As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens — with more than 38,000 Palestinians reported dead and the UN warning of “catastrophic hunger” — the US continues to provide Israel with weapons, diplomatic cover and near-unquestioned support.
For observers in Taiwan, this is not just a Middle East tragedy. It is a warning.
For decades, Taiwan has relied on the US for diplomatic backing, arms sales and international legitimacy in the face of Chinese pressure. That support has often been described as rooted in shared democratic values. Taiwan is portrayed as a responsible global actor and a like-minded ally in the Indo-Pacific region.
However, the Gaza war raises an uncomfortable question: What actually determines the US’ loyalty to its partners? Is it shared values and responsible behavior — or emotional narratives and domestic political alliances?
The US-Israel relationship has long been driven not just by strategy, but by cultural identification. Israel is viewed by many Americans as a biblical ally, a redemptive democracy and a symbol of moral purpose after the Holocaust. That emotional connection has made US policy toward Israel remarkably resilient — even when it comes at the expense of international law, humanitarian concerns or the US’ global reputation.
Taiwan should care because this pattern reveals that US support is not always based on conduct. It can be shaped by identity, history and domestic politics. Israel has become part of the US’ national story. Taiwan — despite being a democracy under constant pressure — is not.
If that is the reality, Taiwan should plan accordingly. We cannot take the US’ support for granted. A change in Washington’s political landscape, a rise in US isolationism or a shift in global priorities could easily leave Taiwan more vulnerable than many assume.
To be clear, this is not a call to abandon the Taiwan-US partnership. It is a call for clarity. Taiwan must understand what drives American decisionmaking, and invest in its own resilience, diplomacy and alliances — beyond slogans and sentiment.
The moral weight of “democracy versus authoritarianism” only works if the US applies it consistently.
Taiwan’s best defense lies in facts, not fantasies. We need continued US support — but it must be earned through strategy, deterrence and mutual interest, not romantic illusions.
The people of Gaza are suffering, but so is the US’ reputation. If Taiwan wants to avoid the same fate, we must learn the right lessons from today’s tragedy.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, who lectures on international relations.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS