US press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. Plutocracy, Paralysis, Perplexity (New York Times)

Inequality is a major reason the economy is still so depressed and unemployment so high, writes Paul Krugman. And the US has responded to crisis with a mix of inaction and confusion.

2. Europe finds austerity a tight fit (Washington Post)

Harold Meyerson on the fiscal policy that had completely backfired.

3. Bin Laden and ballots (Los Angeles Times)

Obama's impulse to score points off the anniversary of Bin Laden's death is understandable, but the president should have resisted mixing military valor and politics, writes Doyle McManus.

4. Elizabeth Warren’s Birther Moment (New York Times)

Kevin Noble Maillard on the Republican approach: feign that race is irrelevant — until it becomes politically advantageous to bring it up.

5. Weak oversight will make more pipeline spills inevitable (Detroit Fress Press)

This leading article condemns Michigan state for not putting the well-being of its residents first.

6. Another sin tax on soda wrong way to fight fat (Chicago Sun Times)

Chicago and the nation can do better than a pop tax, argues this editorial.

7. Food stamps could use fresh options (Politico)

Congress has an opportunity to allow more recipients to purchase healthful, quality food, says Jason Ackerman.

8. Junior Seau’s suicide raises vital questions about football (Boston Globe) ($)

The NFL linebacker’s death this week was all the more haunting because there was speculation a year ago he showed signs of being affected by the thousands of hits to the head he suffered. A Boston Globe editorial.

9. College Grads Need Jobs, Not a Lower Loan Rate (Wall Street Journal) ($)

Young workers who enter the labor force in a recession suffer years of lower wages, writes Andrew Biggs.

10. Obama, Romney launch nasty ads early (USA Today)

According to an editorial, these attacks - produced by the two campaigns rather than by surrogate groups - will gin up even more scurrilous ads later in the race.

Elizabeth Warren, Senate candidate for Massachusetts, and Barack Obama. Photo: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

On the "one-state" solution to Israel and Palestine, what did Donald Trump mean?

The US President seemed to dismantle two decades of foreign policy in his press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu. 

If the 45th President of the United States wasn’t causing enough chaos at home, he has waded into the world’s most intricate conflict – Israel/Palestine. 

Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump made an apparently off-the-cuff comment that has reverberated around the world. 

Asked what he thought about the future of the troubled region, he said: “I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like.”

To the uninformed observer, this comment might seem fairly tame by Trump standards. But it has the potential to dismantle the entire US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Trump said he could "live with" either a two-state or one-state solution. 

The "two-state solution" has become the foundation of the Israel-Palestine peace process, and is a concept that has existed for decades. At its simplest, it's the idea that an independent state of Palestine can co-exist next to an independent Israel. The goal is supported by the United Nations, by the European Union, by the Arab League, and by, until now, the United States. 

Although the two-state solution is controversial in Israel, many feel the alternative is worse. The idea of a single state would fuel the imagination of those on the religious right, who wish to expand into Palestinian territory, while presenting liberal Zionists with a tricky demographic maths problem - Arabs are already set to outnumber Jews in Israel and the occupied territories by 2020. Palestinians are divided on the benefits of a two-state solution. 

I asked Yossi Mekelberg, Professor of International Relations at Regent's University and an associate fellow at Chatham House, to explain exactly what went down at the Trump-Netanyahu press conference:

Did Donald Trump actually mean to say what he said?

“Generally with President Trump we are into an era where you are not so sure whether it is something that happens off the hoof, that sounds reasonable to him while he’s speaking, or whether maybe he’s cleverer than all of us put together and he's just pretending to be flippant. It is so dramatically opposite from the very professorial Barack Obama, where the words were weighted and the language was rich, and he would always use the right word.” 

So has Trump just ditched a two-state solution?

“All of a sudden the American policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, a two-state solution, isn’t the only game in town.”

Netanyahu famously didn’t get on with Obama. Is Trump good news for him?

“He was quite smug during the press conference. But while Netanyahu wanted a Republican President, he didn’t want this Republican. Trump isn’t instinctively an Israel supporter – he does what is good for Trump. And he’s volatile. Netanyahu has enough volatility in his own cabinet.”

What about Trump’s request that Netanyahu “pull back on settlements a little bit”?

“Netanyahu doesn’t mind. He’s got mounting pressure in his government to keep building. He will welcome this because it shows even Trump won’t give them a blank cheque to build.”

Back to the one-state solution. Who’s celebrating?

“Interestingly, there was a survey just published, the Palestinian-Israel Pulse, which found a majority of Israelis and a large minority of Palestinians support a two-state solution. By contrast, if you look at a one-state solution, only 36 per cent of Palestinians and 19 per cent of Israel Jews support it.”

 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.