Washington’s proposal looks like mutual de-escalation between Palestine and Israel, but fails to acknowledge facts on the ground
The US Biden administration has reportedly presented a plan to cool tensions between Palestinians and Israelis, which have dramatically escalated since the formation of Israel’s new right-wing government.
As reported by Axios, following up on a request made by US secretary of State Antony Blinken, during his visit to the Middle East late last month, his Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Barbara Leaf, stayed behind and worked on presenting a roadmap towards preventing a violent escalation in the region. Antony Blinken had urged both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to “pause” provocative steps in order to avoid further hostilities.
The requests made by the Biden administration were originally geared towards the Palestinian Authority (PA) taking significant steps, whilst minimal requirements were put on the Netanyahu government. Antony Blinken urged Mahmoud Abbas to implement a “security plan” presented by US security coordinator Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel, who proposed creating a special PA Security Force wing that would be trained by the US to fight Palestinian militias that have formed over the past two years in the Jenin and Nablus areas. Later on, the US also requested that Israel reduce the number of raids on Palestinian towns and refugee camps, in addition to halting their plans for significant settlement expansion; both of which Israel refuses to follow through on.
US issues request to Israel over West Bank – media
Rogue militias
In September of 2021, the Jenin Brigades armed group announced its formation out of the Jenin refugee camp, later growing and expanding its areas of operations to the wider Jenin area. The armed group does not have any traceable command-and-control structure. It consists primarily of men between the ages of 18 and 25, mostly formed of members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement and Fatah Party members who are no longer loyal to the ruling clique in the party that commands the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority. Later, in September of 2022, the Lions’ Den armed movement also announced its formation in the old city of Nablus, claiming to belong to no political party. Due to the rise of newly formed armed groups, which hasn’t happened in the West Bank since the early 2000s, the Palestinian Authority’s security forces have lost control of much of the northern West Bank.
The US proposal for the Palestinian Authority to form a special force to fight against the armed militias is an extremely dangerous intervention in the affairs of the region. It is reminiscent of the UK-backed “peace bands” formed under the British Mandate in the late 1930s, when the British took the initiative to use Palestinians to fight each other. However, unlike then, there is no support for anti-militia activities from the Palestinian public today. In fact, the overwhelming majority support the Jenin Brigades, Lions’ Den and other armed groups, according to all available polling data. The PA has been significantly weakened over the past three years due to a financial crisis, corruption, the lack of any diplomatic breakthroughs, the postponement of national elections, and the killing and detention of Palestinians for the sake of Israeli security.
Third Intifada coming?
The Palestinian Authority has even been engaged in limited armed exchanges with the newly formed militias in the West Bank over the past year, triggering mass protests from angry West Bank residents. The number one issue that Palestinians in the West Bank have with the PA is its ‘security coordination’ with Israel, which essentially means that the PA’s security forces work with the Israeli military, intelligence and border police, in order to combat Palestinian threats against Israelis, but not the other way around. When Israel raided the Jenin refugee camp last month, killing 10 Palestinians, including three civilians, one of whom was an elderly woman, the PA announced the suspension of security coordination in response.
The US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs met last week with Israel’s National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi, and President Abbas’ senior advisor, Hussein al-Sheikh, to propose that the Palestinian Authority return to security coordination with Israel, in exchange for Israel slowing down settlement expansion. The US also sought for the PA to pause its attempts to take Israel before the International Court of Justice and the UN for alleged war crimes – a move for which the PA has been punished with Israeli sanctions.
Last Thursday, CIA director Bill Burns expressed his concern over the possibility of a ‘third intifada’ [Palestinian uprising] erupting inside the West Bank, stating that “a lot of what we’re seeing today has a very unhappy resemblance to some of those realities that we saw then [during the Second Intifada] too”. His concern is congruent with the reality on the ground, where last year was the deadliest for West Bank Palestinians since the end of the Second Intifada in 2005, according to the United Nations. Palestinian attacks against Israeli settlers and soldiers are also a daily occurrence now.
Deadly attack near Jerusalem is ‘terrorism’ – Netanyahu
Two-state solution blocked
Despite the US government clearly identifying the nature of the escalation, it shows complete ignorance of its own role in creating the current hostilities. The bulk of the US secretary of state’s visit to Palestine-Israel was tailored to forwarding Arab-Israeli normalization efforts and to expanding the ‘Negev Forum’, which Morocco, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt form with Israel, in order to advance their own ties. At the same time, Antony Blinken spoke of reaching a “two-state solution” between Palestinians and Israelis as being the only path to any lasting peace.
Under the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 (also known as the Saudi Initiative), a “two-state solution” (meaning the recognition by Israel of a Palestinian state and the end of occupation of Palestinian territories) is a precondition for the normalization of ties between Israel and Arab states. By pushing for normalization without that precondition, Blinken effectively seeks to deprive the Palestinian Authority of its best bargaining chip and leaves it powerless to extract any concessions from the Israeli government, whose officials will not even consider sitting down for meetings with their Palestinian counterparts.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already stated that he is not willing to halt settlement expansion, as proposed by the US government, with Israel’s Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, openly announcing that there will be no freeze on settlement construction, which is considered illegal by the UN and most world powers. Israel has also announced its intention to increase raids and further military activities in the West Bank, in what it deems to be a preparation for likely hostilities during the Muslim Holy month of Ramadan.
Hope for Palestinians is the only way to peace
Despite the PA having announced the end of its security coordination with Israel, it is clear that some coordination is still occurring and that the announcement was more of a public relations move for President Abbas, who is feeling the pressure from a disgruntled Palestinian population. This in itself is a key indicator that the PA is feeling the pressure from Palestinian society at large and a sign that any US-trained PA force to combat the militia groups could lead to a disaster, whereby the Ramallah-based authority could even be overthrown due to the outrage such a step would cause. When the CIA worked to create the “new PA security force” during the latter years of the Second Intifada, it only worked after the PA itself had participated in the fight against the Israeli military and still maintained some degree of popular support. In addition to this, the Israeli army had conducted ‘Operation Defensive Shield,’ which led to the assassinations or arrests of the most prominent militia leaders inside the West Bank.
Palestinians killed in West Bank raid
The only way the PA could possibly regain control of Jenin and Nablus is by proving to the Palestinian people that it is on their side, and not fighting for the US and Israel. It is also the reality that many of the leading fighters in the militia groups, especially in Jenin, are actually members of the PA’s security forces that have gone rogue. Armed militias also seem to be forming in areas like Bethlehem, al-Khalil and even Jericho, which proves that the re-emergence of the armed struggle in the West Bank is not only limited to the north of the territory.
The only way to properly combat the escalation and to stop this from growing into a much larger confrontation, is to provide hope for the Palestinian people inside the West Bank, something that the US will not even consider. Instead of the US working as an objective mediator, it works solely for Israel’s immediate interests and accepts the political restraints of each Israeli government as an excuse for repeatedly violating its own red lines. The US considers every single Palestinian political party as a terrorist organization, other than the mainstream branch of the Fatah Party, meaning that they will not even talk to any Palestinian representatives other than those that adhere to their own demands. The obsessive pursuit of Saudi Arabia normalizing ties with Israel, seemingly for political gain on behalf of the Biden administration, also contributes to robbing Palestinians of any hope for peace.
The situation inside the West Bank cannot be resolved using bombs and bullets. Even if every single member of all the armed groups were to be killed, the same problem would again emerge for Israel in the future. Despite this, Washington will never look critically at what is going on and realize that there are two sides to this conflict. At this time the US government is dealing with the escalation as if Israel has a termite problem and not that there are people who are rising up in an ongoing struggle for statehood.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.
SUITABLE MUSIC FOR YOGA LOVERS
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
The former premier’s Taiwan trip is nothing but a provocation for Beijing to lash out at London, sinking any constructive dialogue
Liz Truss will always be remembered as a disastrous prime minister who spent only a month in office and was outlasted by a head of lettuce.
Her disastrous budget plans sent shudders through the UK economy, eliciting criticism from the British people, MPs and foreign leaders alike. Her ideology-driven political decisions found little sympathy with the public, which repaid her with abysmal approval ratings.
You’d think someone like that would have little credibility as a political adviser, but that apparently isn’t the case. Taiwan, which frequently pays washed-up Western right-wing fanatics to come and visit them as a political stunt, invited Liz Truss to Taipei on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Truss then gave a hawkish speech where she called for an end to all cooperation and dialogue with Beijing and the preparation of Russia-style sanctions in the event of a Taiwan conflict. She also repeated her suggestion of an “Economic NATO” – despite a track record that makes her the last person you’d want to listen to for economic advice.
‘Economic NATO’ needed to counter China – Truss
Since her brief stay in Downing Street, she has rebranded herself as a full-time anti-China hawk, and now uses her party position and credentials as a former prime minister to try to undermine her successor’s attempts to carefully edge back towards engagement with China. Truss was always a fantasist, a pro-Brexit zealot who embraced a confrontational stance during her time as foreign secretary.
However, as you can imagine, all you need to do to reinvent yourself these days is to become a China basher. It doesn’t matter how much of a joke you otherwise might be. Hence, the UK media made sure that her stay and words in Taiwan were given widespread coverage without the context of her political failures. The UK government has already distanced itself from her trip – a fact that Beijing should take careful notice of (and no doubt has).
The British Conservative Party has always been rife with that sort of factionalism. While the opposition Labour Party tends to hard-line suppress the more ideological wing of its MPs (hence the purge of the left-wing Corbynite faction), Tory ideologues have long held power as a “disruptive” force on the government itself, undermining its foreign policy. It’s a fracture which emerged during the Margaret Thatcher era, where following the breakdown of the “post-war consensus” of economic pragmatism, ideology gained ascendency in the party and soon manifested into Euroscepticism.
This tug of war lasted 30 years, making it harder for Conservative prime ministers to maintain a working relationship with the EU, and eventually culminating in Brexit itself. Once that was out of the way, these ideologues found a new target: China. While Truss has opportunistically jumped on this bandwagon, former arch-Brexiter Iain Duncan Smith had already made himself the UK’s Sinophobe-in-chief. Their common goal is simply to undermine stable ties with Beijing and provoke conflict by spurring on backbench rebellions, making them a challenge for the government to handle.
Taiwan predicts timeline for conflict with China
Consequently, while Truss may be a national laughingstock thanks to her disastrous tenure as prime minister, this new role she is taking on enables her to cause disruption on this issue. Taiwan, of course, knows this, because its entire foreign policy is premised on trying to undermine the ties of other countries’ relationships with Beijing by spending large amounts of money on inviting figures such as Truss. The timing of the trip was deliberate, coming immediately after the British foreign secretary’s engagement with a senior Chinese official following the coronation of King Charles III.
Taipei hopes that Beijing’s backlash over the Truss visit will target the UK government as a whole and punish the country. China has a record for being abrasive like this, having done so with the Czech Republic in the past and not winning any friends there as a result. If Truss is therefore allowed to dictate the flow of UK-China relations, she wins. Besides her, the UK has never been provocative on Taiwan at a senior level such as with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit last year for the US.
Thus, rather than causing a crisis, China should wait until the upcoming Taiwan elections take place and hope that the more pro-China Kuomintang Party (KMT), which once governed the whole country, will take power and stabilize cross-strait ties again. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) thrives off creating crises, as does the US with its military deployments, and amidst it all there is no intention for cool heads to prevail. While Pelosi was a blatant violation and huge provocation of the One China policy and US commitment to it, the Truss trip is an opportunistic PR stunt by a washed-up has-been who almost ran her country into the ground in a month. Ignore, move on and forget.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.
You can share this story on social media:
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is looking at ways to address the most pressing global issues without being a disruptive influence
The upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit promises to be a watershed moment in the bloc’s history, coming amid unprecedented global challenges and new, emergent tensions.
While the SCO Foreign Ministers meeting, which took place on May 4 and 5, was tasked with preparing the agenda for the July 3-4 summit in New Delhi, there is still much work to do to ensure that India’s chairmanship will be a success.
The West has broken virtually all links with Russia because of the Ukraine conflict. Western sanctions against Russia are unprecedented in scope, carrying significant ramifications also for the developing world, including the economic disruptions caused by the weaponization of the US dollar. The European security architecture is in tatters. For the West to seek Russia’s strategic defeat while the country possesses formidable military and material resources makes no sense. Risking a potential nuclear conflict in particular is totally irresponsible.
The European Union has lost its already limited capacity to play an independent role, especially with Germany losing clout and Brussels appropriating more power. The doors of dialogue and diplomacy are being kept closed as NATO seeks military advantage over Russia, and uses Ukraine as a proxy.
At the other end of Eurasia, US-China tensions are rising over Taiwan, regional maritime disputes, strengthening of US-centered regional alliances and NATO overtures to Japan and South Korea. The US and the EU are warning China against supplying lethal arms to Russia under pain of sanctions, even as they seek China’s support in persuading Russia to end its military intervention in Ukraine, and this in the background of the high-level dialogue between the US and China having virtually broken down.
Can Eurasia’s rising political bloc show a united front against the West’s encroachment?
Both Russia and China, the principal pillars of the SCO, are at loggerheads with the West to different degrees, and the summit agenda will inevitably reflect this reality. The SCO represents a building block of multipolarity within the global system at the political, economic and security levels, a goal reiterated at the Foreign Ministers’ meeting.
