Until mccray and dough hard top stories on al jazeera, fred jones sees far between israel and the armed group known as Palestinian Islamic jihad appears to be Holding Rockets were still being launched in the minutes before the truth began with mediated by egypt with help from the United Nations and cutter, who is prison, to abide in his welcome to the spot and says he support an investigation into civilian casualties. Israel began launching it strikes into garza on friday since then. 44. 00 palestinians, including 15 children have been killed. Palestinian Officials Say at least a 3rd of them with the villians. He Israeli Government said its been targeting members of Palestinian Islamic jihad. The armed group has 5 hundreds of rockets and israel. Most was shot down southward. L collude has more from garza, this cease fire is Still Holding now that even local governmental offices, or public offices also announced that they will re open their doors for public universities also announced that they will open a re open their doors that they closed ariel because because of the escalation for force, they will open their lords for students. Also, the municipality of garza and other municipalities. I also the announced that they will deploy on send their equipment to remove the rabble on try to do the initial assessment for the destruction. Natasha again i am is in wisc jerusalem with more on the israeli side of the ceasefire. As far as israel is concerned, this operation is over. It is saying that the military said a short time ago that it used helicopters fighter jets and arm drones were among the tools that used to target is so much you had across the gaza strip. It has thanked egypt for its role in mediating the ceasefire. But says, if attacks continue into israel, it will not hesitate to quote, act forcefully and says it will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the daily lives of israelis will not be disrupted. Earlier this evening, the Prime Minister year le peed went to the Central Military base in tel aviv to assess the situation. He had said earlier that the objectives of the so called operation breaking dawn had been fulfilled and that there was no need for the operation to continue. What were these objectives from the israeli strategic mindset . The objective was to neutralize islam of jihad with most, if not all of the Senior Leadership being killed, as well as the feeling that a kind of divide had been created between is found that she had and hamas, which governs garza with hamas remaining on the sidelines. There was a concern that if this operation was protracted and the death toll continued to rise, that perhaps hamas might enter the fray. It appears for now that that has not happened. The us senate has passed. President jo bidens, 450000000000. 00 package covering climate tax and health care. Democrats say its a major victory for the president. 370000000000. 00 will go towards climate projects, making it the largest investment in the sector and us history. Which one is military says it is continuing its drills in the air and sea around taiwan. On sunday, the Defense Ministry and ty pay confirmed 66. 00 chinese aircraft and 14 warships have been detected in and around the taiwan straits. China began conducting the drills earlier this week after taiwan hosted us house beacon, nancy pelosi or columbia is 1st ever left us president has been sworn into office in front of thousands of the porters. In boca time, Gustavo Petro promised to reshape the deeply polarized country with a long list of social and economic reforms. Pietro also says he will re open diplomatic relations with vince venezuela. Well, those are the headlines. The news continues here on al jazeera after the bottom line. Next i finance Steve Clements and i have a question. China threatened the u. S. With grave consequences if nancy pelosi visited taiwan. So now what, lets get to the bottom line, ah, or china and nothing matters more than restoring its place in the world is a great power. It was put on mute for centuries, but now its rich, its arm and its back in a really big way. Its only peer rival is the u. S. One of the top obsessions of chinas leaders is to reunify all of its territories and squash any rivals. And one of the biggest storms in it side has been taiwan, which many people believe should be a fully independent state base. The Henry Kissinger and an american policy called strategic ambiguity. Taiwan exists in purgatory. It has self rule, but china always threatens to take it back while washington says its committed to the status quo. Now one of americas top politicians, the speaker of the house of representatives, nancy pelosi, has visited the island to underscore its autonomy. So as the american can member to tie, want about to be tested and what are the repercussions of a showdown between the worlds 2 biggest powers . Today were talking with steven wal, professor of International Affairs at Harvard University and author of most recently the hell of good intentions, americas Foreign Policy lead and the decline of us primacy. Doctor wall. Thank you so much for joining us today. I guess i should start out with the news of the day as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone to taiwan. She has done what a lot of folks advised her not to do, including the joe biden whitehouse. I guess this was on her bucket list for or before she left the roll speaker perhaps. But i know that you see the International System in very deep nuance terms across way. But what is this pin prick to china mean to you . And what do you think comes of it . A couple of things. I mean, we dont know exactly how its going to play out. What i think is bothered many people and bothered the executive branch here was it was a largely symbolic visit. It wasnt connected, any particular strategy we have for managing our relationship with china. Were dealing with china as a potential rival. And in the sense it was a symbolic step that was nonetheless, a real red flag, red flag to beijing. And an issue that they, you know, made it very clear they were going to be very unhappy about at a moment where the chinese are dealing with some leadership issues. So that can amik slow down. And i think the thing that im worried people most about this is its happening at a, particularly in opportune time, where the United States is already deeply immersed as a supporter of ukraine. And its. Ready with russia and the last thing, the bite did ministration or indeed the world needs, is to raise the temperature in asia. If you are doing now with a clear strategic purpose, you really knew what the purpose of this was, how it was going to alter the relationship in some fundamentally positive way from an american perspective. That might be one thing. But this seem to be, you know, almost a vanity project on the part of the speaker. And it makes me wonder a little bit about the degree to which theres coordination between, you know, 2 parts of the Democratic Party, the people on the hill and the people in the executive branch. You would like to see on Foreign Policy issues them working together rather than working at odds with one another. Well, theres also a piece to this which often gets neglected and perhaps its wonky as part of it. But the making of Foreign Policy is, according to the constitution, as i said, typically a function of the president and the executive branch of government, the congress, the legislative branch, has advice and consent roles. Its supposed to leave the place that a war is declared by congress, but the making of Foreign Policy is a function of the chief executive of Us Government is nancy pelosi trying to outflank President Biden and trying to make Foreign Policy in this case. And in a very unusual way, i dont think so. Certainly thats whats happening. Its not the way our system of government is supposed to work. Im. Im all for the separation of powers. And i actually believe it would be a good thing if Congress Played a more active role within its constitutional boundary of the problem is that if this trip causes problems in the chinese decide to do something in response, its not going to be nancy. Pelosi is responsibility to deal with it. Its going to be secretary, boeing and then secretary of defense austin and the president and his National Security team that are going to have to deal with the fallout from this particular issue. So again, i cant quite figure out what nancy pelosi but she was going to accomplish here and how it was going to help the fortunes of either the president or the Democratic Party going forward. Thats what i say. Its not, doesnt appear to be connected to any particular strategy. Thats what troubles me most about this. Well, let me play a sound bite for you of a question posted present. You didnt want to get involved in the ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved to militarily, to defend taiwan if it comes to that . Yes, you are. Thats a commitment we made as you can, we may, we are not, not. Heres the situation. We agree with one china policy. We signed onto it and all the attendance agreements made from there. But the idea that can be taken by force just taken by force, is just not just not appropriate. When the president made that statement, it seemed to be really quite different from what our stated policy on taiwan is, which is one of strategic ambiguity, ambiguity that it, that, that we, either except that taiwan can be taken by force. Nor do we give, i guess, current to the notion that taiwan can be independent from china. Can you tell me what you think us policy is . With regard to what the president said, what Henry Kissinger crafted and what nancy pelosi is doing today . Right, well, ever since Henry Kissinger crafted this shanghai communicate back in the early 1970 United States has had a rather, as you said, ambiguous policy, we wanted to that issue to be somewhat fuzzy. We recognize that there is one china. But we also say that we dont believe the status between china and taiwan should be resolved unilaterally by either party in practical terms. That means we dont want china to do anything to force taiwan to be controlled by beijing, particularly anything militarily. But we also dont want taiwan to unilaterally declare independence from china. And this forces be United States to engage and say a certain amount of you might call it double talk, you might call it ambiguity. So the president says, what appears to be a rather unequivocal commitment. If there is military action, we will fight. But of course, the rest of the administration then walks it back in the subsequent days, leaving it again. Fuzzy. The United States clearly wants trying to think that it might come to china, taiwan assistance, because we dont want china to move unilaterally. On the other hand, we dont want to make such an unambiguous commitment to defend taiwan. That, that encourages taiwan to engage in provocative behavior that might impact, promote the kind of attack from china that we want to deter. So i think, you know, were, were inevitably going to be in this kind of gray area where people occasionally say things that signal a greater commitment. And then we say other things that suggests while theyre still maybe a little bit of fuzzy and its there as well. I do think it is a mistake as former secretary of state on peo and others. It started to argue that the United States should abandon strategic ambiguity and make claire unilateral statement that were going to defend taiwan under any circumstances. First of all, that is a very provocative act from beijing point of view, and theyre likely to respond to that. But 2nd of all, it could encourage taiwan to do things because its so confident of American Protection that actually the stabilize the situation. Look, i want to be clear to my audience that while were talking about china today, i dont participate often in discussions had tried a silo, the United States in china and their relationship away from Everything Else in the world. And so what else is going on in the world . Well, there is a ongoing mess in ukraine and, and the United States has been working hard to try to keep china from weighing in on russia side. In that equation, we have big Climate Change challenges coming up that are talked about. There are Global Economic issues that are being discussed all the time. There is north korea and its basically stated intent to launch a lot of new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile tests. And trying to use chinese influences. I guess my question to you, steve is the complexity of dealing with other issues and chinas points of leverage that it can use to put pressure on the United States and what the opportunity costs are of this policy trip. Paulette potentially i think youve put it really nicely. I mean we ought to be recognized that as the 2 most powerful states in the International System, the United States and china are going to each other warily. Not just this year, not just next year, but for a long time were going to have to manage that relationship. And each side is going on occasion. Look for ways to gain advantages. Whether thats in high technology, whether its in building diplomatic influence, whether its influencing international in sit fusions, whatever its going to be a fundamentally competitive relationship. But as you suggest, it is a complicated world. And those 2 powerful countries also have reasons to try and collaborate with each other. First of all, its good for our economies. If we can continue to trade and invest with each other, thats good for chinese economy. Its also good for ours. We have Climate Change as a shared interest along with the rest of humanity. We have a whole series of other places. North korea would be one of possibly some issues involving the middle east, where china can be helpful. And as you suggested, we certainly dont want china going all in backing russias war in ukraine. So even though its a fundamentally competitive relationship, we also have big incentives to try and manage that relationship in a way that advances american interest. I believe, and ive written a forthcoming article with my colleague, danny roderick. What we really need is for china and the United States to start basically grouping their relationship into 4 different categories, actions. We agree, were not going to undertake towards each other. Were not going to try to promote regime change. For example. We agree on certain things should be prohibited. Another bucket where we deal with issues by mutual adjustment, we compromise in exchange for them compromising. You can think of arms control or trade negotiations in that category. A 3rd category where we act independently, to protect our interests, but we try to do that in a rather calibrated way. So if china is doing something that affects our interested versus when we respond to it, but we dont escalate and we expect the same behavior from them and response. And then finally those areas where we have to cooperate with others as well. You need Multilateral Solutions and Climate Change is the perfect example here, where lots of other parties have interest there as well. I think that would be a template or a roadmap for putting differ parts of the us. China relationship in different categories cooperating where we can and recognizing were going to compete where we have to look the opening chapter of the by the administrations Foreign Policy with the so called pivot to asia. Emmys kind of tough encounters. I remember one in alaska and you know, these various meetings involve secretary of state anthony blank in and National Security advisor, jim sullivan in defense factory, lloyd austin. And the, the real takeaway is they were sort of photo op showing how tough we were in the United States. And that we really meant business. And that the relationship was going to change. We saw kurt campbell, another leading figure in the National Security council to by doing this. And then all of a sudden Vladimir Putin over and youre saying, hey, remember me over here. So i guess my question to you is how would you grade the bite and team thus far in managing the complexities of global affairs, but also keeping its eyes in the right place and waited in the right way when it comes to dealing with the complexities you just laid out with china yet, you know, maybe b, b minus that well you give them that good a grade. Im and im considered a hard grader. I mean, i do think they have not lost sight of china is the major issue as well. And in a sense, theyve got, they get a better grade this week than i would