The article explains evolution of Pakistan’s approach towards forming alliances and maintaining strategic autonomy against the backdrop of U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
New dynamic Pakistan has to face
As the US withdraws its troops from Afghanistan, Pakistan is eager to build a relationship with Washington that is not tied to US stakes in Afghanistan.
Pakistan does not want to be totally alienated from U.S. in the new geopolitical jousting between the US and China.
How Pakistan copes with the new dynamic between the US and China as well as manages the deepening crisis in Afghanistan would be of great interest to India.
Striking the balance between autonomy and alliance
Autonomy is about the basic impulse for enhancing the degree of one’s freedom.
Alliances are about coping with real or perceived threats to one’s security.
Both are natural trends in international politics.
Joining an alliance does not mean ceding one’s sovereignty.
Within every alliance, there is a perennial tension between seeking more commitments from the partner in return for limiting one’s own.
Explaining Pakistan’s approach to alliances
Pakistan’s insecurities in relation to India meant it was eager for alliances.
And as the Anglo-Americans scouted for partners in the crusade against global communism, Pakistan signed a bilateral security treaty with the US and joined the South East Asia Treaty Organisation and Central Treaty Organisation in the mid-1950s.
Rather than target Pakistan’s alliance with a West that was intensely hostile to Beijing in the 1950s, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai saw room to exploit Pakistan’s insecurities on India.
While Pakistan’s ties with the US went up and down, its relationship with China has seen steady expansion.
Pakistan’s relations with the US flourished after the Soviet Union sent its troops into Afghanistan at the end of 1979.
The US and Pakistan reconnected in 2001 as Washington sought physical access and intelligence support to sustain its intervention in Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11.
Now the US wants Pakistan to persuade the Taliban to accept a peaceful transition to a new political order in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s ability to adapt to shifting geopolitical trends
Pakistan worries that its leverage in U.S. will diminish once the US turns its back on Afghanistan and towards the Indo-Pacific.
Pakistan does not want to get in the Indo-Pacific crossfire between the US and China.
It would also like to dent India’s growing importance in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
India should not underestimate Pakistan’s agency in adapting to the shifting global currents.
Pakistan has been good at using its great power alliances to its own benefit.
Three problems that complicates Pakistan’s strategic autonomy
1) Relative economic decline: Pakistan’s expected aggregate GDP at around $300 billion in 2021 is 10 times smaller than India’s.
2) Obsession with Kashmir: Pakistan’s enduring obsessions with separating Kashmir from India, and extending its political sway over Afghanistan; both look elusive despite massive political investments by the Pakistan army.
Unsurprisingly, there is a recognition that Pakistan needs reorientation — from geopolitics to geoeconomics and permanent war with neighbours to peace of some sorts.
3) Using religion as political instrument: Turning Islam into a political instrument and empowering religious extremism seemed clever a few decades ago.
However, today those forces have acquired a life of their own and severely constrain the capacity of the Pakistani state to build internal coherence and widen international options.
Conclusion
It will be unwise to rule out Pakistan’s positive reinvention; no country has a bigger stake in it than India. For now, though, Pakistan offers a cautionary tale on the dangers of squandering a nation’s strategic advantages — including a critical geopolitical location that it had inherited and the powerful partnerships that came its way.
West African leaders were due to meet in Ghana to discuss a response to Mali’s second coup in nine months.
Since 1960, when Mali gained independence from France, there have been five coups — and only one peaceful transition from one democratically elected president to another.
But on Monday, soldiers detained transitional President Bah Ndaw and Prime Minister Moctar Ouane, releasing them on Thursday while saying that they had resigned.
Recent coup
Nine months ago, President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita was overthrown in the wake of mass anti-government protests.
Last week, the announcement of a new cabinet was made that excluded two key military leaders. Following this, the army has detained the President and the Prime Minister.
About ECOWAS
The Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) is a regional group of fifteen countries, founded in 1975 via the treaty of Lagos.
Mission: To promote economic integration in “all fields of economic activity, particularly industry, transport, telecommunications, energy, agriculture, natural resources, commerce, monetary and financial questions, social and cultural matters.
Vision: Creation of a borderless region where the population has access to its abundant resources and is able to exploit same through the creation of opportunities under a sustainable environment.
ECOWAS can be divided into two sub-regional blocs:
West African Economic and Monetary Union – established in 1994
West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ) – established in 2000
ECOWAS is meant to be a region governed in accordance with the principles of democracy, rule of law and good governance.
The member countries of ECOWAS comprises: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’ Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Togo.
The article suggests recalibration of India’s approach towards political turmoil in Nepal.
Nepal in political crisis
For the second time in weeks, Prime Minister K P Oli has persuaded President Bidya Devi Bhandari to dissolve parliament and call for fresh elections.
That is, unless the Supreme Court decides to declare the dissolution of parliament as unconstitutional, as it had done in the recent past.
The current dissolution has been challenged in the court by five political parties.
Medhesi demand fulfilled
Prime Minister Oli has also delivered on the longstanding Madhesi demand to reverse a constitutional provision which denied citizenship to children born of Nepali mothers who had foreign husbands.
The widespread unrest in the Terai adjoining India in 2015 was triggered by this attempt to deny equal rights to the Madhesi population.
This provision had directly targeted the Madhesi population, which has close kinship and marital ties across the border with India.
While this provision has now been removed through a presidential ordinance, it could well be reversed in future by Nepali political parties dominated by the higher caste.
Steps India needs to take
Political uncertainty in a neighbouring country is never good news for India, particularly in Nepal with whom we share a long and open border.
The Indian government has maintained a studied silence on the current political developments in Nepal and this may be the right thing to do.
But this silence should not imply the lack of a proper assessment of the political situation in Nepal and what would serve the interests of India best.
Following are the steps India need to take:
1) India should declare it does not support the revival of monarchy
The abolition of the monarchy is a net gain for India and the government must firmly and unambiguously declare that it does not support the revival of the monarchy, which has already been rejected by its people.
India should declare its unconditional support to Nepal’s republican democracy.
2) Remain engaged with Nepal
India should remain fully engaged with Nepal at all levels and across the political spectrum.
The safeguarding of India’s vital interests demands such sustained engagement.
A hands-off policy will only create space for other external influences, some of which, like China, may prove to be hostile.
However, engagement must dispense with the recurrent tendency to label Nepali political leaders as friends or enemies.
India should advocate policies rather than persons.
3) Recognise the role of Madhesi population
In India’s engagement with Nepal, the Terai belt and its large Madhesi population plays a critical and indispensable role.
In an effort to win over the Kathmandu political and social elite, one should be careful not to neglect citizens living in the plains.
Our engagement with Nepal must find an important place for Nepali citizens who are our immediate neighbours and act as a kinship, cultural and religious bridge between our two countries.
4) Appreciate people-to-people link
India needs to appreciate that the people-to-people links between our two countries have an unmatched density and no other country, including China, enjoys this asset.
The challenge to our Nepal policy lies in leveraging this precious asset to ensure a stable and mutually-productive state-to-state relationship.
India has every reason to approach its relations with Nepal with confidence and assurance.
Consider the question “What are the factors that make India-Nepal relationship special? What are the recent challenges impacting this special relationship? ”
Conclusion
The safeguarding of India’s vital interests demands India’s engagement with Nepal without intervening in its politics. A hands-off policy will only create space for other external influences.
Bangladesh’s central bank has approved a $200 million currency swap facility to Sri Lanka.
Practice question for mains:
Q. What are Currency Swaps? Discuss the efficacy of Currency Swap Agreements for liberalizing bilateral trade.
What is a Currency Swap?
In this context, a currency swap is effectively a loan that Bangladesh will give to Sri Lanka in dollars, with an agreement that the debt will be repaid with interest in Sri Lankan rupees.
For Sri Lanka, this is cheaper than borrowing from the market, and a lifeline as is it struggles to maintain adequate forex reserves even as repayment of its external debts looms.
The period of the currency swap will be specified in the agreement.
A helping hand for SL
Bangladesh Bank, the central bank, has in principle approved a $200 million currency swap agreement with Sri Lanka.
Dhaka decided to extend the facility after a request by Sri Lankan PM Mahinda Rajapaksa to Bangladesh’s PM Sheikh Hasina.
It will help Colombo tide over its foreign exchange crisis, according to media reports from Bangladesh, quoting the bank’s spokesman.
Sri Lanka, staring at an external debt repayment schedule of $4.05 million this year, is in urgent need of foreign exchange.
An unusual move
Bangladesh has not been viewed so far as a provider of financial assistance to other countries.
It has been among the most impoverished countries of the world, and still receives billions of dollars in financial aid.
But over the last two decades, its economy has pulled itself up literally by the bootstraps, and in 2020, was the fastest growing in South Asia.
Bangladesh’s economy grew by 5.2 percent in 2020 and is expected to grow by 6.8 percent in 2021.
The country has managed to pull millions out of poverty. Its per capita income just overtook India’s.
A break in monopoly
This may be the first time that Bangladesh is extending a helping hand to another country, so this is a landmark of sorts.
It is also the first time that Sri Lanka is borrowing from a SAARC country other than India.
The presumption was that only India, as the regional group’s largest economy, could do this.
The Bangladesh-Sri Lanka arrangement shows that is no longer valid.
Why didn’t SL approach India?
Last year, it requested for a $1 billion credit swap, and separately, a moratorium on debts that the country has to repay to India.
But India-Sri Lanka relations have been tense over Colombo’s decision to cancel a valued container terminal project at Colombo Port.
India put off the decision, but Colombo no longer has the luxury of time.
Is SL in a crisis?
With the tourism industry destroyed since the 2019 Easter attacks, Sri Lanka had lost one of its top foreign exchange pullers even before the pandemic.
The tea and garment industries have also been hit by the pandemic affecting exports.
Remittances increased in 2020, but are not sufficient to pull Sri Lanka out of its crisis.
The country is already deep in debt to China. According to media reports, Sri Lanka owes China up to $5 billion.
What about the previous swap facility that India gave Sri Lanka?
Last July, the RBI did extend a $400 million credit swap facility to Sri Lanka, which the Central Bank of Sri Lanka settled in February. The arrangement was not extended.
RBI has a framework under which it can offer credit swap facilities to SAARC countries within an overall corpus of $2 billion.
According to RBI, the SAARC currency swap facility came into operation in November 2012 with the aim of providing to smaller countries in the region.
A Bollywood actor has recently received a golden visa from the UAE government.
What is the Golden Visa?
The Golden Visa system essentially offers long-term residency (5 and 10 years) to people belonging to the following groups: investors, entrepreneurs, individuals with outstanding talents the likes of researchers, medical professionals and those within the scientific and knowledge fields, and remarkable students.
The main benefit of the visa will be security.
The UAE government has made it clear that they are committed to providing expatriates, investors and essentially everyone looking to make the UAE their home an extra reason to feel secure about their future.
Who are eligible to apply?
For the 10-year visa, investors having no less than AED (Dirham) 10 million worth of public investment, either in the form of an investment fund or a company, can apply.
However, at least 60 per cent of the total investment must not be in the form of real estate and the invested amount must not be loaned, or in case of assets, investors must assume full ownership.
The investor must be able to retain the investment for a minimum of three years as well.
The long-term visa can also include the holder’s spouse and children, as well as one executive director and one advisor.
In addition to the aforementioned, foreign nationals who are looking to set up their business in the UAE may also apply for permanent residency (5 years) through the Golden Business Visa scheme.
Perks for the talent
Besides entrepreneurs, individuals with specialized talent can also apply for the visa. They include doctors, researchers, scientists, investors and artists.
These individuals may be granted a 10-year visa following accreditations granted by their respective departments and fields and the visa will also be extended to their spouses and children.
Exceptional high school and university students are eligible for a 5-year residency visa in the UAE.
The article highlights the challenges in the success of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and suggests the one-state solution instead.
Background of the two-state solution
It involves dividing Palestine between the state of Israel and the indigenous population of Palestine.
It was first offered by the British in 1937 and rejected by the Palestinians already then.
In 1947 the United Nations insisted that the Palestinians should give half of their homeland to the settler movement of Zionism.
The two-state solution, offered for the first time by liberal Zionists and the United States in the 1980s, is seen by some Palestinians as the best way of ending of the occupation of the West Bank .
It will also lead to the partial fulfilment of the Palestinian right for self-determination and independence.
Interpretation of two-state solution
The Israeli interpretation, until 2009, was that the two-state solution is another means of having the territories, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, without incorporating most of the people living there.
In order to ensure it, Israel partitioned the West Bank which is 20% of historical Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab part.
This was in the second phase of the Oslo Accords, known as the Oslo II agreement of 1995.
One area, called area C, which consists of 60% of the West Bank was directly ruled from 1995 until today by Israel.
Now, Israel is in the process of officially annexing this area.
40% of the West Bank, areas A and B under Oslo II, were put under the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinian Authority calls itself the state of Palestine, but in essence has no power whatsoever, unless the one given to it, and withdrawn from it, by Israel.
In 2018 a citizenship law was passed known as the nationality law.
As per the citizenship law, the Palestinian citizens who live in Israel proper which is Israel prior to the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and who are supposedly equal citizens of the Jewish state, will in essence become the Africans of a new Israeli Jewish apartheid state.
Issues with two-state solution
The endless negotiation on the two-state solution was based on the formula that once the two states become a reality, Israel will stop these severe violations of the Palestinian civil and human rights.
But while the wait continued, more Palestinians were expelled and the Jewish settler community in the West Bank grew in size.
The two-state solution is not going to stop the ethnic cleansing; instead, talking about it provides Israel international immunity to continue it.
Way forward
The only alternative is to decolonise historical Palestine.
New state should a state for all its citizens all over the country, based on the dismantlement of colonialist institutions, fair redistribution of the country’s natural resources, compensation of the victims of the ethnic cleansing and allowing their repatriation.
Settlers and natives should together build a new state that is democratic, part of the Arab world and not against it, and an inspiration for the rest of the region.
Conclusion
The one-state solution is the way forward in Palestine and that should be the state for all citizens.
The article highlights the implications of the U.S. exit from Afghanistan for the region.
Status of the Afghanistan peace process
The Afghanistan peace process has been in disarray as the conference to be hosted by the United Nations in Istanbul, remains suspended due to the reluctance of Afghan’s Taliban.
Now there is some hope of breaking the impasse as the Taliban have expressed an openness to attend the Istanbul summit.
United States President Joe Biden is insistent on withdrawing the troops on September 11, even without any power-sharing deal between the warring parties.
Taliban leadership, who may feel the urgency to resuming negotiations than completely abandoning them for fear of losing the international legitimacy they enjoy at the moment.
How the U.S. exit will affect Pakistan
After months of negotiations, the U.S.-Taliban deal was signed in February 2020, and Pakistan took full credit for it.
As the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for almost two decades had kept the U.S. reliant on Pakistan for operational and other support.
Pakistan smartly mobilised this factor against India.
With the disappearance of this lethal dependence, Pakistan faces an uphill task in conducting a viable Afghan policy.
Pakistan cannot keep America invested in it on military, economic, and societal fronts without partnering with the U.S. to ensure a smooth transition of power in Kabul.
Impact on China
The Taliban now draw support from a wide variety of regional powers, including Russia, China and Iran.
However, these countries too want the insurgent group to moderate its position.
China, which has a beneficiary of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, seems confused as the American exit looms large.
The U.S. exit would leave Beijing vulnerable to its spillover effects particularly in the restive Xinjiang province.
That is why China has remained invested in all major regional Afghan-centric negotiations.
Implications for India
India has been the key regional backer of an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled peace process.
India is concerned that the Taliban-dominated regime in Afghanistan might allow Pakistan to dictate Afghanistan’s India policy.
That is why India has underlined the need for a genuine double peace i.e. within and around Afghanistan.
But despite being offered a seat at Istanbul at the U.S.’s behest, India remains a peripheral player.
The strategic competition between the China and the U.S., China’s growing rivalry with India, and New Delhi’s tense relationship with Islamabad are some of the factors which will certainly affect the situation in Afghanistan as the U.S. leaves the country.
Consider the question “What are the implications of the U.S. exit from Afghanistan for the region? Examine its impact on India.
Conclusion
While the exit would bring the U.S.’s “forever war” to an end, it is unlikely to result in peace if Afghan stakeholders show their utter inability to take the process forward.
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s most enduring hostilities, with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip reaching 53 years. Various attempts have been made to resolve the conflict as part of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process.
British Palestine & Jew Migration
The British, after the First World War, established a colony in Palestine maintaining that they would rule the area until the Palestinians were ready to govern themselves. This was called Mandatory Palestine as it was according to the League of Nations mandate.
Even before this time, there was a massive influx of Jews from Europe into Palestine in the hope of creating their homeland after being expelled from it for centuries.
Meanwhile, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Jewish population in Palestine increased by hundreds of thousands, facilitated by the British (who were honouring the Balfour Declaration).
During this time, tensions between the growing Jewish communities and the Arabs were increasing.
In 1936, the Palestinian Arabs revolted against the British as a result of the Palestinian Arabs viewing themselves increasingly as a nation.
This revolt was suppressed by the British with help from Jewish militias.
After the revolt, however, the British issued a white paper that limited Jewish immigration into Palestine and called for the establishment of a joint Jewish-Arab state in Palestine within ten years.
During the course of World War II, many Jews escaping Europe from the Holocaust were brought to Palestine illegally (because of the immigration limit) by Jewish organisations. Tensions escalated and the British handed over the problem to the newly established United Nations.
In 1947, the UN voted to establish separate Palestinian and Jewish states in the region dividing Palestine. This plan was rejected by the Arabs.
Background of the Israel Palestine conflict
Following the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, the Arab League decided to intervene on behalf of Palestinian Arabs, marching their forces into former British Palestine, beginning the main phase of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
1948 Arab Israel War
The overall fighting, leading to around 15,000 casualties, resulted in cease-fire and armistice agreements of 1949, with Israel holding much of the former Mandate territory, Jordan occupying and later annexing the West Bank and Egypt taking over the Gaza Strip, where the All-Palestine Government was declared by the Arab League on 22 September 1948.
Through the 1950s, Jordan and Egypt supported the Palestinian Fedayeen militants’ cross-border attacks into Israel, while Israel carried out reprisal operations in the host countries.
Over the following years, tensions rose in the region, particularly between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Following the 1956 Suez Crisis and Israel’s invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria signed mutual defense pacts in anticipation of a possible mobilization of Israel troops.
The 1956 Suez Crisis resulted in a short-term Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and exile of the All-Palestine Government, which was later restored with Israeli withdrawal.
The All-Palestine Government was completely abandoned by Egypt in 1959 and was officially merged into the United Arab Republic, to the detriment of the Palestinian national movement. Gaza Strip then was put under the authority of the Egyptian military administrator, making it a de facto military occupation.
In 1964, however, a new organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was established by Yasser Arafat.[29] It immediately won the support of most Arab League governments and was granted a seat in the Arab League.
1967 Six day War
The 1967 Six-Day War exerted a significant effect upon Palestinian nationalism, as Israel gained military control of the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt.
The PLO was unable to establish any control on the ground and established its headquarters in Jordan, home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and supported the Jordanian army during the War of Attrition, which included the Battle of Karameh.
However, the Palestinian base in Jordan collapsed with the Jordanian–Palestinian civil war in 1970. The PLO defeat by the Jordanians caused most of the Palestinian militants to relocate to South Lebanon, where they soon took over large areas, creating the so-called “Fatahland”.
Camp David Accords 1978
1) The Camp David Accords were a pair of political agreements signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on 17 September 1978.
2) The Camp David Accords established the so framework for peace in the Middle East and brought about the end of simmering conflict between Egypt and Israel.
3) They also called for the creation of Palestinian state in the area known as Gaza and on the West Bank of river Jordan.
4) However since the Palestinians were not represented at the talks, the resulting agreement was not formally recognized by the United Nations.
In 1982, following an assassination attempt on one of its diplomats by Palestinians, the Israeli government decided to take sides in the Lebanese Civil War and the 1982 Lebanon War commenced. The initial results for Israel were successful. Most Palestinian militants were defeated within several weeks, Beirut was captured, and the PLO headquarters were evacuated to Tunisia in June by Yasser Arafat’s decision.
First Intifada: The tension between Israel and Palestine escalated with Israel’s increased settlement in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip fomented the riots begun in 1987, known as the first intifada.
Second Intifada (2000-05): In 2000, a more violent Palestine Uprising started and a large number of civilians died on both sides. This is known as the second intifada. As a defensive measure, Israel constructed a West Bank Barrier along West Bank to separate Israel and Palestine settlements.
Road Map for Peace
1993 OSLO Accord: The Oslo Accords are a pair of peace agreements between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO
1) Oslo 1 Accord: It was officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. It was signed in Washington, D.C., in 1993.
The accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority.
Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which “permanent status negotiations” would commence in order to reach a final agreement.
Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases.
Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition—the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.
In order that the Palestinians govern themselves according to democratic principles, free and general political elections would be held for the council.
Jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip, except for issues that would be finalized in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides viewed the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit.
The five-year transitional period would commence with Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. There would be a transfer of authority from the Israel Defense Forces to the authorized Palestinians, concerning education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, and tourism. The council would establish a strong police force, while Israel would continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats.