While the other SCO members have robust links to both Russia and China, their connections with India are not as strong, despite mutual goodwill and shared interests. This is largely due to a lack of contiguity and direct access to Central Asia. With Iran and Belarus joining as full members, the SCO will achieve greater Eurasian depth. Both of these countries have been politically and economically targeted by the West. The SCO Foreign Ministers meeting also agreed on May 5 to grant dialogue partner status to Kuwait, the Maldives, Myanmar and the UAE, in addition to the nine existing dialogue partners. The growing interest demonstrates the appeal of the SCO as a grouping of non-Western countries that provide an alternative platform for nations to pursue their interests outside the Western-dominated international system.
Association with the SCO increases their margin to maneuver, primarily at the political and economic levels. Diplomatic support, hedging against Western sanctions, access to non-Western development banks, benefits from connectivity projects and infrastructure development, cooperation against terrorism, extremism and separatism, are obvious advantages.
India has taken its current presidency of the SCO seriously, organizing and hosting more than 100 meetings and events, including 15 ministerial level meetings. Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has also stressed the great importance for India of developing multifaceted cooperation. He introduced the term ‘SECURE’ SCO on the basis of Security, Economic Development, Connectivity, Unity, Respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and Environmental protection.
As SCO Chair, India initiated an unprecedented engagement with the organization’s Observers and Dialogue Partners by inviting them to participate in more than 14 socio-cultural events. Many of the events hosted by India occurred for the first time in the framework of the SCO, such as the Millet Food Festival, Film Festival, Cultural Festival, the Tourism Mart, and Conference on Shared Buddhist Heritage.
Moscow Region representatives conduct roadshows to entice Delhi and Mumbai investors
Jaishankar noted that as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and geopolitical upheavals, global supply chains had been disrupted, leading to a serious impact on delivering energy, food, and fertilizers to developing nations. He viewed these challenges as an opportunity for SCO members to address them collaboratively, noting that with more than 40% of the world’s population within the SCO, its collective decisions would surely have a global impact.
Additionally, Jaishankar highlighted the unabated menace of terrorism, and that combating it was one of the original mandates of the SCO. He drew attention to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan where the immediate priorities included providing humanitarian assistance, ensuring a truly inclusive and representative government, combating terrorism and drug trafficking and preserving the rights of women, children and minorities. This was echoed by the Chinese foreign minister.
India expressed its willingness to share its expertise and experience in the field of startups having helped cultivate over 70,000, more than 100 of which were ‘unicorns’. Last year, it proposed the creation of a Startups and Innovation working groups as well as one focused on traditional medicines, and the SCO meeting approved plans to operationalize these initiatives.
India believes that the SCO should look at reform and modernization to keep the organization relevant in a rapidly transforming world, and noted that discussions on these issues had already commenced. It also sought support for its long-standing demand to make English the SCO’s third official language, as this would enable a deeper engagement with English-speaking members and would take the SCO’s work to a global audience.
India also proposed the New Delhi Declaration as an SCO Summit Declaration at the meeting, as well as four other thematic joint statements on cooperation in de-radicalization strategies, promotion of millets, sustainable lifestyles to address climate change and digital transformation. India sought support for a timely finalization of these documents for approval at the SCO Summit.
Indian delegation wraps up successful business tour in Russia
According to Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, all participating parties considered the SCO as an important platform for joint combat against terrorism, separatism, drug trafficking, as well as cyber crimes. All favored more cooperation in such fields as transportation, energy, finance, investment, trade, the digital economy, regional connectivity, deeper cultural and people-to-people exchanges, environmental protection, climate change, sustainable development, and SCO’s strengthened cooperation with the United Nations and BRICS countries.
The meeting also offered the gathered foreign ministers an opportunity for intense bilateral meetings. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met his Chinese counterpart to discuss the implementation of agreements reached between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in March.
The SCO continues to enlarge its footprint, widen its agenda, and carve out a non-Western space in the international system, but some key points of friction remain between members especially China and India. The two countries are currently embroiled in a border dispute that has yet to be settled. Additionally, India stands in opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative due to India’s concerns about connected sovereignty issues.
The other, less important fault line, is India-Pakistan relations. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bhutto Zardari did not help matters by making indirect jibes at India during his speech at the SCO meeting and further criticism of New Delhi in his interviews to the media. His comments elicited a sharp response by the Indian Foreign Minister, but only after the SCO meeting was completed. Pakistan is currently in the throes of a major internal crisis, which may affect its participation in the SCO summit. However, India-Pakistan differences are not germane to the SCO’s growing stature. Far more important is the Russia-India-China triangle.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.
You can share this story on social media:
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
Rome is considering leaving the Belt and Road Initiative in a move which will place virtue signaling to other Western states above its own interests
Italy’s membership of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is up for renewal at the end of this year, and Western media outlets are speculating that Rome may choose to leave the pact.
Italy became the first and only G7 nation to join China’s multi-billion-dollar infrastructure vision, signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) just before a tidal wave of anti-China sentiment was unleashed on the world. Indeed, the country’s leadership was in a very different place then, with Italy being led by Giuseppe Conte of the Five Star Movement, whose populism faulted the Euro-Atlantic establishment for decimating the Italian economy through the 2008 debt crisis and the brutal austerity measures which followed. It is little wonder that Italy had decided to look eastwards.
Even 15 years on from the events of 2008, Italy’s economy still has not fully recovered. It was worth $2.4 trillion at the end of that year, but is only at $2.1 trillion now, and barely growing at all. New and concurrent economic crises have taken a toll. Italy’s current leadership no longer believes all roads lead to Rome, let alone to China’s modern-day Silk Road – rather, they lead to Washington. As pressure on the country has grown, its successive leaders, Mario Draghi and Giorgia Meloni, have sought to reset its foreign policy back to transatlantic-oriented goals, ending its rebellion against the establishment and thus contemplating quitting China’s grand initiative.
Italy may exit ‘New Silk Road’ – FT
Oddly enough, the truth remains that it is the EU and US that stand as the biggest threat to Italy’s prosperity, not China. While dumping the BRI will receive plaudits from the US-dominated commentary circles in these countries, the reality is that they offer no alternative, no plans, and no incentives to make Italy a wealthier country. It is the “sick man” of the G7, an advanced economy that has increasingly lost its competitiveness, but also one that has been thrust into decline by being a southern EU country and a net loser of Eurozone policies.
It is precisely because of the economic upheavals that the country has faced over the past 15 years and widespread political dissatisfaction, that radical and populist politics have gained ground. China was rightfully seen as an alternative, a country that could rapidly expand Italy’s exports and invest in crumbling public infrastructure. However, this has quickly become politically incorrect. Italy’s leaders argue that BRI participation has been a waste of time. However, the reality is that when Eurocrat Mario Draghi came to office, he sought to reset Italy’s foreign policy and began using new “golden powers” to veto and cancel Chinese investments in Italy on a large scale. In 2021 alone, he blocked three Chinese takeovers, including a seed and vegetable producer.
Following Draghi, Giorgia Meloni, despite her outward populism, has been even more prone to pledging Rome’s loyalty to the transatlantic cause, having decided to become vocal in support of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and even visit Kiev. At this stage, it is very little surprise that her country is contemplating canceling participation in the BRI, something which can score political points and help dispel doubts about her loyalty to Brussels and Washington. Predictably, the mainstream media narrative readily depicts the BRI in predatory and malign terms, ignoring the obvious empirical truth that it is the EU that has saddled Italy with a national debt larger than its GDP, and not China. Of course, there is no alternative scheme or plan for Italy on offer should it leave the BRI, meaning it is cutting its nose off to spite its face.
EU defenseless against China – Berlusconi
By forfeiting its BRI membership, Italy will undoubtedly lose the opportunity to massively enhance its trade competitiveness, namely by opting out of projects such as Chinese-owned ports and railway links. As an example of this, Greece, to the southeast, has positioned itself as a “gateway to Europe” through Chinese ownership of Pireaus port and its connecting railways, which allows cargo to go up through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, into the port and then across Europe. Italy could have competed for a share of this, but it has chosen not to, and it’s not like it will be selling anything additional to the US with its protectionist “America first” policies, is it?
In doing so, Italy has chosen to stop being a leader pursuing its own path in the world to better strengthen its global clout, but instead to be a follower, to play second fiddle to the transatlantic establishment which doesn’t see it as a particularly prominent partner to begin with. Italy joined the BRI precisely because it was sick of being a “rule taker” from Brussels, in a similar vein to what Greece has experienced. Now it appears happy again to hold up the political orthodoxy of the elitist, US-led G7. In doing so, it can kiss goodbye any hopes of becoming a powerful and influential country again anytime soon. Italy is admired mostly for its past, as opposed to what it offers to the world presently, and if its current leadership has its way, that will likely remain the case.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.
You can share this story on social media:
PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME
NEWS2 months ago
FINANCE2 months ago
