Weinergate explained

Anthony Weiner's crotch-shots weren't a moment of madness - it actually takes a lot of thought to do

The "Weinergate" scandal finally came to a close yesterday as high profile New York Democrat Anthony D. Weiner resigned from Congress. It came to light that he'd sent a young woman pictures of himself wearing tight pants on the internet, as well as admitting to the sending of lewd messages to six other women. A full-blown penis shot emerged later too.

As far as high profile prurience goes, which in international news circles is quite some distance, this is a particularly amusing story. There're none of the harrowing marriage ending affairs or secret children of the Schwarzenegger case and none of the creepiness of the Strauss-Khan scandal. In fact, there wasn't even any real attempt at shagging at all.

What's amazing is the chain of thought Weiner must have gone through in order to take these pictures of himself, and publish them without thinking he'd be found out. Did he put the camera on a timer, pull down his trousers, and waddle back in front of the lens? Or did he just hold the camera at arms length and point it at his groin?

Having taken these photographs, this 46-year-old married man and mayoral candidate, obviously decided that they were pretty damn good, because he would then have had to upload them from his camera, evaluate them on the screen and save them onto his computer, before sending them to a girl he'd never met, trusting her not to tell anybody.

Incredibly, none other than notorious White House philanderer Bill Clinton stepped in to hastily condemn Weiner, claiming that he is "livid", and extracting an apology from the shamed Weiner.

In a further twist to the tale, Weiner happens to be friends with Ben Affleck, having met him while the actor was researching his role for the film State of Play in 2009. Affleck plays a young congressman who gets involved in a sex-scandal that eventually destroys his political career.

Update: For those unaware of the phenomenon of "sexting" - essentially sending pictures of your junk over the internet - this helpful video explains the dangers and offers a warning. A warning that Weiner ignored.

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.