US Press: pick of the papers

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

1. Reinforcing the church-state wall (LA Times)

Christianity thrives when the state stays out of its business and allows a marketplace of ideas to thrive, writes Jim Burkee.

2. The two Cadillacs fallacy (Washington Post)

Romney's rather authentic moments suggesting he doesn't understand the lives of average people (such as his comment on his wife's two Cadillacs) are dismissed as "gaffes," while Santorum's views on social issues are denounced as "extreme," says E.J. Dionne.

3. When Will Social Media Elect a President? (Wall Street Journal)

Twitter and Facebook will change US politics, as new technology always has. Think Nixon or 'Obama Girl,' says Andy Kessler.

4. Super PACs can't crown a king (Washington Post)

The one certainty about campaign finance laws is that all of them are, and ever will be, written by incumbent legislators, writes George Will.

5. A Civil Right to unionize (New York Times)

The greatest impediment to unions is weak and anachronistic labor laws, write Richard Kahlenberg and Moshe Marvit.

6. Romney and Paul, what a curious couple (Boston Globe) (£)

It's rare to see a bromance flourish in the hot glare of the GOP primary spotlight, but Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have something positively special going on, writes Joshua Green.

7. Fundraising: Obama's real priority (Politico)

The president has likely spent at least 200 hours, or 5 standard work weeks, filling his campaign coffers since April, says Reince Priebus.

8.Health care work force will be tested by reform (San Fransisco Chronicle)

Joanne Spetz asks whether the American health care work force large enough to handle the future needs of the country.

9. Time for Assad to go (USA Today)

For reasons of morality and the interest of not seeing violence in Syria build and expand outward, it is essential to try to accelerate the departure of Bashar Assad, writes Dennis Ross.

10. Who needs higher education? We've got the Redneck Yacht Club. (Miami Herald)

Florida's higher education mired in the mud, says Fred Grimm.

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.