Can Trump’s words on a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever become policy?
Hagai M. Segal says the US president’s remarks that he is open to the controversial one-state solution to the long-standing Middle East conflict have alarmed many, but it’s unlikely he has the worst-case scenarios in mind
The Trump administration’s announcement that a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer the only option under consideration has caused both interest and alarm. For decades, under both Democrat and Republican presidents, the two-state solution has been the default endgame option: Israel living alongside, and at peace with, a fully independent Palestine.
What might Trump have in mind? What alternative could be agreeable to both sides? In his headline-grabbing sentence, we have some important clues.
What is the two-state solution and why is Donald Trump seeking a different path to Mideast peace?
Trump used the term “one state”, yet also twice asserted that he was happy with any option that “both sides like”. A “one-state” approach is a controversial concept that rings alarm bells on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. When used by Palestinians, Israelis hear a desire to create a single state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River where Jews will be a minority and Israel will thus suffer “death by demographics”. When used by Israelis, Palestinians hear a policy to annex the West Bank and impose permanent control over its Palestinian residents.