Despite the White House's recent talk about an unprecedented opportunity for their new Middle East peace initiative, the Israeli-Palestinian carnage continues. Big surprise, right? Actually, no.
One would have thought that the grim history of so many previously failed attempts at peace would have suggested to some the need for a different approach, a new attitude toward the peace process based on local realties and not unrealistic contingencies.
But from its earliest pronouncement, the "road map" for peace has simply been more of the same. I'm specifically talking about the idea that the start of any peace process be contingent upon the cessation of all violence. Here's a news flash: That's never going happen.
Consequently, it's time to implement the "Peace-Process-Despite-Violence Solution." To do so Israeli and Palestinian leaders must stop asking permission for peace and immediately impose its requisite conditions with constraint and resolve.
When US Secretary of State Colin Powell, as so many have before him, called for the immediate cessation of all violence, he elevated the status of those who promote continued instability in the region to that of determinant agents of undue influence, thus rendering peace hostage to the actions of acknowledged militant fanatics.
Instead, the peace initiative announcement should have been followed by an unequivocal statement that it will proceed, despite the expected violence perpetrated by a radical minority and not contingent on its cessation, immediate or otherwise.
If recent opinion polls are accurate and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians now acknowledge the futility of their respective past actions to achieve their stated goals, namely security for Israel and statehood for the Palestinians, then adopting such a posture would serve to effectively marginalize fanaticism, thus opening space for continued good faith measures that keeps the peace process moving forward and provides tangible benefits for the majority of Israelis and Palestinians.
Real progress was achieved in Aqaba, Jordan, when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted the road map and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas called for an end to the latest intifada. But without concrete actions taken by each, their words are simply more empty rhetoric. Though both leaders appeared to accept each other's expressions as genuine and sincere, fundamental to initiating a constructive peace process, they must acknowledge, commit, and resolve themselves not to support actions that undermine the other's legitimacy and authority.
Current Israeli-Palestinian power disparities necessitate a rational and mature appreciation for their respective strengths and capabilities, as well as their weaknesses and limitations. While the state of Israel may have every right to respond with immediate retaliation against those responsible for attacks on Israeli citizens, that doesn't mean that immediate retaliation is always the right response.
But when circumstances do in fact dictate immediate action, Israel must act just as swiftly to implement real concessions, which will ultimately shift the onerous for peace to the other side. If the former negates the latter, retaliation alone only serves to further enhance the continued utility of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Whether we like it or not, greater military strength and political authority incur greater responsibility.
But to what costs? Does any rational and informed individual really believe Israel could not reassert itself militarily in a matter of hours should it not see real improvement over a given period of time? Of course not. Such a reality warrants implementing the Peace-Process-Despite-Violence Solution.
And to some degree, this approach has already achieved positive results. In their bid to advance the peace process, Israel and the US have made a concerted effort to marginalize Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, and to what consequence? In a vainglorious attempt at reasserting his relevancy, Arafat uncharacteristically identified the latest bus attack in Jerusalem as a terrorist act and called for an immediate end to the violence. Though inherently self-serving, Arafat's announcement does offer a significant validation for the efficacy of marginalization.
An historic opportunity for peace in the Middle East may in fact exist, but not if it is subject to the dictates of militant fanatics. The tenuous dynamics of the much tried and failed approach of conditioning the peace process on the cessation of violence all but guarantees the violence will continue and Israel will feel compelled to retaliate. With so much hatred and distrust on both sides, it is irrational to expect otherwise.
By contrast, while the Peace-Process-Despite-Violence Solution by no means diminishes the insult and suffering caused by the grotesque loss of life experienced by both sides, it will render the senseless meaningful in the ultimate achievement of peace for all.
Haskell Carter was a Fulbright scholar in Taiwan and currently serves as executive director of Minding the Millennium, Inc, a nonprofit globalization education program based in New York.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations