"Back in November, so many plans were around," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told me last week, "from the Saudis, from Geneva, from the Arab League, and I saw we could not resist those pressures without a plan of our own."
"What could I do -- destroy the Palestinian Authority? No -- Israel cannot take on its shoulders the lives of three and a half million Palestinians. Sign a peace agreement? No -- terror would only begin again. Leave as is? No -- I've seen everything in Israel since the War of Independence, and it's my responsibility to deal with it now.
"I discussed this between me and myself and came up with a new initiative," he said. He calls it the Disengagement Plan; it will be hailed and denounced as the Sharon Plan.
Because Palestinian leaders have allowed terrorists to wage war against Israel, turning the "road map" into a dead letter, Sharon proposed to establish security without them. This involved not just a security fence, but for Sharon to say "yes" to calls to withdraw from Gaza and other exposed Israeli villages in the disputed West Bank.
"I had to take this dangerous step of relocating some of our people," Sharon said. "In Israel, the right does not like me to do it, and the left cannot do it. But you don't wait forever."
This week, US President George Bush stunned Arab dictators and their acolytes in the UN and EU by taking the Sharon "yes" for an answer. The US government labeled as "unrealistic" the notion that Israel would be forced to "a full and complete return to the armistice lines" (rejecting the loaded word "borders") of 1949. That realism covers "existing major Israeli population centers," which Arabs call "settlements."
The Bush document also applied realism to the device that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat used to break up the deal that former president Bill Clinton thought he had brokered: A "right to return" that would swamp Israel with Palestinians. Bush made clear that refugees would return to a Palestinian state, not to take over the Jewish state. Sharon added: "Don't create false expectations. Our answer will be no."
America's unequivocal support of what the world knows must be part of a two-state solution puts pressure for peaceful negotiation on Palestinians, who must take control of their destiny from fanatics. As Iraqis are learning, free nationhood comes to those with the courage to control extremists.
Bush prevailed on Sharon to ease the disruption of Palestinian lives along the security fence, which I think will encompass the Ariel salient, and to delay a Jordan Valley barrier. Sharon will take all 7,500 Israelis out of Gaza by 2006, and the settlers' movement is infuriated.
But having promised "painful compromises" before recent elections, Arik expects to remain in office through a Likud Party vote and possible defection.
"I'm not boasting" (he used the Russian word for boasting), "but I am not suspected of compromising our security," he said.
If the far right parties desert him, he'll bring in Labor, headed by his old rival Shimon Peres. A threatened indictment? "A terrible libel," he said. He speaks highly of US Secretary of State Colin Powell and almost reverently about Bush: "Something in his soul committed him to act with great courage against world terror. Though under constant pressure, the man has not changed his mind."
What does he think Senator John Kerry's reaction will be to the Sharon Plan?
"I hope to meet with him when I come back next month," Sharon said.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS