It turns out that Jews do expel Jews after all, and without the descent into anarchy predicted by leaders of Israel's once-indulged settlers. Following dire warnings that the forced removal of 8,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank would provoke civil war, bring down the government and open an irreversible rift between the army and the people, opponents of the pullout have been left reeling by its speed and relative ease.
The army originally said it would take six weeks to clear the 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and four smaller ones in the West Bank.
As more families signed up to take the money and leave, the military revised its estimate down to three weeks.
In the end it took less than three days to clear all but a handful of the doomed settlements. Kfar Darom, among the most religious and militant of Israel's Gaza colonies, made a relatively violent stand but it was still emptied in less than a day.
Neve Dekalim, the biggest Gaza settlement with about 450 families, was all but cleared out in two days. There was noise, trauma and theater, but there was only minimal resistance.
There are still two hardline settlements in the West Bank to be cleared, Sa Nur and Homesh, which have attracted defiant messianic Jews. But Gaza mattered most and the retreat has been far easier than either the government or its opponents predicted.
It is good news for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a battle looms with Benjamin Netanyahu for who will lead the Likud party into next year's election.
Pullout
The pullout was a critical issue for the party, and the relative ease of the withdrawal will not play well for Netanyahu, who broke ranks with Sharon at the last moment.
But it is also dangerous for Sharon, as it undermines any attempt to claim that it was so traumatic that there can be no similar pullout from the West Bank.
Much of the operation's success can be attributed to planning and numbers. About 55,000 members of the security forces underwent weeks of training.
They not only learnt how to deal with large crowds less harshly than the handling of Palestinians, but how to cope with the difficulties of removing families from their homes and how to act with restraint when your fellow Jews are calling you a Nazi. It paid off.
The danger for Sharon in the run-up to the pullout was that public sympathy would swing behind weeping families.
The soldiers and police officers forcing them from their homes would be perceived as brutal. But from the first day the settlers eroded sympathy for their cause.
A minority screamed jibes of "Nazi" at the security forces and teenage girls lectured them on democracy, religion and how "Jews don't expel Jews."
Dignity
The security forces surprised everyone by reacting with dignity, patience and sympathy in the face of this verbal onslaught. Sometimes the taunts degenerated into racism against Ethiopian-born soldiers.
Sharon seemed to speak for most of the country when he said: "I'll remember the faces of the men and women soldiers who stood silently and did not react to the curses and insults lashed at them."
There was plenty of theater, with soldiers and settlers falling into each others' arms weeping. The scenes were not unwelcome to a government keen for the world to see the pain the country was going through. Force was only used as a last resort, and generally against people for whom there was diminishing sympathy even within the settlements themselves such as the young men and women who made a last stand in the synagogues.
It was never expected there would be serious violence. The settlers knew if they were seen to be raising a hand to the country's revered soldiers it would cost them what public sympathy they have.
Attacks on Arabs were different. Two Jewish Israelis murdered eight Arabs in an attempt to upset the pullout. But the threats of mass civil disobedience came to nothing. Perhaps it was because the government's determination to carry out the withdrawal never wavered that the opposition within the Gaza settlements collapsed so quickly.
Sharon was also lucky with the Palestinians. They did not try to reinforce their claim that Israel was pulling out under fire by raining mortars on to the retreating settlers. With opinion polls showing increased support for the pullout, some Israeli commentators were declaring that the week's events were a victory for democracy over theocracy.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath