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
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
As a person raised in a family that revered the teachings of Confucius (孔子) and Mencius (孟子), I believe that both sages would agree with Hong Kong students that people-based politics is the only legitimate way to govern China, including Hong Kong. More than two millennia ago, Confucius insisted that a leader’s first loyalty is to his people — they are water to the leader’s ship. Confucius said that the water could let the ship float only if it sailed in accordance with the will of the water. If the ship sailed against the will of the water, the ship would sink. Two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
The US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups are the most dramatic symbol of Washington’s military and geopolitical power. They were critical to winning World War II in the Pacific and have since been deployed in the Indo-Pacific region to communicate resolve against potential adversaries of the US. The presence or absence of the US Seventh Fleet — the configuration of US Navy ships and aircraft in the Indo-Pacific region built around the carriers — generally determines whether war or peace prevails in the region. In the immediate post-war period, Washington’s strategic planners in the administration of then-US president Harry Truman shockingly