Since Dec. 6, 2017, US President Donald Trump’s administration has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, closed the Palestinian mission in Washington, moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and defunded humanitarian support provided by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), among other steps.
Yet we Palestinians are hounded by claims that the US really wants to pursue peace and that somehow the only problem has been our reluctance.
Nobody can claim that we did not engage Trump’s administration. We held almost 40 meetings during 2017, answered all questions and put forward our vision of peace based on the two-state solution, but the US envoys always refused to engage in matters of substance.
In fact, on the eve of a visit by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to Washington, the Trump administration broke its commitment not to take unilateral steps and announced the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Whatever the reason — ideological bias, lack of diplomatic experience, or both — the Trump team ended up destroying any prospects for the US to play a positive peace-making role.
People such as US Vice President Mike Pence, Ambassador David Friedman, envoy Jason Greenblatt and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, are ideologically committed to Israel’s colonial-settlement enterprise.
Judging by Pence’s address to the Israeli Knesset last year, one could assume that Israel has a “divine mandate” to violate Palestinian rights.
By taking such positions, the Trump administration has brought about one main outcome over the past two years: strengthening extremists in our region.
To protect the prospect of a just and lasting peace, the Palestinian leadership has conducted meetings with leaders worldwide. We went to the UN Security Council calling for a peace initiative based on international law, the implementation of UN resolutions and the participation of several nations in facilitating the process.
For the Trump team, however, international law is “unrealistic.” Palestine seems to be regarded as part of a real-estate business — a property they can devalue by closing diplomatic missions, defunding UNRWA, canceling aid to Palestinian hospitals or withdrawing scholarships for Palestinian students.
They did not calculate that the Palestinian people have dignity and national pride, just like any other nation, and will insist on being treated accordingly.
Let us be clear: The two-state solution does not mean accommodating the illegal reality of Israeli settlements; rather, it means ending this colonial enterprise.
Refusing to mention the two-state solution, the statements of Trump’s team go in a different direction, more in line with Israel’s official position: one state and two systems.
No Palestinian, Arab, or responsible international leader would ever accept this design, as has been made clear in messages delivered by world leaders to the Trump administration.
Now, plans are afoot to “promote a future of peace and security in the Middle East” through a US-Polish conference in Warsaw, where Palestinians are not going to participate.
To be clear: Palestine has not mandated anyone to speak on its behalf. Despite US efforts to promote normalization of diplomatic relations between Arab states and Israel, no changes in the Arab Peace Initiative will be accepted.
Full normalization of ties with Israel will take place only after a final-status agreement is achieved and Israel ends its control of all Arab territories occupied since 1967, including the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.
Israel has a strong ally that shares its ideological vision on many issues, but ignoring facts, especially our rights, does no one any favors.
The Trump administration might believe that cutting scholarships or de-funding water projects and Palestinian-run Jerusalem hospitals will make Palestinians surrender.
We shall remind the US of what the anti-apartheid hero archbishop Desmond Tutu once said: “Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice.”
Justice is not an abstract or “unrealistic” concept. Justice begins by respecting the law.
Regardless of whether the US and Israeli governments truly believe they are fulfilling a divine prophecy by denying the Palestinian people their rights, or if they are merely appeasing the extremists among their electorates, they fail to address what the endgame looks like.
In light of their opposition to endorsing a two-state solution based on the 1967 border, will they support a one-state solution, with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians?
You do not have to be a foreign affairs expert to understand that their goal is not to end the occupation or secure equal rights for all citizens of a single democratic state. Their preferred option is apartheid.
The urgent question today, then, is straightforward: Is it wise to leave the future of the Middle East in the hands of the Trump administration?
Support for the two-state solution requires concrete measures impelling Israel to end its decades-long occupation, including banning settlement products and divesting from companies involved in sustaining an illegal policy. Cutting funding sources for Israeli settlements, from banks to “charity” organizations, is a must.
The lack of vision on the part of Israel and the Trump administration underscores the need for the rest of the international community to wake up. Waiting for a “Trump deal” will do nothing but deepen Israel’s apartheid and foreclose any chance of a political solution in the foreseeable future.
Saeb Erekat is secretary-general of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and chief Palestinian negotiator.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers