Refreshing statement

“Top US officials contradict Trump on two-state solution” (February 17) says that according to these officials, “the United States remains committed to a two-state solution.” This raises two questions: Why are US officials so adamant in sticking to a policy that has failed dismally for the past 50 years, and why does the US, together with the EU and the UN, have policies at all on the matter?

There is no US policy on the independence movement in Spain’s Catalonia. There is no US policy on the plight of Western Papua, which was illegally seized by Indonesia. There is no US policy on Scottish independence from Britain. So why is there a US policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict?

It was refreshing to hear President Donald Trump announce he was in favor of a policy that Israel and the Palestinians could agree on, whether it involved one state, two states or whatever. Nothing could be more positive in resolving the problem than letting the interested parties know that if they want a change, they must agree upon it themselves rather than rely on the vain hope that some external force will impose a solution in their favor.

It is well known that Israelis in general are averse to ruling another people but are even more averse to allowing an inimical state to be created that could or would threaten their security. Resolving this in a way that is acceptable to all the parties is difficult, but not impossible. However it can only be worked out by the parties themselves, without external interference.

STEPHEN COHEN

Ma’aleh Adumim