"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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS