Backing away from the two-state solution?
US President Donald Trump’s position on Isreal-palestine conflict is a cause for concern The one-state solution would include Israelis and Palestinians in a single, secular country with equal citizenship. The two-state solution calls for a negotiated settlement leading to a Palestinian nation alongside Israel. Both Bush and Obama Administrations had supported the two-nation theory
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must be feeling elated and relieved after his meeting with US President Donald Trump who did not give an explicit endorsement to the two-state solution to the Israel-palestinian conflict, thus backing away from the long-held US and international community position on the issue.
Instead, Trump offered a regional approach to peace that could result in a “great deal” while counselling Netanyahu to hold back on settlements in Palestinian territory for a “little bit”. “I am looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like. I can live with either one,” Trump said at a joint press conference with Netanyahu after their meeting in the White House last Wednesday.
“The United States will encourage a peace and really a great peace deal… We will be working on it very, very diligently. But it is the parties themselves who must directly negotiate such an agreement,” he said hinting at a regional umbrella for peacemaking.
Trump’s position is a cause for concern within the international community and of course the Arab and Muslim worlds.
While Palestinians have reacted to Trump’s comments with alarm, Israel’s right wing government has welcomed them. Britain, France, and Sweden reaffirmed their support for a two-state solution.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has affirmed that there was “no alternative” to a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. “There is no alternative solution for the situation between the Palestinians and Israelis, other than the solution of establishing two states and we should do all that can be done to maintain it,” he said.
The UN Security Council also discussed the Israeli-palestinian conflict after Trump’s comment. The UN envoy for the Middle East peace process Nickolay Mladenov told the council that the two-state solution remained the only way to achieve the “legitimate national aspirations of both the peoples.”
Palestinians are understandably concerned about Washington going back from its support for an independent Palestinian nation. “If the Trump administration rejects this policy it would be destroying the chances for peace and undermining American interests, standing, and credibility abroad,” Hanan Ashrawi, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation said in a statement.
“Accommodating the most extreme and irresponsible elements in Israel and the White House is no way to make responsible foreign policy,” she said. The one-state solution would include Israelis and Palestinians in a single, secular country with equal citizenship. The two-state solution calls for a negotiated settlement leading to a Palestinian nation alongside Israel. Both Bush and Obama Administrations had supported the two-nation theory.
A retreat by the US on the two-state solution would defeat the decades of its policy followed by Republican and Democratic administrations and a principle considered the core of international peace efforts.
Netanyahu committed, with conditions, to the two-state goal in a speech in 2009 and had been broadly reiterating it since. But he has also spoken of a “state minus” option, suggesting he could offer the Palestinians deep-seated autonomy and the trappings of statehood without full sovereignty.
With Trump stepping back, the Israeli Prime Minister at the press conference reasserted his position that a two-state solution can only happen under two conditions—the new Palestinian state must recognise Israel’s legitimacy, and Israel must maintain security control of the West Bank.
For Netanyahu meeting with Trump was an opportunity to reset ties after a frequently combative relationship with former President Barack Obama.
Trump also said that Washington was working to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “I would like to see that happen. We are looking at it very, very strongly. We are looking at it with great care. Let’s see what happens.”
Observers say that the problem with Netanyahu is that he doesn’t agree to two states and does not agree to one state whereas Palestinians agree to one state and they are also happy with two states. What they disagree on is an apartheid system, where there are two systems in one land—one superior for Israelis and one inferior for the Palestinians. It is too early to tell if Trump’s approach will work or it will be another failed US attempt to make peace in the Middle East.
As far as Trump’s comment about settlements is concerned, it is meaningless now as Israelis have already made their plans for 6,000 units that they need in the West Bank. If he were serious about it, he would have asked Israel to hold its plans on settlements while he was busy putting together his administration.
Trump’s comment that he can live with two states or one state outcome shows he is less sure or decisive about his policy on the issue. This non-committal stance is not helpful, particularly because it does not come accompanied with some alternative solution and is raising concern in the international community. Those who reject the two states solution should provide alternatives that are acceptable to all interested parties, viable, and sustainable.
For Israel, the choice is simple–either two states living side by side in peace and harmony or one country in which all Israelis, Palestinians and Christians have equal democratic rights. Two systems for two peoples would be blatant apartheid. A real democratic state cannot have the Jewish character that Israel seeks.
One state solution would, therefore, be a source of perpetual conflict between the two different peoples and religions. This is not advisable.
(Views are strictly personal.)