On July 24, 2024, the U.S. Congress extended a grand welcome to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This marked Netanyahu's fourth speech before the U.S. Congress, surpassing British WWII Prime Minister Churchill by one appearance.

Netanyahu's visit came nearly ten months after Israel's mass slaughter of the people of Gaza. He was invited by Republican House Speaker Johnson and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Schumer to address Congress. It is unprecedented for a war criminal to stand before Congress and deliver a 55-minute speech, attended by nearly all Republican members of both the House and Senate (with Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky being the only absentee) and almost half of the Democrats.

During this lengthy speech, all Republican members and some Democrats not only refrained from protesting when Netanyahu lied and insulted the protesters outside but also stood up to cheer and applaud 58 times. On July 24th, in this so-called temple of democracy representing the people, these elected representatives showed unthinkable reverence for someone recognized as a war criminal by most countries. I can't help but ask, what has happened to the U.S. Congress?

Were there dissenting voices in Congress?

Certainly. The main opposition came from within the Democratic Party, from members dissatisfied with Netanyahu or Biden's Middle East policy. This time, 28 Democratic senators and 100 representatives did not attend, far exceeding the 58 members who boycotted Netanyahu's speech criticizing Obama's Iran nuclear deal in 2015. Among those Democrats who did attend for electoral reasons, many displayed noticeable indifference. The only protest in action came from Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib, the only Palestinian member of Congress, wore a black-and-white checkered Palestinian keffiyeh and held up a sign, one side reading "WAR CRIMINAL," and the other "GUILTY OF GENOCIDE." Tlaib said she attended to make Congress acknowledge the existence of Palestinians. Seeing a person committing genocide against Palestinians being supported by her colleagues with U.S. weapons to kill her people, she could not remain silent. She wanted to tell the world that the existence of Palestinians cannot be erased.

The only Republican who did not attend was Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky. He believed that Congress's invitation to Netanyahu was merely to help Netanyahu salvage his reputation domestically and internationally, and he did not want to be a prop in this drama, so he stayed away. This is highly unusual within the Republican Party.

Public Protests

Outside Congress, thousands of protesters surrounded Capitol Hill from morning till night, demanding the liberation of Palestine, an end to genocide, the arrest of Netanyahu, cessation of military aid to Israel, a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza, and the release of hostages. The protesters came from all over the country, including Muslims, Asians, Whites, Blacks, many conscientious Jews, and former officials dissatisfied with the Biden administration's Middle East policy. Families of hostages in the U.S. also participated, demanding an immediate ceasefire in exchange for hostages. Some protesters said that at the beginning of the Israel-Palestine conflict, they sympathized with Israel's situation, however, after witnessing the indiscriminate killing of Gaza civilians (especially children) by Israeli forces, the destruction of Gaza into ruins, and the survivors living in a hell of homelessness, starvation, thirst, power outages, lack of medicine, and disease, their sympathy for Israel gradually faded. They were willing to risk arrest to stand with the Palestinian people.

Why Does the U.S. Congress Always Support Israel?

This time, the U.S. Congress treated Netanyahu to a higher standard than even the U.S. President when addressing Congress. Before Netanyahu entered Congress, House Speaker Johnson wrote to every representative, warning them and their guests that any disruptive actions during Netanyahu's speech would result in their forcible removal and arrest. This is why Tlaib could only hold up a sign in the venue but could not speak out.

In the past, U.S. Presidents delivering State of the Union addresses often faced vocal protests from the opposition, with no fear of arrest. In 2009, a Republican representative heckled Obama during his State of the Union speech, accusing him of lying. In 2022, a Republican representative interrupted Biden's State of the Union speech. These two representatives' impolite actions were criticized by their colleagues, but they did not face any punishment.

One can't help but ask, what gives Netanyahu the privilege to receive greater treatment than the U.S. President?

Moreover, Netanyahu's speech was filled with arrogance toward the United States. He completely disregarded Biden's hopes for a ceasefire. He came to the U.S. not for a ceasefire but to demand that the U.S. promptly supply Israel with weapons. He morally blackmailed the U.S. by saying that Israel's enemies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran) are also America's enemies, and Israel's victory is America's victory. In other words, the U.S. and Israel must stand together. The U.S. is obligated to support Israel.

Additionally, he showed contempt for the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. He called the protesters outside Congress "Tehran's useful idiots." and suggested that Iran might be funding the anti-Israel protests. This statement was not only baseless but also an insult to the American people exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech, especially coming from a foreigner. Who does he think he is?
He lied blatantly, claiming that the Israeli military hardly killed any civilians in Rafah and did not block humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. If residents did not receive relief, it was because Hamas stole the supplies. These lies might only be believed by those living on another planet.

Why do American politicians not dare to defy his outrageous actions and Israel's demands? Why is the world's strongest country, the United States, being strangled by Israel?

This is a very complex issue, involving history, religion, geopolitics, and money. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is undeniably a highly influential lobbying group that thoroughly dominates U.S. policy on Israel and the Middle East.

What Kind of Lobbying Group Is AIPAC?

AIPAC is a pro-Israel lobbying group with extensive connections and resources, making it one of the most powerful in the U.S. In every election, it pours massive amounts of money into both Democratic and Republican candidates, helping pro-Israel candidates win. If there's an openly anti-Israel candidate, AIPAC will heavily fund their opponent to ensure the anti-Israel candidate loses. In the recently concluded Missouri Democratic primary, Cori Bush, a very progressive incumbent representative who advocated for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, was defeated by an AIPAC-backed opponent. Two months ago, Jamaal Bowman, a Democratic incumbent with similar political views to Cori Bush, met the same fate. AIPAC, through its political action committee, the United Democracy Project, spent $24 million to defeat these two individuals.
So far, AIPAC has used the same tactics to defeat candidates it deems anti-Israel, with a very high success rate. This is why, despite widespread public protest against Israel's atrocities against Palestinians, most members of Congress remain silent, or worse, like Speaker Johnson, declare that supporting Israel is following biblical teachings, and America will benefit as well.

This is the reality of American politics. AIPAC has successfully bought Congress. This is the main reason why the U.S. Congress always supports Israel.

AIPAC Babysitters

Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie recently discussed on Tucker Carlson's show how AIPAC controls the U.S. Congress members it funds. He did not take AIPAC money, but he knows that those who do are assigned an "AIPAC person" to work with them, jokingly referred to as an AIPAC babysitter. Before voting on a bill, representatives consult their AIPAC babysitters to decide how to vote. AIPAC also invites representatives and their families on free trips to Israel. When Congress chooses to fund military support for Israel, the support from these AIPAC-funded representatives is almost guaranteed. AIPAC's investment in these members is then doubly returned.

The founding spirit of the U.S. Constitution is that Congress should serve the interests of the American people, representing the will of the voters. But now, the extent of AIPAC's control over Congress has turned it into a body serving Israel, voicing for Israel. Is this not contrary to the spirit of the Constitution?



​

Abstract

The title of this article may seem simple, but Taiwan has huge differences in opinion on this issue. Hence, Taiwan's future is uncertain.  Pursuing Independence has impossible hurdles while accepting peaceful reunification requires most of the Taiwan people to truly understand the real meaning and advantages of One Country for Two Shores.
 
***********************
 
Currently, China-US relations are tense, and each side is trying to figure out a way to its advantages. There is an undercurrent of political and economic ambiguity on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Traditional thinking dominates the mainstream media, but empathy has gradually emerged. Mainland China's policy is obviously to pursue peaceful reunification and to actively develop people-to-people exchanges as a driving force, aiming to awaken the Taiwanese people to understand the significance of reunification and to actively promote reunification. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was elected to power by less than half of the voting population. DPP embraces the U.S. and Japan in their policy of resisting China's rise and rejects reunification as its administrative principle. Although the US anti-China policy remains unchanged, its diplomatic behavior and tactics often change with people and time (the results of the presidential election and the ups and downs of the US political situation). Mainland China must observe and adapt, while Taiwan must wait and see actions and reactions in Sino-US relations before acting. Therefore, even if the DPP desires to make a move for Taiwan’s independence, it must adopt a passive stance.
 
During the current DPP Administration the opposition parties, Kuomintang and People's Party are cooperating to play the role of opposition with a majority in the Legislative Yuan to check and balance the DPP's administrative power. Therefore, Taiwan's political situation may be a little turbulent. In addition, Taiwan's pro-unification activists would certainly take advantage of the opportunity to increase their participation in cross-strait exchange activities to promote and seek reunification, they will step up efforts to awaken the Taiwanese people’s awareness of the interests and benefits of reunification versus the danger of independence movement. This work is very important. On the one hand, it is necessary to prove that reunification is the only option based on facts (pros and cons analysis), and on the other hand, it is necessary to elaborate on the true meaning of reunification (the pursuit of true democracy and true independence). The purpose of this article is to fulfill a common global citizen's duty to express his observations and opinions to support the thesis of this paper and to persuade the people of Taiwan.
 
Many theoretical articles published in the past are relevant to the title of this paper. We can briefly describe them in categories. The different theories are all persuasive to a certain extent, but they have also caused or been twisted to produce disagreements. This article will briefly but comprehensively discuss these theories and then proceed on a different track based on real facts and a realist approach to analyze the advantages of peaceful reunification taking into consideration the mentality of the people and government on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, we hope to prove the title correct and the paper convincing. We shall divide the discussion into four major categories (in Part I) and put the realist analysis into the fifth category with conclusions (in Part II).

1.  Analysis based on historical ties with the same language, the same blood lineage, and marriage inheritance - Many scholars have explained from historical evidence that most Taiwanese people have the blood of the Han race or the broader Chinese race (56 Chinese ethnic groups). Most Taiwanese people are from Fujian (Southern Fujian) and Guangdong (Hakka). In modern history, the cross-strait confrontation caused by the Chinese Civil War after WW II brought new so-called outsiders. Of course, most of them are still within Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Hui, Tibetan, and other ethnic minorities of Chinese. This analysis certainly agrees with the statement that people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are essentially one family. The fact that the two sides share the same language and many people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are related by marriage further strengthens the idea that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are originally one family. However, the DPP challenged the Kuomintang as an oppressed minority party, and used the term "Taiwanese aboriginals" to instigate "people from other provinces" were invaders to create difference and prejudice, leading to the idea that “mainlanders” are not "Taiwanese", while emphasizing that various "Taiwanese aboriginals" are original Taiwanese. . This anti-China thinking was pushed to the extreme when the DPP gained power. Many young people generations (decedents of mainlanders) are unwilling or afraid of identifying which province on the mainland he or she is originally from. This kind of thinking is a cultural cancer created by DPP to silence people who share the same blood and culture. However, rational analysis tells us that most Taiwanese and mainlanders are one family.
 
2. Legal Analysis based on international treaties and diplomatic relations - Many scholars who position Taiwan based on international treaties and international law. According to the Potsdam Declaration, Japan declared unconditional surrender to end WW II and returned all the lands it conquered from China, including the Penghu and Taiwan islands. Therefore, from a legal perspective, Taiwan belongs to China. During the Anti-Japanese War, China was ruled by the Republic of China until the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party caused the cross-strait separation, the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland and the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan. Taiwan certainly belongs to the Republic of China under its governance. When the PRC replaced ROC as China's representative in the United Nations, legally Taiwan should become a part of the PRC. However, with the maneuver of the United States, Taiwan would remain separate from the PRC and exist in the international community with a vague status. Most countries in the world only recognize the PRC, and only a few countries recognize the ROC. The DPP wants to be independent not using the ROC name, but it dares not. This is because the U.S. must accept the international legal treaties and its joint agreement with the PRC when switching to recognize the PRC. Of course, China is far stronger today than in 1949 to argue its legal position.
 
3. Analysis based on the perspective of ideologies, democracy, and freedom versus one-party rule - This type of analysis starts from capitalism versus communism and liberal democracy versus totalitarian autocracy. After the impact of socialism on the two camps, there is no clear contrast in ideology. Capitalism absorbed socialism, and socialism introduced capitalism into communism. The implementation of different systems in many countries has shown that the governance and development of a nation have too many other historical and environmental conditions and factors; their outcome cannot be attributed simply to one doctrine or system at all. The fact that the United States and China represent different systems, yet each has experienced prosperity to decline and decline to prosperity can only prove that the trustworthiness of ideological analysis is questionable. With China emphasizing independence, constant reform, and innovation and achieving great results, using ideology to argue against China is too subjective to be valid.
 
4. Analysis based on U.S.-China relations, U.S.-Taiwan interaction, and possible Cross-Strait War - This analysis is closer to the realist analysis. However, since the U.S. controls the world media, the global narrative tends to be one-sided. Especially in recent years, the rise of China has made the U.S. uneasy and adopting irrational anti-China policy, such as distorting the Cross-Strait problem into an international issue, totally being inconsistent with the history and culture of both sides of the Strait, and against their humanistic and economic interests. The United States wants to turn Taiwan into Ukraine and cause a war to consume China. Not to mention that the Russian-Ukrainian war did not bring down Russia as the U.S. wished, and the mainland and Taiwan would not fall for the trick. The mainland's attack on Taiwan would be completely inconsistent with the interests of both sides and their historical mandate. The people of Taiwan are even more unwilling to fight. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines will not be stupid enough to trigger a war to hurt themselves. The U.S. will not fight a war it cannot win.  



​