US Press: pick of the papers

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

1. Just answer the question (Boston Globe)

Debates don't make or break, says James E. Sununo -- they're not boxing matches. They are just another part of the campaign narrative.

2. The case for a third party candidate (Politico)

It should not be surprising that there is support for an independent option in 2012, writes Douglas E. Schoen.

3. Joe McGinniss: Why I used unnamed sources (USA Today)

Writer behind unauthorized Sarah Palin biography, The Rogue, argues that he utilized a method that is controversial, but defensible and necessary.

4. Is the Tea Party Over? (New York Times)

According to Bill Keller, for the answer, watch Rick Perry.

5. Stop treating medical marijuana patients as criminals (Detroit Free Press)

A new federal order barring users from possessing firearms is illogical and ridiculous, argues this editorial.

6. Youth pushed to the edge (Boston Globe)

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is a direct strike to the nation's conscience by a population that feels excluded from the American dream, writes James Carroll.

7. Understanding the consequences of changes in the minimum wage (The Oregonian)

It may just be a "lousy" 30 cents to snarky activists, but to business owners could be the difference between 10 people on a shift or nine, and unemployment for the person losing out, says Michael Saltsman.

8. Steve Jobs and the Future of Newspapers (Wall Street Journal) ($)

Apple boss loved the printed product, says L. Gordon Crovitz, but told him: "our lives are not like that anymore."

9. The Party Spirit on Trial (New York Times)

Aaron Aster takes a look at how the coming of the Civil War destroyed the two-party system.

10. A GOP assault on environmental regulations (Los Angeles Times)

Republicans, though correct that environmental regulations cost money, are oblivious to the public health consequences of pollution and the economic costs of inaction, says this LA Times editorial.

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.