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
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with