Americans who tuned out years of on-again, off-again peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians may now want to tune in again.
Something significant could be happening.
No, not a final deal. That’s as far off as ever. But President Donald Trump just chopped into a pillar of long-standing U.S. Middle East policy that envisioned Israel and a Palestinian state, existing side by side in peace and security.
On Wednesday, Trump, flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declared that he would not insist on the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a peace accord: "I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one both parties like. I can live with either one."
But Trump also showed support for the two-state scenario when he nudged Netanyahu to curb the building of new housing settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians oppose settlements because they say Israelis are encroaching on land that would eventually be part of a Palestinian state.
So is Netanyahu on board with a one-state solution? Unclear. He dodged the question in Washington on Wednesday.
We agree that such momentous decisions must be made at the negotiating table by Israelis and the Palestinians, with guidance from the U.S. and other allies. But the U.S. and much of the rest of the world have backed the two-state solution for years, through presidents Democratic and Republican, for a strong reason: It’s the only solution that looks to have a shred of a chance to work.
Under a two-state deal that has come tantalizingly close to happening, the sides negotiate borders, security, the status of Jerusalem and other thorny issues. In a single Israeli state of both Jews and Arabs, Israel would control the disputed West Bank and other areas that Palestinians claim for their homeland.
A single state essentially gives Israelis more land, but it’s also possible that Palestinians could eventually outnumber Jews. It’s not hard to imagine how Arab voters could wrest control of Israeli leadership posts unless Israel abandons its democracy and restricts Arab voting rights. That move would likely bring more international isolation and opprobrium onto the Jewish state — and create ever-smoldering resentment among millions of Arabs under Israeli rule.
"It’s difficult to see the Palestinians coming to the table today without the formula of the Palestinian state," Sallai Meridor, Israel’s former ambassador to the U.S., told The Wall Street Journal. "Nor is it likely to see Arab countries joining any process if the issue of the Palestinian state is not on the table."
Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinians, was so alarmed about the prospect of a one-state solution — which he brands "apartheid" — that he called for "concrete measures in order to save the two-state solution," The New York Times reports.
Hmmm. Could this be Trump’s grand strategy? Shake up both sides with an idea that neither finds palatable? Make the two-state solution more appealing by contrast to other options?
On Thursday, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the U.S. "absolutely" supports a two-state solution. But she told reporters: "We are thinking out of the box as well, which is: What does it take to bring these two sides to the table?"
Stay tuned. Trump isn’t bound by decades of Middle East diplomacy that has failed to yield the desired result. He’s out to shake things up. This could get interesting.
Join the discussion on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Board and on Facebook.
Related articles:
What Donald Trump’s handshake might reveal about him
Michael Flynn case is worthy of an independent inquiry
What the Constitution says about impeachment
Trump’s White House is falling apart
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
