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
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS