounded in a missile attack by Iran-backed militias. 

The dilemma, of course, is that shuttering these bases runs risks, too. Gen. Michael Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, warned lawmakers last March, for example, that ISIS will return within one to two years without a U.S. presence in Syria.

Such trade-offs were already confronting the Biden administration before this weekend’s attack. On Saturday, the U.S. and Iraq held the first session of formal talks that could lead to the withdrawal of the 2,500 U.S. forces currently in Iraq.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed victory for this development as the result of its own violent pressure. The move proves, the group said in a statement, that “Americans only understand the language of force.” 

Military analysts say the U.S. might flip that same logic around on Iran and its proxies. Mr. Biden is weighing a counterattack that, he vows, will come “at a time and in a manner of our choosing.” 

Mass demonstrations against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government rocked Israel for most of last year, before the outbreak of war.

They are now coming back, albeit smaller and quieter so far, demanding one thing: Secure the release of the remaining Israeli hostages seized by Hamas during its Oct. 7 rampage.

Immediately.

On a recent cold Saturday night in Tel Aviv, in a main plaza renamed “Hostages Square,” Shira Albag, the mother of 18-year-old captive Liri, addressed a sea of numb and tearful protesters holding placards with the faces of those 136 Israelis still held in Gaza.

“Only if we return all of our hostages home will we be able to feel a sense of victory,” she said. “The hourglass is running out.”

“Now, now, now,” the crowd chanted, directing their anger at the government for not doing enough, and not willing to “pay any price” for the safe return of their loved ones.

Nearly four months into Israel’s retaliatory offensive against Hamas in Gaza, the twin goals set out by Israel – “destroying” the militant organization as the governing and military power in the territory, and releasing all of the hostages – have yet to be achieved.

And for the first time since the start of the war, many in Israel – including opposition politicians and key media figures – have begun to question what victory would even look like.

Ronen Zvulun/Reuters

Families of hostages and their supporters call for the immediate release of the remaining hostages kidnapped during the deadly Oct. 7 attack by Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's residence, in Jerusalem, Jan. 21, 2024.

The hostages, as near-weekly videos released by Hamas have shown, are being held in harsh conditions, and may not survive further time in captivity. Israeli intelligence even believes that Hamas leadership, located deep in underground tunnels below Gaza, is using them as human shields, making elimination of the leadership and rescue of the hostages into incompatible military goals.

Stop “selling fantasies”

The cracks in what had been near universal public unity supporting Israel’s war aims in the conflict’s first few months have even reached the five-person wartime Cabinet tasked with prosecuting the campaign against Hamas.

In a bombshell television interview on Israel’s Channel 12 this month, Gadi Eisenkot, a centrist politician and former military chief who joined Mr. Netanyahu’s wartime coalition in October, said the welfare of the hostages had to take precedence.

The government, he added, needed to stop “selling fantasies” to the public that their release would be achieved through force alone.

“We should say bravely that it is impossible to return the hostages alive in the near future without an agreement [with Hamas],” Mr. Eisenkot said, including countenancing a halt to the fighting for a “significant” period of time as part of any such deal.

Analysts question what “significant” time would actually entail, as Hamas has consistently demanded that any new deal lead to a permanent cease-fire (in addition to the release of possibly thousands of Palestinians from Israeli prisons, many held on serious terror offenses).

Mr. Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and the top military brass have so far been consistent: Israel is still striving, as the prime minister continues to insist, for “total victory.” Senior Israeli officials maintain that only military power will lead to the hostages’ release.

Alexandre Meneghini/Reuters

Supporters and family members of Israeli hostages calling for their release camp outside the home of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in Caesarea, Israel, Jan. 20, 2024.

"The long-term agreements with Hamas [in the past] had only one reason: They understood that they might pay a military price,” says one senior Israeli military official. “This is the effect of pressure. We need to use military force.” Having only conversations “simply won't work.”

Negotiations in Paris

And yet negotiations in a bid to halt the conflict are exactly what the United States and other mediators are trying to pursue. Over the weekend, Israel’s top two spy chiefs met with CIA Director Bill Burns and senior Egyptian and Qatari officials in Paris for talks over a multistage cease-fire deal that would see the release of the hostages.

A senior Israeli official described the talks as “constructive ... but significant gaps remain” – primarily the question of how to bridge Israel’s purported offer of a two-month truce with Hamas’ continued demand for a full cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

Israeli leaders have made clear they intend to continue their offensive on the other side of any stoppage in fighting, similar to the weeklong truce concluded in late November that saw the release of over 100 Israeli hostages and 240 Palestinian prisoners.

Fighting in Gaza resumed almost immediately after the truce collapsed, with Israeli forces now operating in the southern city of Khan Yunis after a large-scale ground incursion that reduced swaths of northern Gaza to rubble.

Analysts question whether Mr. Netanyahu has the political space for any halt to the war, given that his key far-right coalition allies, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, have opposed any such move.

“In favor of returning the hostages, against an awful deal,” Mr. Ben-Gvir posted last week on X, formerly known as Twitter, amid reports of renewed international mediation.

Yet, similar to Mr. Eisenkot, government critics contend that the moment may have arrived where Israel indeed has to make such a choice.

“The two goals of the war are in conflict,” asserted Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, in a recent call with reporters. “In the first deal [with Hamas last November] military pressure was necessary. Now it’s not necessarily helping return the hostages.”

Israel Defense Forces/Reuters

Israeli soldiers patrol in the Gaza Strip amid the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, in a photo released by the military, Jan. 29, 2024.

Most support continuing war

And yet despite mounting concern from all corners of Israeli society over the plight of the hostages, some 60% of Jewish Israelis would oppose any hostage release deal that required halting the war and releasing all Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, according to a poll published last week by the Israel Democracy Institute.

Mr. Netanyahu himself, in a press conference Saturday, appeared to criticize the hostage families themselves for protesting too loudly, arguing that it “only strengthens Hamas’ demands and pushes the goal [of the hostages’ release] further away.”

The prime minister again reiterated his “commitment to win a total victory,” and lashed out at those “voices of the weak” inside Israel that “are trying to sow doubt, despondency, and pessimism” regarding the country’s ability to do so.

According to one person with knowledge of Mr. Netanyahu’s thinking, he is preparing for upcoming snap elections that are now being anticipated across the political spectrum, as even Mr. Eisenkot hinted in his television interview.

The hostage families, along with the traditional anti-Netanyahu protest groups, have vowed to increase their public demonstrations. They have also begun blocking the main highway just outside Tel Aviv, a move taken straight from last year’s mass protests.

“God willing, together we will win,” Mr. Netanyahu said Saturday night at the close of his press conference, in a wink to the unofficial national tagline for the war that he has arrogated for himself. The growing sense in Israel is that unity, let alone victory, is further away than ever.

Tingshu Wang/Reuters

Older adults walk with children at a park in Beijing. China’s birthrate is falling despite an end to its one-child policy.

When the Chinese government imposed its one-child policy in 1980, the authorities feared an impending overpopulation disaster. Four decades later, they are worried by the opposite – the possibility of a population collapse. 

Last week, China announced a drop in its population for the second year in a row. The government is scrambling to reverse what demographers classify as an “ultralow” birthrate nearing one child per woman, less than half the population replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman.

The declining population dilemma is attracting attention around the world. Birthrates are falling on every continent, raising questions about how humanity can and should respond.

“In the long run, if humanity’s average birthrate goes and stays below two, then the size of the human population will decrease,” says Dean Spears, associate professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin. “There is no reason to be confident [the trend] is likely to reverse course soon or automatically.”

Almost everywhere, parents are choosing to have fewer children, whether for economic or personal reasons. Two-thirds of the planet’s population now lives in a region where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level, from 1.7 in the U.S. to 1.5 in Europe and 1.2 in East Asia.

Birthrates are higher in sub-Saharan Africa, but they are dropping there, too, from 6.8 to 4.6 births per woman since 1980. The global average has fallen from five births per woman in 1950 to 2.3 in 2021, often driven down by greater economic prosperity and women’s empowerment.

Demographers expect the world’s population to peak sometime in the second half of this century. Whether it will then stabilize or plummet is uncertain; if the whole world’s fertility rate followed the U.S. example, global population could decline as quickly as it has risen over the past two centuries.

But most experts warn against drawing long-term conclusions, especially those that spell disaster. 

“To have lower fertility is not necessarily a negative situation,” says Patrick Gerland, a senior official at the United Nations Population Division. “It’s more, how does society adapt to this new reality?”

For generations, most people have worried about the threat of overpopulation. Books such as “The Population Bomb,” published in 1968, warned of mass global famine and upheavals caused by a coming population explosion. It was later deemed alarmist and largely inaccurate, which is not to say that countries with the highest birthrates do not still have difficulty meeting their citizens’ basic needs.

Lower birthrates lead to different economic dilemmas. Increasing life spans are a sign of global progress. But if fewer children are born and grow up to find jobs, that means there will be fewer working-age individuals to support retirees through traditional pension and healthcare systems. And a smaller pool of innovators and entrepreneurs, as well as consumers, could mean lower economic growth in the future.

Making it easy for couples to raise children may be the best way to encourage them to do so, says Dr. Gerland. He points to France and the Nordic countries as places whose family-friendly policies – from affordable child care to generous parental leave – may have helped stabilize, or even slightly increase, fertility rates in recent years.

Raising fertility rates, he says, “usually means a lot of social support to families, and especially combining work and family. To do it alone is very difficult.”  

SOURCE:

National Bureau of Statistics of China, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

In the teeming crowd in front of Argentina’s National Congress last week, Alicia Ambrosi weaved her way around banners and placards pleading for more economic assistance – and deriding a new president intent on fundamentally changing how the country works. 

The retiree, who once sewed socks in a factory, sees herself as part of the growing number of Argentines slipping below the poverty line. Her pension is roughly $150 a month, about minimum wage, but with climbing inflation, she says she can barely cover basic expenses. 

“If I ate two bananas before, now I eat one,” Ms. Ambrosi says of a brutal economic picture that’s rapidly deteriorating.

The public turnout for the Jan. 24 national strike against President Javier Milei demonstrates the power struggle underway in Argentina today, as the fledgling administration attempts an overhaul of the role of the state. Tens of thousands – mostly those who did not vote for Mr. Milei in the November election – are urging Congress to block the president’s wide-ranging package of economic and legislative reforms, which include privatizing state companies, rolling back environmental protections, and curtailing workers’ rights. 

Agustin Marcarian/Reuters

Demonstrators protest outside the National Congress during a one-day national strike, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Jan. 24, 2024.

While the scale of the strike, the first in five years and promoted by powerful unions, was minimized by government officials, days later Mr. Milei was forced to ditch controversial fiscal proposals. It was viewed as a trade-off to secure congressional approval of his broader reforms package. On Friday, his economy minister announced a backtracking on changes to pension plans, taxes, and export-tariff hikes.

“What we’re seeing is a government that emerges out of great political weakness,” says Carlos Fara, a political analyst in Buenos Aires. “It leaves the impression that they have sort of bought into a fantasy” that they hold more power than they actually do. 

Getting worse before better?

Mr. Milei rose to the presidency using fiery rhetoric that promised to dollarize the struggling economy and cut the waste he said was driven by a corrupt political class. He rode the wave of “outsider” status, going from incendiary media personality to legislator and then president in a handful of years. While he secured 56% of the vote in the runoff in November, that was only after forging an alliance with another conservative block. The number of seats that his party controls in the Congress is just a fraction of what he needs to govern.

Since taking office in December, he’s had to confront Argentina’s political reality – softening some of his stances in order to build political capital, and grappling with a worsening economic picture. He devalued the official currency within days of taking office, a move that accelerated inflation, which has now soared past 211% in the past 12 months. December alone saw an average 25% increase in prices, with basic food and hygiene products climbing even further. Bread was up 38% from the previous month, and diapers were 45% more expensive. 

Rodrigo Abd/AP

A demonstrator on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, Argentina, eats a communal meal during the Jan. 17, 2024, national protest. Demonstrators turned out across the country to denounce austerity measures proposed by Argentine President Javier Milei.

The president has been clear: Life in Argentina will get a lot darker before there is a reprieve. He intends to slash public spending to bring it in line with revenues and to cut key subsidies on which a swath of Argentines have come to depend, such as for utilities and public transit. More than 40% of Argentines live below the poverty line, according to government data.

“I don’t know where we got this idea, that you have to suffer in order to one day be better,” says Antonelia Colletti, a high school art teacher at last Wednesday’s national strike.

Mr. Milei is operating under very thin margins, says Ignacio Labaqui, who teaches political science at the Catholic University of Argentina. He needs Congress to approve certain tools that enable him to implement his plan before his popularity suffers from what is sure to be very difficult months ahead. 

Even “if everything goes well, Milei won’t have a lot of good news until April or May,” says Mr. Labaqui. 

“This is a hyper-minority government. Milei has to be very pragmatic and flexible. ... It’s very difficult for his agenda to advance if he doesn’t negotiate with a part of the opposition.” 

So far, Mr. Milei has shown a propensity for pragmatism, Mr. Labaqui says, giving key government positions to other conservative forces outside his small party, and shelving some of his more controversial ideas, such as dollarization. Other contentious elements of his reform package, such as requiring permission for public gatherings of three or more people, have also been scrapped. 

But Mr. Milei has clung to rhetoric that focuses on the “political caste” as the source of all evil, something he returned to in a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The language inherently vilifies those with whom he has to negotiate.

Gian Ehrenzeller/Reuters

Argentine President Javier Milei has clung to rhetoric that focuses on the “political caste” as the source of evil in Argentina, something he referenced in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this year. Here, he reacts during a session there, Jan. 17, 2024.

Mr. Milei has yet to fill roles in the public administration, and faces both communication and coordination problems that come from lack of experience, says Mr. Fara. “This is going to be a government that is constantly in problems, unless it has some sort of resounding economic success,” he says. 

Hoping for stability

The big unanswered question is still how much runway Argentines are willing to give this new government. People are exhausted by the revolving door of economic crises. One recent poll suggests nearly two-thirds of Argentines surveyed think Mr. Milei can solve the country’s problems, if given time. Other surveys show his popularity is already taking a hit. 

Andrea Ortigoza voted for Mr. Milei, using a common refrain among supporters: “I wanted a change,” she says. 

And although she’s terrified of rising transit costs and how they will eat into her meager earnings as a housekeeper, Ms. Ortigoza still supports him. 

“We have to give him a chance,” she says. 

But Juan Sucno, a father of two, sees Argentina as caught in a game of roulette. In January, he had to close his motorcycle repair shop because his rent had tripled, while his sales stagnated as the cost of materials shot up. Now he drives for Uber. 

“What I’m hoping for is that [Mr. Milei] can maintain stability,” Mr. Sucno says. “To hope for things to improve is pretty difficult.”

The main character in the streaming version of “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” might be the son of Poseidon, but he still has a thing or two to learn from his mortal mother.

In a scene that does not appear in the popular book series, he and Sally Jackson stand before a statue of his namesake Perseus, who holds the severed head of Medusa. For Percy, the math is easy: Medusa is a villain, and Perseus is a hero. But Mom offers another view. 

“Not everyone who looks like a hero is a hero, and not everyone who looks like a monster is a monster,” she tells him.

The sympathetic nod to Medusa is one of the ways the show shakes up the stories about Percy’s life, the first of which, “The Lightning Thief,” has charted on The New York Times’ bestseller list for children’s books for more than 13 years. Also different: Many of the white characters from the books are not white in the Disney+ version. 

Percy’s creator, Rick Riordan, who serves as a producer and writer, has reacted much more favorably to these changes than those made by two earlier movies, which he described as his “life’s work going through a meat grinder.” Gone from this version are the aged-up characters and mature content.

Fans, too, have been mostly on board. The first episode begins with a voiceover by actor Walker Scobell’s Percy: “Look, I didn’t want to be a half-blood.” The phrase is identical to the opening line of “The Lightning Thief” and seems to promise devotees that, this time, fans won’t be disappointed. 

For Sophia Campbell, the three primary heroes – Percy, Annabeth Chase (Leah Jeffries), and Grover Underwood (Aryan Simhadri) – have been particularly compelling. “The show captured the trio’s dynamic perfectly,” she says. “It really feels as though the books I grew up with have come to life on screen.” 

Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

“Percy Jackson and the Olympians” producer Becky Riordan (left) along with series actors Walker Scobell, Leah Jeffries, and Aryan Simhadri and show co-creator Rick Riordan, visit the Empire State Building in New York, Dec. 12, 2023.

“Percy Jackson and the Olympians” is part of a broader trend – one in which popular young adult fare is finding new life. Disney and author Christopher Paolini are working on adapting his “Eragon” books into a series. A live-action remake of “Avatar: The Last Airbender” – the critically acclaimed animated TV show from the early 2000s – arrives on Netflix next month. Also coming soon: a live-action version of the animated film series “How To Train Your Dragon,” also based on a series of books.

Nate Chinman, who first read the Percy Jackson books in middle school, says that he happily returns to them as a high school senior. He says it’s important that the characters are portrayed at the correct ages. “That’s such a huge part of the book, [that] they’re that young and are dealing with these huge things,” he says.

The first season closely follows the plot of “The Lightning Thief.” After learning who his father is, Percy treks across the United States with Annabeth and Grover. Their quest is to return Zeus’ stolen lightning bolt, prevent a war between the gods, and save Percy’s mother, Sally (Virginia Kull). Even as they encounter a litany of mythical obstacles along the way, the kids are buoyed by their burgeoning friendship and a sense of purpose.

Some fans criticized the casting of Ms. Jeffries, who is Black, as Annabeth. Mr. Riordan was among those who came to Ms. Jeffries’ defense, calling the comments out of line and saying anyone who had a problem should take it up with him. On Jan. 26, she was nominated in the category of Outstanding Performance by a Youth for the upcoming NAACP Image Awards.

Rick Riordan’s “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” series, which starts with the novel “The Lightning Thief,” has charted on The New York Times' bestseller list for more than 13 years.

“The core message of Percy Jackson has always been that difference is strength. There is power in plurality. The things that distinguish us from one another are often our marks of individual greatness,” Mr. Riordan wrote. “If you don’t get that, if you’re still upset about the casting of this marvelous trio, then it doesn’t matter how many times you have read the books. You didn’t learn anything from them.”

Ms. Campbell, who is Greek Cypriot, says the diverse representation is one of the things that initially drew her to the series. 

“Seeing my Greek culture represented in the original book series was incredibly meaningful to me, even as a young child,” she says. “To be able to see parts of yourself reflected in the media you consume is so validating and so important. ‘Percy Jackson and the Olympians’ is a paradigm of this principle.”

Diversifying the casting of the show is part and parcel to modernizing the books’ stories, says Mr. Chinman, similar to complicating young viewers’ understanding of monsters and morality. “The book was great. ... But let’s see if we can sort of challenge some ideas in the book while keeping a similar story that follows the same beats.” 

Both the original series and the show incorporate references to learning and developmental disabilities. All demigods are said to have ADHD and dyslexia as a product of their godly parentage. Mr. Riordan has said that detail was inspired by his son and by the author’s experiences as a middle school teacher. “I felt the need to honor them, to let them know that being different wasn’t a bad thing.” 

Paul Swydan, owner of The Silver Unicorn Bookstore in Acton, Massachusetts, says that the books depict children with learning disabilities as powerful heroes. So when he and his staff highlight books with diverse representation, “Percy Jackson is always front and center.”

“[The TV show] gives them the canvas to expand what the books did and do even better from a representation standpoint,” he adds.

With a 97% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the new series seems primed to expand Percy’s legacy.

“I hope the TV series introduces new fans to the books,” says Ms. Campbell. “They are such beautiful, meaningful stories, and I believe anyone who reads them will be just as captivated as I was when I first checked out ‘The Lightning Thief’ from my school library.”

“Percy Jackson and the Olympians” is rated TV-PG. The final episode of Season One airs Tuesday, Jan. 30, with a special documentary about the making of the eight-part series following it.

REUTERS

Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rule on emergency measures against Israel following accusations by South Africa that the Israeli military operation in Gaza is a state-led genocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, Jan.26.

In the days since the International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling on the conduct of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, every party with a stake in the conflict has found some confirmation of its point of view.

South Africa felt “vindicated” in its decision to file a charge of genocide against Israel in the world’s top court. Palestinians felt that their rights as people – and as a people – were acknowledged. In the court’s refusal to demand an immediate cease-fire, Israel saw confirmation of its right to defend itself from further attacks by Hamas.

The court, which issued its opinion last Friday, did not rule on the key question of whether Israel had any intent of genocide. Rather, it simply ordered Israel to uphold the core provisions of international law regarding war – namely, to protect civilians and enable the provision of humanitarian assistance – out of a legal obligation to prevent genocide. The ruling to impose such “provisional measures” means the court found that the charges against Israel “appear to be capable of falling within” the 1948 Genocide Convention and thus do deserve further legal scrutiny.

That in itself is a fairly low bar, legal experts point out. The case will likely take years to resolve. But the court was careful to strike a balance. It called for the immediate release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, the governing Palestinian group in Gaza whose militants attacked Israel last October, even though South Africa did not ask the court to take action against Hamas.

The ability of each side to find a silver lining reflects what Todd Buchwald, former ambassador for the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Global Criminal Justice, called the wisdom of restraint. Indeed, the court’s decision sends a timely message that the real power of international law rests more on the principle of respect for individual dignity than on broad condemnation.

The ruling challenges all nations to “take international law seriously at a time of increasing violence and conflict and decreasing respect for the authority of international legal institutions,” wrote David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, in Foreign Affairs.

It also illustrates how any people caught in a violent crisis can have access to a court. In Sudan, for example, where a civil war has displaced more than half a million people, citizens there pointed to the ruling as confirmation of one possible avenue of justice for them.

The case also turned a lens on South Africa, which had broad support from across the Global South in lodging its case against Israel. More than a few of its citizens say high levels of corruption at home undermine their government’s credibility in questioning Israel’s response to Hamas.

The most consequential shift, however, may be taking place within Israel. Demands for elections have grown as the conflict drags on and more than a hundred Israeli hostages have not been brought home. Interest in reconciliation is growing, particularly among young Jewish and Arab Israelis. “There was a level of urgency I had not sensed before,” wrote Maya Savir, an Israeli activist who studied post-conflict healing in Rwanda and South Africa and now leads workshops across her own country, in New Lines Magazine.

In trying to achieve a measure of balance in its ruling, the court sent a signal for calm reflection on what level of justice and mercy might be needed for Israelis and Palestinians. Sometimes not condemning opens a window for both truth and reconciliation.