Introduction

The notion of ‘live and let live’ has long been touted as a potential cornerstone for a stable and cooperative relationship between China and the United States, the world’s two largest economies. However, recent developments paint a rather grim picture, suggesting that this once-envisioned approach may be teetering on the brink of collapse.

A Brief History of ‘Live and Let Live’

The concept of ‘live and let live’ gained prominence during the Cold War era, when the US and the Soviet Union, the two dominant superpowers, sought to avoid direct confrontation while maintaining their respective spheres of influence. This approach, characterized by a degree of tolerance and accommodation, helped prevent global catastrophe.

In the context of China-US relations, ‘live and let live’ has been interpreted as a tacit agreement to coexist peacefully, acknowledging each other’s interests and refraining from interference in domestic affairs. This approach has been credited with fostering economic interdependence and preventing major conflicts.

The Erosion of ‘Live and Let Live’

Despite its potential benefits, the ‘live and let live’ approach between China and the US is facing increasing challenges. Several factors have contributed to this erosion, including:

• Ideological Differences: The fundamental ideological differences between the two countries, with China’s authoritarian system contrasting sharply with the US’s democratic values, have created a persistent source of tension.
• Economic Rivalry: The rapid rise of China’s economy has transformed the global landscape, leading to concerns about its economic dominance and potential threat to US interests.
• Geopolitical Competition: The expanding geopolitical influence of China, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, has heightened US anxieties about its strategic ambitions.
• Technological Advancement: China’s rapid technological advancements, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence and 5G, have raised concerns about potential US vulnerabilities.

The Impact of Recent Developments

Recent developments have further strained the relationship between China and the US, making the ‘live and let live’ approach increasingly difficult to sustain:

• Trade War: The ongoing trade war between the two countries has imposed significant economic costs and raised concerns about a broader decoupling of their economies.
• Technology Crackdown: The US’s crackdown on Chinese technology companies, such as Huawei and TikTok, has intensified technological rivalry and raised concerns about protectionism.
• Taiwan Tensions: The heightened tensions surrounding Taiwan, with China’s increasing military assertiveness, have raised fears of a potential conflict.
• South China Sea Disputes: The ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea have remained a flashpoint for potential conflict.

The Path Forward

Amidst these challenges, the future of ‘live and let live’ between China and the US remains uncertain. Both countries face a difficult decision: to continue pursuing a cooperative approach or embrace a more confrontational stance.

A return to the ‘live and let live’ approach would require a significant shift in both countries’ attitudes and policies. It would demand a willingness to compromise, acknowledge each other’s interests, and refrain from provocative actions.

However, the path forward is fraught with challenges. The deeply entrenched ideological differences, economic rivalry, and geopolitical competition make it difficult to envision a return to the status quo.

Conclusion

The ‘live and let live’ approach between China and the US has served as a crucial stabilizing force in international relations. However, recent developments suggest that this approach is facing an existential crisis. Both countries must carefully consider the consequences of their actions and make a concerted effort to avert a downward spiral that could have devastating global consequences. Embracing a more cooperative approach, while acknowledging and addressing underlying differences, remains the only viable path forward for ensuring a stable and prosperous future for both nations.

The Gaza Crisis has been ongoing for decades and has been a major source of conflict in the Middle East. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.

The historical background of the Gaza Crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict is rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent occupation and annexation of Palestinian land by Israel. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.

Key Takeaways

• The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the Gaza Crisis.
• The crisis has been ongoing for decades and is characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability.
• The historical background of the crisis is complex and multifaceted, rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948.

Historical Background of Gaza Crisis

The Gaza Strip has been at the center of conflict between Israel and Palestine for decades. Understanding the historical background of the Gaza crisis is crucial in comprehending the current situation and potential solutions.

The Birth of Israel

The Gaza Strip was originally part of the British Mandate of Palestine, which was established after World War I. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition of the land into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The plan was accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs, who believed that the land belonged to them. In 1948, Israel declared its independence, and neighboring Arab countries invaded, starting the first Arab-Israeli War. The war resulted in Israel’s victory and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including many who fled to the Gaza Strip.

Six Day War

In 1967, tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors escalated, leading to the Six Day War. Israel emerged victorious, occupying the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The occupation of the Gaza Strip led to the establishment of Israeli settlements and the displacement of more Palestinians.

First and Second Intifada

In 1987, the First Intifada began, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. The uprising lasted six years and led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. In 2000, the Second Intifada began, after peace talks failed to reach a resolution. The violence resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis and the destruction of infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.

The historical background of the Gaza crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict has resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians and has led to the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Understanding this history is crucial in finding a lasting solution to the crisis.

Understanding the Two State Solution

Concept and Origin

The Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The concept of a two-state solution emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, when the British Mandate for Palestine was coming to an end. The idea was to divide the land between Jews and Arabs, with each group having their own independent state. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. While the Jewish community accepted the resolution, the Arab states rejected it, and the ensuing conflict resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Proposed Geographic Division

The proposed geographic division of the two-state solution would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would retain control over the remaining territories, including the settlements in the West Bank. The borders between the two states would be based on the pre-1967 borders, with some territorial swaps to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The idea of a two-state solution has been the basis of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for decades. However, the negotiations have been fraught with difficulties, and a final agreement has yet to be reached. The ongoing conflict between the two sides, including the Gaza crisis, has made it increasingly difficult to achieve a two-state solution. Nevertheless, many still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

In summary, the Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The proposed geographic division would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. While the negotiations have been difficult, many believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

International Perspectives

United Nations’ Stance

The United Nations has been a vocal advocate for a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. In 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The UN has continued to support a two-state solution to the conflict, with the Security Council passing numerous resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

United States’ Approach

The United States has historically been a key player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has long supported a two-state solution. In 2002, the US proposed the “Roadmap for Peace,” which outlined a series of steps to be taken by both Israelis and Palestinians to reach a two-state solution. However, the Trump administration in 2017 recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there, which was seen as a significant blow to the prospects of a two-state solution.

European Union’s Position

The European Union has also been a strong supporter of a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. The EU has provided significant financial aid to the Palestinian Authority and has been involved in numerous peace talks between Israel and Palestine. In 2016, the EU issued a statement calling for a two-state solution and condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The EU has also been critical of the Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, which it sees as a violation of international law.

Challenges to the Two State Solution

The Two State Solution has been proposed as a resolution to the Gaza Crisis, but it faces many challenges. These challenges are political, security-related, and economic.

Political Disputes

One of the main challenges to the Two State Solution is the political disputes between Israel and Palestine. The two sides have different visions for the future of the region, and they have been unable to come to an agreement on how to move forward. The Palestinian leadership began seriously to consider a Two State Solution after the 1973 October War, but the solution faces insurmountable challenges given the current political climate.

Security Concerns

Security concerns are another major challenge to the Two State Solution. Both Israel and Palestine have legitimate security concerns, and they are unwilling to compromise on these issues. The Gaza War of 2014 highlighted the security concerns of both sides, and it has made it even more difficult to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties.

Economic Hurdles

Finally, economic hurdles are also a challenge to the Two State Solution. The Gaza Strip is one of the most impoverished regions in the world, and it is heavily dependent on foreign aid. The economic situation in the region is further complicated by the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. The lack of economic opportunities and the ongoing conflict have created a vicious cycle of poverty and violence in the region.

In conclusion, the Two State Solution faces many challenges, including political disputes, security concerns, and economic hurdles. These challenges must be addressed if there is to be a peaceful and just resolution to the Gaza Crisis.

Alternatives to the Two State Solution

While the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been alternative proposals put forward. Here are two potential alternatives:

One State Solution

The One State Solution proposes that Israel and Palestine should be combined into a single state. This state would be democratic and would allow for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Supporters of this solution argue that it would lead to a more peaceful and stable region, as it would eliminate the need for borders and would promote cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.

However, critics argue that this solution is not feasible, as it would require both sides to give up their national identities and would be difficult to implement in practice. Additionally, it is unclear how the rights of minority groups would be protected in a single state solution.

Confederation Model

Another alternative to the Two State Solution is a Confederation Model. This model proposes that Israel and Palestine would each have their own separate governments, but would share certain institutions and cooperate on issues such as security and economic development. This solution would allow for greater autonomy for both sides, while still promoting cooperation and peace in the region.

Supporters of this model argue that it would allow for greater self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians, while still maintaining a level of cooperation that would promote stability in the region. However, critics argue that this solution would be difficult to implement in practice, as it would require both sides to give up a certain level of sovereignty and would require a high level of trust between the two governments.

Overall, while the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is important to consider alternative proposals that may lead to a more peaceful and stable region.

Impact on the Palestinian-Israeli Relations

The Gaza Crisis has had a significant impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has been ongoing for decades, and the Gaza Crisis has added another layer of complexity to the issue. The following subsections detail the impact of the crisis on the Palestinian-Israeli relations.

Socio-economic Impact

The Gaza Crisis has had a devastating socio-economic impact on the Palestinian people. The conflict has resulted in widespread poverty, unemployment, and a lack of access to basic necessities such as food, water, and healthcare. According to a report by the United Nations, the poverty rate in Gaza is over 50%, and the unemployment rate is over 40%. The crisis has also resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians, further exacerbating the socio-economic issues in the region.

Political Impact

The Gaza Crisis has also had a significant political impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides, making it difficult to reach a lasting peace agreement. The crisis has also led to an increase in tensions between the two sides, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.

In conclusion, the Gaza Crisis has had a profound impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The crisis has worsened the socio-economic conditions in Gaza and has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides. The political impact of the crisis has also been significant, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.

Conclusion

The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex and controversial issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion. Despite efforts by various international bodies and governments to resolve the crisis, the situation remains unresolved.

The key challenge to the two-state solution is the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict has resulted in significant loss of life and property, and has created deep-seated mistrust between the two sides.

Another significant challenge to the two-state solution is the political and economic instability in the region. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and the lack of economic opportunities has contributed to the ongoing crisis.

Despite these challenges, there are reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a two-state solution. The international community has been actively involved in promoting peace and stability in the region, and there have been some positive developments in recent years.

The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. While there are significant challenges to overcome, there are also reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a peaceful resolution. The international community must continue to work towards a sustainable and lasting peace in the region.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the history of the two-state solution for Gaza?

The concept of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been around for decades. It was first proposed in the 1930s, and the United Nations formally endorsed the idea in 1947. The two-state solution envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the two states living in peace and security.

Is a two-state solution still a viable option for resolving the Gaza crisis?

There is no simple answer to this question. While many people still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to resolve the Gaza crisis, others are skeptical that it can ever be achieved. The situation in Gaza is complex, and there are many factors that make a two-state solution difficult to achieve. Some experts argue that the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has made a two-state solution less likely, while others point to the ongoing violence and political instability in Gaza as major obstacles to peace.

What are the potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza?

There are many potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza, including political, economic, and security issues. One of the biggest obstacles is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which has led to several wars and countless acts of violence. Other obstacles include the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the lack of a unified Palestinian leadership, and the economic and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

What is Hamas’ stance on a two-state solution for Gaza?

Hamas, which controls Gaza, has historically been opposed to a two-state solution. The group’s charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine. However, some members of Hamas have indicated that they may be willing to accept a two-state solution under certain conditions, such as the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Are there any alternative solutions to the Gaza crisis besides a two-state solution?

There are several alternative solutions that have been proposed to resolve the Gaza crisis, including a one-state solution, a confederation of two states, and a regional peace agreement involving multiple Arab states. However, each of these solutions has its own set of challenges and obstacles, and none has gained widespread support.

How would a one-state solution differ from a two-state solution for Gaza?

A one-state solution would involve the creation of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians would have equal rights and representation. This would be a major departure from the two-state solution, which envisions the creation of two separate states. While a one-state solution has some appeal to those who believe in equal rights for all, it is also seen as a highly controversial and difficult solution to implement, given the deep divisions and historical animosity between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Committee against Torture opened its seventy-eighth session in Geneva on October 30 and will continue until November 24, 2023. The body of 10 independent experts is headed by Dr. Claude Heller of Mexico. The Committee will examine the implementation of the ‘Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ by its States parties.

It is worth mentioning here that the Convention against ‘Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ was adopted on December 10, 1984. It entered into force on June 26, 1987. Article 1, of the Convention, reads, “For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

Dr Alice Jill Edwards (Australia), United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture told the United Nations Third Committee, “There is a persistent accountability gap for torture and ill-treatment worldwide, caused in part by the systemic denial, deliberate obstruction and purposeful evasion of responsibility by public authorities.” She added, “when a State fails to defend truth and justice, it becomes an accomplice in torture. Some States wrongly perceive criminal investigations into torture as a direct attack on their legitimacy. On the contrary, what threatens governmental legitimacy is impunity.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW) talks about torture in these words, “The prohibition against torture is a bedrock principle of international law. Torture, as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is banned at all times, in all places, including in times of war. No national emergency, however dire, ever justifies its use.”

So, Torture is a universal sin and a crime against humanity. Torture with impunity, nonetheless, is widespread in the disputed territory of Kashmir. The abuses are so extensive as to extend beyond those directly affected, reaching every man, woman, and child in the Valley of Kashmir. The civilians live under the constant threat of abuse. The overwhelming presence of 900,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces serves as a constant reminder to Kashmiris that they are not free people, but a people subjugated and enslaved against their will.

India has authorized a police state reminiscent of the Gestapo in Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, The Disturbed Areas Act, The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act are illustrative. Generally speaking, these laws empower the Indian military and paramilitary forces in Kashmir to arrest, detain, torture, search, wiretap, tr, and punish without material restraints.”

Tens of thousands of Indian officials are guilty of war crimes in Kashmir. These crimes include willful killing, torture, rape, wanton destruction of civilian properties and maiming of innocent civilians. These brutalities are commonplace in Kashmir and have been verified by numerous impartial human rights NGOs.

Ms. Arundhati Roy, an internationally acclaimed novelist of India wrote, “The documentation of instances of torture, disappearances, custodial deaths, rape and gang-rape (by security forces in Kashmir) is enough to make your blood run cold. The fact that despite all this India retains its reputation as a legitimate democracy in the international community and amongst its own middle class is a triumph.”

Dr. Juan E. Mendez, Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Professor of Human rights Law in Residence at American University, Washington, Dc wrote about the ‘Torture Report on Kashmir’, “Hopefully, a serious debate among the Indian public about this report will prompt the national authorities to take the matter of torture seriously and establish effective control and to act as a more responsible global citizen and cooperate with the human rights machinery at the United Nations.”

Aljazeera reported that “Human Rights bodies say India uses torture as ‘instrument of control’ to quash rebellion in Indian-administered Kashmir.”

Amnesty International reported, “The Indian government must take urgent steps for the protection of the people of Kashmir…Indian government’s historical failure to protect the people of Kashmir will keep feeding into this never-ending cycle of abuses and impunity.”

The United States, Department of States, 2022 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in India says, “According to human rights NGOs, police used torture, other mistreatment, and arbitrary detention to obtain forced or false confessions.”

It is gravely sinful for any nation to remain silent or passive over frightful human rights violations anywhere in the world, including Kashmir.

Edmund Burke wrote that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing. Bishop Desmond Tutu lectured that “Apathy in the face of systematic human rights violations is immoral. One neither supports justice and freedom or one supports injustice and bondage.”

Let me also tell you that even in today’s violent world, the behaviour of the Indian occupation regime in Kashmir is singular in so far as it has enjoyed total impunity from the restraint imposed through international action or persuasions.  No word of disapproval, much less condemnation, has been uttered by the international community. There has not been a call on India to cease and desist from the murderous course it has chosen for itself in Kashmir. Such passivity, such unfeeling and indifference, let no one blame the Kashmiris for concluding, amounts to encouragement of tyranny.

Does anyone seriously believe that if the ICC statue were ratified by India, a single Indian soldier or civilian official would ever be prosecuted before the ICC? Of course, NOT. India has sneered at international law for decades, and the international community has yawned, whether the violations were in Kashmir or with minorities within India. Although not contrary to international law, India showed itself utterly contemptuous of international moral sentiments. It stands proudly outside the mainstream of international conventions.

And the Biden Administration would do nothing to call India to account. The United Nations Security Council has sat on its hands for over 76 years over Kashmir. President Biden stood mute when he met Prime Minister Modi at the White House on June 22, 2023, and then at G20 meeting on September 9, 2023, in New Delhi, India.

He never paid any attention to the warning of Dr. Gregory Stanton, Chairman, Genocide watch who said that Kashmir was at the brink of genocide and New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists that the news media in Kashmir was at the brink of extinction. I still believe that President Biden will tell Prime Minister Modi to lead with the power of example and NOT the example of power to resolve the Kashmir conflict for the sake of international peace and security.

Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai is the Chairman World Forum for Peace and Justice