2) Oslo 2 Accord: It was called The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and was signed on the 28th September, 1995 in Taba (Egypt).
Oslo I also set the agenda for the follow-up agreement that became known as Oslo II, which would include discussion of the future governance of the city of Jerusalem (both sides claim it as their respective capital) as well as issues concerning borders, security and the rights, if any, of Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
A protocol for free elections for Palestinian Authority leadership was also established.
Oslo II, which was signed two years later, gave the Palestinian Authority, which oversees Gaza and the West Bank, limited control over part of the region, while allowing Israel to annex much of the West Bank, and established parameters for economic and political cooperation between the two sides.
As part of the treaty, both sides were prohibited from inciting violence or conflict against the other.
Israel was to collects taxes from Palestinians who work in Israel but live in the Occupied Territories, distributing the revenue to the Palestinian Authority.
Israel was also to oversee the trade of goods and services into and out of Gaza and the West Bank.
3) Aftermath of the Oslo Accords
Unfortunately, any momentum gained from the ratification of the Oslo Accords was short-lived.
In 1998, Palestinian officials accused Israel of not following through on the troop withdrawals from Gaza and Hebron called for in the Oslo Accords.
After initially slowing down settlement construction in the West Bank, at the request of the United States, the building of new Israeli housing in the region began in earnest again in the early 2000s.
Conversely, critics of the Accords said that Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens increased in their aftermath, coinciding with the increasing power of the Palestinian Authority.
These critics felt that the Palestinian Authority was failing to adequately police Gaza and the West Bank, and identify and prosecute suspected terrorists.
With these disagreements providing the backdrop, negotiators from both sides reconvened, once again at Camp David, with the hope of following up on the Oslo Accords with a comprehensive peace treaty.
In September 2000, Palestinian militants declared a “Second Intifada,” calling for increased violence against Israelis after Sharon, who as prime minister visited the Temple Mount—a site sacred to both Jews and Muslims.
Camp David Accord 2000
The 2000 Camp David Summit was a summit meeting at Camp David between United States president Bill Clinton, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat. The summit took place between 11 and 25 July 2000.
Barak put forward the following as “bases for negotiation”, a non-militarized Palestinian state split into 3–4 parts containing 87–92% of the West Bank including only parts of East Jerusalem, and the entire Gaza Strip.
The offer also included that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank’s Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel, no right of return to Israel, no sovereignty over the Temple Mount or any core East Jerusalem neighbourhoods, and continued Israel control over the Jordan Valley.
Arafat rejected this offer. According to the Palestinian negotiators the offer did not remove many of the elements of the Israeli occupation regarding land, security, settlements, and Jerusalem.
Taba Summit (2001)
The Israeli negotiation team presented a new map at the Taba Summit in Taba, Egypt in January 2001. The proposition removed the “temporarily Israeli controlled” areas, and the Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation.
The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections.
The following month the Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon defeated Ehud Barak in the Israeli elections and was elected as Israeli prime minister on 7 February 2001. Sharon’s new government chose not to resume the high-level talks.
Arab Peace Initiative
The Arab Peace Initiative was first proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the Beirut Summit (2002). The peace initiative is a proposed solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict as a whole, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in particular.
The initiative was initially published on 28 March 2002, at the Beirut Summit, and agreed upon again in 2007 in the Riyadh Summit.
Unlike the Road Map for Peace, it spelled out “final-solution” borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize “an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital” in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a “just solution” for the Palestinian refugees.
The Israeli government has expressed reservations on ‘red line,’ issues such as the Palestinian refugee problem, homeland security concerns, and the nature of Jerusalem.
What led to Recent Crash
In October 2020, an Israeli court ruled that several Palestinian families living in Sheikh Jarrah—a neighborhood in East Jerusalem—were to be evicted by May 2021 with their land handed over to Jewish families.
In February 2021, several Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah filed an appeal to the court ruling and prompted protests around the appeal hearings, the ongoing legal battle around property ownership, and demanding an end to the forcible displacement of Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem.
In late April 2021, Palestinians began demonstrating in the streets of Jerusalem to protest the pending evictions and residents of Sheikh Jarrah—along with other activists—began to host nightly sit-ins. In early May, after a court ruled in favor of the evictions, the protests expanded with Israeli police deploying force against demonstrators.
