The withdrawal of Israeli troops and the evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza after 38 years of occupation is the most recent proof of the limits of military power, even when that power is overwhelming. Now is the time to take stock of the lessons learned from the years of occupation and resistance in order to understand what Israelis and Palestinians should do next.
To begin with, it is imperative to understand how much credit Palestinians can credibly claim for the Israeli withdrawal. True, Palestinian resistance and sacrifices were a contributing factor in Ariel Sharon's decision to reverse a policy he had espoused for decades. But it would be a mistake to attribute the Israeli withdrawal exclusively to Palestinian militancy. After all, this bittersweet Israeli action was neither a clear result of military defeat nor a consequence of political negotiations.
But unilateralism is not a rational long-term and effective policy, for it will not lead to a genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East. Just as US President George W. Bush has discovered in Iraq, Sharon will also be forced to acknowledge the limits of his strategy.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Unilateralism seems very expedient to shortsighted politicians, for it obviates the need for what they perceive as the mess of actual negotiations -- that is, meeting their counterparts face to face and discovering the human results of their policies. Going it alone also seems politically advantageous domestically, because leaders can decide how much and how far they want to carry out a particular policy.
To be fair, unilateralism is convenient not only for a reluctant Israeli prime minister who does not wish to make substantial compromises during negotiations; it is also attractive to hardline Palestinians who regard multilateralism as a means of pressing them to make unpopular concessions.
In any case, the day after the completion of the Gaza withdrawal, Israelis and Palestinians will be confronted with important unresolved questions. There is no doubt that the evacuation of Jewish settlers in areas that Israelis consider part of their God-given territory represents a huge ideological reversal. But after years of preaching and practicing one of Zionism's main tenets, will the removal of settlements continue in the West Bank, or will this be a one-time exception?
Palestinians, for their part, will be expected to answer questions -- in deeds, not just in words -- about their ability to build a modern pluralistic state. How will the Palestinian body politic deal with the growing power of the Islamic movements that will undoubtedly expect a significant share of power in post-withdrawal Gaza?
The international community will also have to answer some key questions. According to the Palestinian Economic Council for Reconstruction and Development, annual per capita income in Gaza continues to average roughly US$700, while Israelis enjoy incomes averaging US$16,000 per capita. In the absence of relatively well-paying jobs, what will happen to the lines of unemployed Gazans?
The potential flight of employment seekers -- a formidable force worldwide -- is only one problem. More immediately, if Gazan families are not well fed, the recurrence of cross-border violence, if not the eruption of a third intifada, will only be a matter of time.
While the economic situation in Gaza is a critical issue, the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be determined mainly by the next steps in the peace process. Permanent-status issues concerning borders, the West Bank, Jerusalem and refugees must be dealt with bilaterally. Any serious observer of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will no doubt acknowledge that there can be no unilateral solution to these issues.
As for multilateral guarantors of the peace process, the US and its quartet partners -- the EU, the UN and Russia -- have failed to provide even the most basic facts regarding Israel's withdrawal or how it relates to the "road map" agreed in 2003. They cannot continue to sit on the sidelines. Washington's quixotic decision to call Israel's unilateral move part of the road map has failed to convince many Palestinians. The prevailing opinion among Palestinians is that the road map will be put into deep freeze once the Israelis complete their Gaza withdrawal.
But the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, their leaders and the international community must all respond to the challenges that will follow.
Most importantly, the future of the conflict and the chances for genuine peace in the region will depend on understanding the limits of offensive military power, defensive resistance and unilateralism. Serious face-to-face talks, in accordance to international law and with the help of the international community, are the only way forward.
Daoud Kuttab is director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al-Quds University in Ramallah.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS