Are Israelis and Palestinians really ready to strike a peace agreement? Events have certainly moved at a brisk pace in recent months, with one obstacle after another to a lasting deal seeming to come down. Yasser Arafat's death was followed by the choice of his successor in a direct election with universal suffrage, which was accompanied by Israel's decision -- one unique in the world -- to help, not hinder the democratic process in territories it occupies. As a result, no one doubts Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' legitimacy.
Moreover, with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's announcement of his intention to withdraw Israel's army unilaterally from Gaza, the occupation itself is once again an open question, offering opportunities for further progress. Indeed, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's support for the Gaza withdrawal has helped open the door to real negotiations.
Such an impressive sequence of events has not been seen for a long time in that troubled region. As a result, many -- inside and outside the Middle East -- have become optimistic again. Even Sharon ventures a few favorable comments, and US diplomats express visible sighs of relief that progress toward peace can at last be made.
I can attest to the gathering momentum toward peace, having just returned from the Palestinian territories, where I led a nearly five-week mission of EU observers, the largest ever put in place by the EU. The mission was 260-strong on the day of the election and the counting of the vote, while 40 of us had been there for the whole five-week period.
My testimony about the election is categorical: the circumstances were difficult, but the voting was unconstrained and without cheating. Given the conditions, the 60 percent voter turnout was astonishing. There can be no doubt that Abbas was democratically elected. Nor is there any doubt that the Palestinian people made a choice for democracy, which entails a choice for a negotiated peace with Israel.
But this leaves out the terrorists, who have not made this choice. They are not numerous, but they are very dangerous. Only genuine progress toward a just peace settlement will neutralize them as a political force.
There is no question that current conditions present a unique window of opportunity. But we must keep in mind the major difficulties that can limit our ability to seize this opportunity, and the international community must make these difficulties very clear to both parties.
The first difficulty is that, although Sharon evidently intends to go through with his military withdrawal from Gaza, he is vague about what he wants to achieve in future negotiations. Indeed, he has never made the slightest allusion to the idea of including the West Bank and Jerusalem in such negotiations. But, for the Palestinians, there can be no negotiations that do not include both issues.?
The second difficulty concerns the fact that Sharon has always appeared to believe that it is within the means of the Palestinian Authority to eradicate all terrorism arising from Palestinian territories and aimed at Israel. However, all external observers know very well that this is not the case, even if Abbas can undoubtedly succeed in reducing the level and number of attacks.
In order for the Palestinian people as a whole to cease to glorify, support and shelter terrorists, they need to discover real hope for a new life for themselves. That, in turn, depends on an economic recovery in the occupied territories and a belief that concrete steps toward a negotiated political solution are being taken.
The creation of such hope now depends exclusively on Israel, which must act immediately to boost the many Palestinians who yearn for peace, rather than insisting on a total disappearance of terrorism. Delay will only retard terrorism's disappearance.
The third difficulty concerns the fact that, on both sides, most religious authorities, rabbis and imams alike, have maintained a hard-line stance. They continue to preach that the respective "taboos" of their communities, the very issues that block all efforts to make peace -- in particular, the status of Jerusalem and the right of "return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees -- are untouchable and non-negotiable. To make these religious authorities acknowledge their responsibility is a duty that all of international civil society, including religious leaders, must embrace.
None of this is impossible. All of it will be demanding. But a chance to achieve real, lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians has clearly arrived. We must all seize this moment.
Michel Rocard, a former prime minister of France and leader of France's Socialist Party, is a member of the European Parliament.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS