God has been misappropriated for many purposes in many lands over the centuries, but seldom for such a bad cause as that of the Jewish settlers of occupied Gaza and the West Bank.
These extreme rightists have lobbied ferociously for weeks to persuade the ruling Israeli Likud party, in its referendum on Sunday, to reject Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposal to "disengage" from Gaza, because they value what they consider to be the biblical lands of the Jews more than any chance of peace.
Although Sharon has announced his intentions to seek legislative passage of some form of the plan, rightists in the Knesset also will continue to oppose disengagement, even though the Sharon plan is itself a rightwing prescription for the castration of the Palestinians.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Sharon, the arch-hawk, intends to withdraw from Gaza because he and most of his colleagues recognize the demographic problem their country faces. In a few years, Jews in Israel and the occupied lands will be outnumbered by Arabs.
The response of many Likud members to this problem is to create an apartheid state in which Palestinians have no political rights.
Even the Bush administration could not swallow that. Sharon's answer, instead, is to saw off the branch supporting the 1.2 million Palestinians of Gaza. Israel will then be in a position to maintain its grip on much of the West Bank and its 2 million Palestinians, and to maintain settlement programs there, which already house 230,000 Jews.
Yet the fanatics in the settlement movement will envision no significant withdrawal whatever from occupied territory. They have a mandate, they say, that transcends politics and is founded in holy writ. I met a group of them at a settlement near Jerusalem a few weeks ago. Nice people, friendly, hospitable.
One of them, a young lawyer originally from Brooklyn named Yossi Seths said: "What is the plan? Uprooting Jewish settlers who have been living in the heart of Israel for 30 years.
"The Palestinians have to understand that they don't possess any historical rights over the land of Israel. No sovereign state held these lands legally before the state of Israel. Jordan occupied them illegally. In 1967 we didn't occupy these territories. We freed them," Seths said.
I asked why they thought Sharon, godfather of the settlement movement for so long, had embarked on disengagement. Seths said that the settlers are puzzled about this. But they remain serenely confident no Israeli government could ever expel settlers.
"It is impossible," Seths said, "to transfer citizens living peacefully in their own homes. It is impossible morally, practically or legally to execute the disengagement plan."
In a conversation with Ephraim Halevy, legendary former head of the Mossad, I said that it seems extraordinary how far Israeli politics has been hijacked by the lunatic fringe.
Halevy said firmly: "Settlers are not a lunatic fringe. They have a pioneer spirit. Most went where they did with the blessing of Israeli governments, Labour as well as Likud."
Most thinking Israelis, including Halevy, assert that the "Greater Israel" idea espoused by the right for so long -- to build an Israeli state from Jordan to the sea -- is dead. Yet they hanker to retain substantial holdings on the West Bank, even when most outsiders are convinced that they can have their empire or a possibility of peace, but not both.
Halevy himself opposes unilateral disengagement, yet believes the die is now cast: "There is no way back. [US President George W.] Bush said that the Palestinians would not get a state until they fight terrorism. They are never going to do that, but they'll get their state anyway, and it will be highly unstable."
During my time in Israel, I became convinced that Sharon and Bush are thus far correct, that a settlement must be unilaterally imposed on the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership is so hopeless, so corrupt, so wedded to warlordism that it is impossible to negotiate convincingly with it.
Likewise, the vast, horrible security fence being erected to seal off the Palestinians seems legitimate to me as a means of excluding suicide bombers.
The folly and the tragedy are that Sharon seeks to use both measures to promote Israeli expansionism, in a fashion irreconcilable with peace. What Palestinian will ever submit to a society networked with Israeli strategic roads and fortified settlements that mock their Arab neighbors from the hilltops?
Many Israelis think it right that the Palestinians should pay a price in forfeited lands for their historic intransigence. These Israelis are encouraged by American Christian fundamentalists, Bush's keenest supporters. "US evangelicals -- maybe 70 million of them -- are angry with us," says Michael Oren, a US-born academic based in Jerusalem, "that we should be willing to give up any part of the Holy Land to Muslims."
Oren says Palestinian terrorism has forced critical decisions on Israel.
"What kind of future do we have here? Terror was formerly thought of as a nuisance. Now it is thought of as an existential threat. Suicide bombing has been successful. It has driven us out of Gaza" -- he assumes the fulfilment of Sharon's plan -- "and out of 90 percent of the West Bank, with nothing in return.
"The Palestinian state, once viewed by Israelis as a mortal threat, is now viewed as the only thing that will save us."
Yet most Israelis' vision of that Palestinian state offers a negligible prospect of viability. If you wonder what kind of people voted against Sharon's disengagement plan on Sunday, you should meet Yacov, a 57-year-old Russian who came to Israel in 1990 and is today a successful engineer.
He is a delightful, burly, impressive man who has created a good life in his new country. One afternoon last month, in his apartment near Jerusalem, we were discussing means of fighting terrorism. He was reared on tales of the legendary Bolshevik cavalry leader Budenny.
"Budenny and his Cossacks restored order in our area very quickly," Yacov said approvingly.
"They simply killed all the terrorists. If terrorists killed a few soldiers, next day the nearest village was levelled to the ground. Afterwards, there was peace. Now here, today, our army only needs to do that once," Yacov said.
Yacov told my interpreter that he feared his remarks might not sound too good in print. True, my friend, but I was grateful. They help to illuminate the violent cross-currents swirling across Israel today.
This is a country that really wants peace, but not yet so badly as to pay a realistic tariff. Sharon's disengagement plan is the act of a man who has gone to the salesroom and offered a third of the price the goods must cost him if he really wants to buy. On Sunday the extremists of his own party tried to shout him down. They said: It's too much; make the vendor take 10 percent! Yet what if, rather than accept such a price, the man prefers to die? Or, more alarming for Israel, to kill?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.