On May 7, following weeks of daily demonstrations and rising tensions between protesters, Israeli settlers, and police during the month of Ramadan, violence broke out at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, with Israeli police using stun grenades, rubber bullets, and water cannons in a clash with protestors that left hundreds of Palestinians wounded.
On May 10, after several consecutive days of violence throughout Jerusalem and the use of lethal and nonlethal force by Israeli police, Hamas, the militant group which governs Gaza, and other Palestinian militant groups launched hundreds of rockets into Israeli territory.
Israel responded with air strikes and later artillery bombardments against targets in Gaza, including launching several air strikes that killed more than twenty Palestinians. While claiming to target Hamas, other militants, and their infrastructure—including tunnels and rocket launchers—Israel has expanded its aerial campaign and struck targets including residential buildings, media headquarters, and refugee and healthcare facilities.
Rival claims over Jerusalem
Both Israel and Palestine have declared Jerusalem their capital.
In July 1980, the Israeli Parliament passed the Jerusalem Law declaring it the country’s capital.
Palestinians declared Jerusalem the capital of the putative state of Palestine by a law passed by the Palestinian Authority in 2000.
The 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence also declared Jerusalem as the capital.
For the present, the Palestinian Authority has its headquarters in Ramallah.
Hamas and Fatah
In 1987, Hamas (Islamic Militant group) for the liberation of Palestine through Jihad came into existence. It refused to recognize Israel as a country. It has received support from Iran and Syria.
On the other hand, Fatah, a faction of PLO under Yasser Arafat received support from Western nations.
(Palestinians run for cover from tear gas during clashes with Israeli security forces near the border between Israel and the Gaza)
What is happening in GAZA
Gaza is a densely populated strip of land that is mostly surrounded by Israel and peopled almost exclusively by Palestinians. Israel used to have a military presence, but withdrew unilaterally in 2005. It’s currently under Israeli blockade.
Egypt controlled Gaza until 1967, when Israel occupied it (along with the West Bank) in the Six-Day War.
Until 2005, Israeli military authorities controlled Gaza in the same way they control the West Bank, and Jews were permitted to settle there. In 2005, then–Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pulled out Israeli troops and settlers unilaterally.
Gaza is governed by the Islamist group Hamas, which formed in 1987 as a militant “resistance” group against Israel and won political power in a 2006 US-based election.
Hamas’s takeover of Gaza prompted an Israeli blockade of the flow of commercial goods into Gaza, on the grounds that Hamas could use those goods to make weapons to be used against Israel.
Israel has eased the blockade over time, but the cutoff of basic supplies like fuel still does significant humanitarian harm by cutting off access to electricity, food, and medicine.
Hamas and other Gaza-based militants have fired thousands of rockets from the territory at Israeli targets.
Israel has launched a number of military operations in Gaza, including an air campaign and ground invasion in late 2008 and early 2009, a major bombing campaign in 2012, and another air/ground assault in the summer of 2014.
International Scenario
Stand of USA
For decades, the U.S. has played a partisan role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It became involved shortly after World War II, joining the United Kingdom in a 1946 inquiry that recommended one hundred thousand Holocaust survivors relocate to Palestine, which would be neither a Jewish nor an Arab state.
The United States then became the first country to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation in 1948.
Shortly after the 1967 war, Israel began building settlements in some of the territories it had seized. For years, the United States officially condemned these settlements—branding them an obstacle to peace—but avoided outright calling them illegal to avoid the possibility that Israel would face international sanctions.
After the failed 2000 Camp David summit, Washington never made any meaningful attempt to push the Israelis to accept the two-state proposal.
The 2007 Annapolis conference was a failure too. The previous U.S. administration launched a peace bid which also collapsed at an early stage.
In 2018, the Trump administration canceled funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees, and relocated the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a reversal of a longstanding U.S. policy. The decision to move the U.S. embassy was met with applause from the Israeli leadership but was condemned by Palestinian leaders and others in the Middle East and Europe.
Biden has said he will continue the nearly two decades of , which calls for separate Israeli and Palestinian states with borders resembling those that existed before the 1967 war; this territory includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and parts of East Jerusalem.
Stand of Arab Countries
a) EGYPT
Egypt wants a unified Palestinian leadership. Therefore, it invests a lot in supporting a Palestinian reconciliation.
Egypt wants Gaza, the branches of Hamas and Fatah in Gaza, and other forces in Gaza, to have a bigger say in the Palestinian decision-making process.
Egypt wants to eradicate terror cells in Sinai.
Egypt wants Hamas to be less dependent (at least) on Iran, Turkey and Qatar. The Saudis and the Emiratis concur, and they can fund Gaza.
b) Turkey
In December 1987, Turkey had already declared support for the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. It described Israeli policy in the Gaza Strip as “state-sponsored terrorism”
The Turkish government’s condemnation of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict strained relations between the two countries.
c) Syria
Syria announced its complete support to Palestine after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War broke out, and had sent troops to fight against newly-formed Israel Defense Forces
Syria also joined the Six-Day War hoping to expel Israeli Army in order to restore Palestinian state, in which ended with a complete failure.
d) Lebanon
Lebanon did take a formal part in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War against Israel, but Lebanon was the first Arab league nation to signal a desire for an armistice treaty with Israel in 1949.
Israel also supported the secessionist Free Lebanon State during 1979-1984 and its successor South Lebanon Army.
In all Lebanon has maintained a pro Israeli stance.
e) Jordan
Jordan was not a member of the United Nations when the vote on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was taken in November 1947, but following the establishment of the state of Israel on 14 May 1948, Jordan, then known as Transjordan, was one of the Arab League countries that invaded the former Palestinian Mandate territory precipitating the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
By war’s end, Jordan was in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (including the Old City). It expelled its Jewish population, and formally annexed the territories in 1950.
Promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is a major priority for Jordan. It supports U.S. efforts to mediate a final settlement, which it believes should be based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, proposed by Saudi Arabia.
f) Saudi Arabia
Israel and Saudi Arabia do not have any official diplomatic relations.
Saudi Arabia played an active role in attempting to bring the Palestinians towards a self-governing condition which would permit negotiations with Israel. It has done so primarily by trying to mend the schism between Fatah and Hamas, most notably when King Abdullah invited the two factions to negotiations in Mecca resulting in the Mecca Agreement of 7 February 2007. The agreement soon failed, but Saudi Arabia has continued to support a national unity government for the Palestinians, and strongly opposed the war in Gaza in early 2009.
3) Stand of India
India was one of the few countries to oppose the UN’s partition plan in November 1947, echoing its own experience during independence a Few Months Earlier.
In the decades that followed, the Indian political leadership actively supported the Palestinian cause and withheld full diplomatic relations with Israel.
India recognised Israel in 1950 but it is also the first non-Arab country to recognise Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the sole representative of the Palestinian. India is also one of the first countries to recognise the statehood of Palestine in 1988.
In 2014, India favoured UNHRC’s resolution to probe Israel’s human rights violations in Gaza. Despite supporting the probe, India abstained from voting against Israel in UNHRC IN 2015.
As a part of Link West Policy, India has de-hyphenated its relationship with Israel and Palestine in 2018 to treat both the countries mutually independent and exclusive.
In June 2019, India voted in favour of a decision introduced by Israel in the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) that objected to granting consultative status to a Palestinian non-governmental organization
Way Forward
Though not a shining example, Israel can learn a lesson from its neighbour, Lebanon. The sectarian model of power sharing, where Christians, Shias, Sunnis, Druze, Armenians etc. are offered government positions demographically, did help enable Lebanon transition to some degree of stability after the civil war ended in 1990.
There must be change in leadership in both the countries. Leaders are that are ready mentally and physically for a truce must be brought to power.
To start a peace process following steps must be taken:
Israel must end settlement expansion beyond the wall.
Easing restrictions on Gaza
Redesignating parts of the West Bank currently falling under full Israeli administration (Area C) as areas that fall under partial or full Palestinian administration (Areas B or A)
Removing impediments to Palestinian economic development
Ending home demolitions and other forms of collective punishment
Removing impediments to Palestinian elections in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza
Alleviating restrictions on movement and access
Gradually releasing Palestinian prisoners
Allowing the reopening of Palestinian institutions, such as the Orient House, in East Jerusalem
Lithuania has decided to quit China’s 17+1 cooperation forum with central and eastern European states that include other EU members, calling it “divisive”.
About 17+ 1 Forum
The forum is an abbreviation for Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries.
It is an initiative by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote business and investment relations between China and 16 countries of CEE (CEEC).
The countries are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
The format was founded in 2012 in Warsaw to push for the cooperation of the “17+1” (the 17 CEE countries and China).
Its goals are to promote the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and enhance cooperation in the fields of infrastructure, transportation, and logistics, trade and investment”.
