It has been a long time since the words "opportunity" and "Middle East" appeared in the same sentence. But now they have. Even better, this optimism may have some basis in reality.
One important reason for this change in attitude is, of course, late Palestinian president Yasser Arafat's disappearance from the scene. Like the Thane of Cawdor in Shakespeare's Macbeth, "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it."
Arafat never grew beyond the man who appeared at the UN decades ago with both an olive branch and a gun. His unwillingness to jettison terror and choose diplomacy proved his undoing, as he lost legitimacy in the eyes of both Israel and the US. The result was the failure to create a Palestinian state.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
But it is not simply Arafat's passing that provides cause for optimism. We now have a Palestinian leadership legitimized by elections, one that appears to be opposed to using terrorism as a tool to achieve political aims. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, has a good record of questioning the wisdom of the intifada that has taken too many lives and caused only misery and destruction on all sides of this enduring conflict.
Changes in Israel are also contributing to the mood swing. There is a growing awareness in Israel that the current situation -- one of open-ended Israeli occupation of lands mostly populated by Palestinians -- is inconsistent with Israel's determination to remain a secure, prosperous, Jewish and democratic state.
The formation of a new Israeli government, one more centrist in its composition and support, is another positive development. Israel is now led by a prime minister who has the ability to make historic choices and a government inclined to support him.
But opportunity is just that. Middle Eastern history is replete with examples of missed and lost chances to make peace. The challenge now is to break this pattern and turn today's opportunity into reality.
This requires that the promised Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank succeed. But "success" entails more than departing Israelis. It also requires that Palestinians demonstrate that they can govern responsibly and that they can put an end to terrorist violence emanating from Palestinian soil.
What happens in Gaza after Israel leaves will have a profound impact on Israeli politics. If Gaza turns into a lawless failed state, one that is a base for attacks on Israelis, it will be extremely difficult to persuade Israel to withdraw from other areas that it now occupies. But if Palestinians in Gaza demonstrate that they can rule themselves and be a good neighbor, a key justification for Israel's continuing occupation elsewhere will weaken.
Palestinians will need help if things are to turn out right in Gaza. The US, Europe and Arab states such as Egypt, along with Russia and the UN, all have a responsibility to assist Abu Mazen. Palestinians need financial and technical help to build up a unified and capable security establishment, to revive a moribund economy and to build a modern, transparent political system.
It is also important that the Gaza withdrawal be a beginning, not an end, to the political process. There must be a link between what takes place in Gaza and a comprehensive settlement to the Palestinian question if Mazen is to persuade a majority of his people that diplomacy and compromise deliver more than violence and confrontation.
Here, too, there is an important role for the US to play. In fact, the US has already begun to do what is required. In a letter last September to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, US President George W. Bush reassured Israelis that it was "unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." The framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue "will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
These promises meant a great deal to Sharon as he faced domestic political challenges. What is needed now is a parallel letter from Bush to Abu Mazen. Such a letter could spell out the US commitment to a viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, with compensation provided by Israel wherever territorial adjustments are agreed. The US would also commit itself to providing resources to help construct a modern society and economy. Help would also be extended to settle the Palestinian refugees, whether in Palestine, other Arab countries or, in special cases where Israel agrees for humanitarian reasons, in Israel itself.
In return, Palestinians would need to pledge to reject the use of violence and terror once and for all. The US should not, however, make the establishment of a full Palestinian democracy a prerequisite for territorial return and peace. To delay negotiations until Palestinian democracy matured would only persuade Palestinians that diplomacy was a ruse and give many a reason to turn to violence. After more than a half-century of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, translating opportunity into reality will be difficult enough without introducing new requirements that, however desirable, are not essential.
Richard Haass, a former director of policy planning in the US State Department, is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
RSS