US Press: pick of the papers

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

1. Which candidate should answer that 3am phone call? (Washington Post)

During the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton famously asked whether Obama was ready for the 3am phone call about a foreign crisis. Kim's death reminds us that it's always 3am somewhere in the world, writes Eugene Robinson.

2. Obama's foreign-policy strategy must confront new dangers (Omaha World Herald)

David Ignatius on what's next for Obama.

3. What a couple of grandpas learned at Occupy Detroit (Detroit Free Press)

Robert Deneweth and Ronald Aronson went to Grand Circus Park last month before Occupy Detroit moved out of its encampment; they reflect on what they discovered.

4. Blaming the Jews - Again (The Weekly Standard)

Elliott Abrams on Thomas Friedman, Joe Klein and anti-Semitism.

5. GOP candidates: Bashing judges, threatening democracy (Los Angeles Times)

Americans should flatly reject rhetoric by Republican presidential candidates and remember that an independent judiciary enforcing the Constitution is crucial to our democracy, according to Erwin Chemerinsky.

6. Higher education should not lose in budget game again (St. Louis Today)

Despite lofty rhetoric from governors and lawmakers about how education is vital to economic development, Missouri remains near the bottom, as this Editorial shows.

7. Instead of just taxing the rich, put cap on income inequality (New York Times)

As 1-per centers themselves, Ian Ayres and Aaron S. Edlin call on Congress, for the sake of democracy, to end the continued erosion of economic equality in our nation.

8. Protecting liberty means knowing your Bill of Rights (Washington Examiner)

Janine Turner on the the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

9. Barack Obama at a crossroads (again) (Politico)

Stand up to House Republicans - or cave under pressure rather than risk an unwanted outcome? Carrue Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush examine the crossroads Obama finds himself at.

10. US mail is slow and getting slower (The Plain Dealer)

It's time to end the post office's monopoly on letter delivery, writes James Bovard.

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.