The attempts now being made to revive the "road map" to a final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state are at only a preliminary stage. The recent international conference in London, aimed at supporting reforms in the Palestinian Authority and shoring up support for renewed negotiations with Israel, is one of those preliminary efforts.
I suggest, however, that it is not mediation that is needed: what the Palestinians need now are partners. In their conflict with Israel, their natural and historical partner has always been Jordan.
That partnership was never broken. Articles 3 and 8 of Jordan's peace treaty with Israel refer explicitly to the refugee problem as one of the major issues still to be resolved, as well as citing the unresolved status of trans-border arrangements and of Jerusalem. Jordan is not outside the peace process, but an essential part of it.
The original road map sketched out at the Madrid Conference in 1991 envisaged two stages: the final settlement of disputes between the Palestinians and Israel, and the permanent settlement of regional conflicts. Jordan's participation in both stages is crucial.
Indeed, the interests of the inhabitants of the three areas -- Palestine, Jordan, and Israel -- are so intertwined that their representatives will have no choice but to come to terms with one another if negotiations are to succeed. For example, the refugee problem cannot be separated from wider problems concerning the integration of all inhabitants of Palestine, Jordan and Israel -- where the refugees are most numerous -- into civil societies where they may enjoy equal legal status and equal access to economic and cultural opportunities.
Such integration cannot be achieved on a unilateral basis but only by programs adopted by the host and donor countries in co-operation with each other; nor can it be achieved in conditions where there is complete political and administrative separation between the populations which places them under exclusive controls and fails to acknowledge the human needs of community and conviviality.
The economic and social development of the three areas demands an integrated approach to the exploitation of energy and other natural resources, particularly water. Without agreements on the conditions of such exploitation there will remain imbalances of living conditions and the persistence of rival claims with their potential for future conflicts.
A recognized community of water and energy interests and programs for their joint exploitation, for example in the rift valley, may lead, as was the motivation for the first stage of European integration, to a wider integration on a wider scale in the region.
The status of Jerusalem is still an unresolved question on both the local and international scenes. That question was specifically listed in the Jordanian-Israel Peace Treaty. The recognition by the three parties of the primacy of the moral and spiritual over the political importance of the city could lead to arrangements on the ground which satisfy the legitimate claims of the three Abrahamic faiths, and subsume the eventual political status of the city to this moral authority.
The alternative to an accepted resolution of their problems by the three parties is the permanent fragmentation of the Holy Land, which can only lead to more confrontation and violent conflicts. The shadow of such fragmentation, with its unfathomable perils, now hangs over Iraq. In this troubled part of the world, the choice is, quite simply, one between regionalism and barbarism.
Prince El Hassan bin Talal is the president of the Club of Rome, moderator of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, and the president of the Arab Thought Forum.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS