Britain, the US and moderate Arab countries will begin a concerted drive this week to push Palestinian president-elect Mahmoud Abbas towards a historic post-Arafat compromise with Israel.
But what these states and their leaders want does not necessarily coincide with Palestinian needs and aspirations, or with what Abbas can deliver in practice.
Like any politician, Abbas made numerous election promises. They included the return of millions of refugees and of territory lost in 1967, and a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem.
Ordinary voters who put their faith in the democratic process will hold Abbas to these pledges. Many Palestinians feel they have already compromised enough.
And even allowing for campaign hyperbole, Abbas's room for manuever is limited. From the moment he takes office later this week, the heat will be on. Expectations are running dangerously high.
Anxious to exert influence and prioritize the issue, Britain will soon convene a conference to help the Palestinian Authority prepare for statehood. It is also working through the EU.
But much is at stake for British Prime Minister Tony Blair personally. He is one of those who argued that the road to Jerusalem ran through Baghdad. He has expended political capital, often in vain, on persuading the US to pursue the "road map" for peace.
"If we can help the Palestinians to develop that basic infrastructure of a viable state, then [the US] is prepared to do the negotiations that make it viable in terms of its territory too," Blair claimed on BBC television last weekend.
Having mostly stood aside during his first term, US President George W. Bush now says he wants a Palestinian state by 2008.
But Bush also has other motives. His broader aim is creating a stable, democratic, pro-American Middle East, including Iraq. He is not about to seriously squeeze his main regional ally, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whatever Blair says.
Instead, the onus in Washington and London remains on the Palestinians to be "realistic" and give ground on core issues.
"The definition of `realistic' in this context is what Israel will put up with," said Rosemary Hollis, a Middle East expert at the Chatham House think tank.
"That is so ingrained in US and British thinking that they just don't realize that it might not be possible for Abbas, because he can't bring his people with him," Hollis said.
"The Israelis don't put much store by the road map. The Palestinians could get stuck at stage two, meaning a virtual state with borders still to be defined and no guarantee they'll get what they want," she said.
Attitudes in the Arab world remain deeply ambivalent. Egypt and Jordan are broadly supportive of a compromise. But rejectionist Syria and Lebanon, backed by Iran, may encourage Abbas's hardline opponents, and hope that he fails.
A fatal Hezbollah attack launched at the weekend from southern Lebanon was their contribution to democracy.
Israel's immediate priority is a complete cessation of terrorism. Abbas, who says Intifada violence was a mistake, is a man of peace who claims -- perhaps over-optimistically -- that a lasting ceasefire can be agreed with militant factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Sharon's other priority is the Gaza withdrawal later this year.
Some Palestinians see this as a trap entailing the permanent loss of large swaths of the West Bank. In a Knesset speech on Gaza last autumn, Sharon exacerbated such fears. While reiterating his commitment to a two-state solution, he said: "I truly believe that this disengagement will strengthen Israel's hold over territory that is essential to our existence."
Achieving a ceasefire and peacefully regaining control of Gaza would significantly boost Abbas's leadership while giving Sharon what he wants.
But even if that happens, the clear danger for Palestinians is that the peace process, such as it is, will grind to a halt again.
Then the men of violence could overwhelm the man of peace.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS