US Press: pick of the papers

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

1. My Tax and Spending Reform Plan (Wall Street Journal)

"Individuals will have the option of paying a 20 per cent flat-rate income tax and I'll cap spending at 18 per cent of GDP," writes Republican presidential hopeful, Rick Perry.

2. Obama should give press access to his fundraisers (San Francisco Chronicle)

The Obama White House's restrictions on media access to its fundraising events makes a mockery of its claim to be the most transparent administration in history, argues this editorial.

3. Living dirt poor (Chicago Tribune)

Urged on by Occupy Chicago and the other protest movements, Dennis Byrne considers gauging misery and despair among the nation's destitute.

4. Will Amazon Kill Off Publishers? (New York Times)

What happens when more writers have the option of a one-stop shop: agent, publisher and bookseller? Authors and publishers debate.

5. The Beauty of Institutions (New York Times)

The European Union was not created to deliver Europeans to postmodern bliss but to prevent another hell. It's doing just that, says Roger Cohen.

6. George Clooney is wrong on politics (Politico)

Martin Frost asks: In Ides of March, has the actor produced and directed a movie that might depress turnout in 2012?

7. Too hot to ignore (Washington Post)

Eugene Robinson considers the scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate.

8. 9-9-no way (Washington Times)

Herman Cain's plan raises a constitutional conundrum, concedes Milton R. Wolf.

9. American imperialism? Please (Los Angeles Times)

The upside to the US leaving Iraq is that it should quell the nonsensical talk about empire-building, writes Jonah Goldberg.

10. The revolution now in Silicon Valley (Houston Chronicle)

While Wall Street is being rattled by a social revolution, Silicon Valley is being by transformed by another technology revolution, says Thomas Freidman -- one that is taking the world from connected to hyperconnected and individuals from empowered to superempowered.

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.