Long-standing US support for a two-state solution in Israel appears to have been decisively abandoned today, with a joint news conference between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in which Trump declared himself to be perfectly comfortable with a “one-state solution.”
Despite the huge implications of the shift away from Palestinian independence as US policy, Trump presented himself as interested only in peace, and not worried what exact form it takes. At the same time, he urged Israel to “hold back” on expanding settlements in the occupied territory.
Netanyahu appeared to hold back a bit of scrapping the two-state solution narrative outright, but did demand that under any situation in which the Palestinians are nominally given a state that Israel would retain total security control over all of the Palestinians’ lands.
Israeli officials have pointed toward this goal in the past, insisting that the Palestinians, even if they ever got a state, could never be allowed control over their own borders. This appears to extend that to internal Israeli control over their security, meaning that a two-state solution would effectively maintain the Israeli occupation.
Given this demand, the one-state versus two-state question apparently doesn’t matter a lot to Israel, either, as Israel either ends up annexing Palestine and keeping the Palestinian populace under military control, or grants Palestine “independence” and continues to occupy the Palestinians forever anyhow.
I support a one-state solution too. It’s called f**king Palestine. The Israeli colonists can either dig it or f**k off back to Europe and North America.
Good idea. We can make room for them by dumping all the Muslim colonists back in the Middle East.
Colonists have money and guns and state sponsors. Refugees are poor and unarmed and stateless. The only Muslim colonists are the Saudis, who have been given a total pass by Trump because he’s in their f**king pocket.
Must admit I disagree with you here. The Pilgrim Fathers were poor and stateless, with few arms. They were classic colonists.
The definition would appear to be ‘I am a refugee, you are a colonist, and he is an invader.’
Filthy racist pig.
There are three possible outcomes:
– A no-state solution, which probably won’t happen;
– A two-state solution, which is far from ideal but might minimize bloodshed; or
– A one-state solution, which can only work if either the Jews or the Arabs are completely ethnically cleansed.
If you advocate a one-state solution, you advocate genocide, because that’s the only way it can happen.
70% of Israelis aren’t FROM Europe. They’re from Palestine.
And so Thomas, now you have to delay replies to you until you can approve them! I sort of knew that what I said yesterday would stick in your craw.
No, I don’t delay replies to myself. If a comment is instantly held for moderation, that’s an automated function.
“Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant” – Tacitus
Trump will take the most hostile and harmful position against Muslims. To cater to his bigoted and racist core base in my opinion.
no one in the world in their right minds, except the americans will ever accept anything but, at the very least, a two nation-state solution.
I’m not even in favor of that, and think that Israel should be abolished and all israeli owned and robbed lands etc etc returned to their original owners, that is pre 1948. as a back up, go back to the 1968 borders at the very least. and fully nation-state status status in the UN and elsewhere for the poor Palestinians…..
If the one-state of Israel in the complete territory of the former British Mandate, without Gaza added, does not expel all Arabic non-citizens into Gaza it will soon thereafter have to face the issue of equal rights and equal protection of all residents of Israel. In other words become a modern state as distinct from the current old-testamentary illusion.
Forgot: Golan Heights added.
There can only be one interpretation of what this means. That is, an apartheid state of Israel and most likely a complete exclusion of all others.
The least we can do is not pretend that it means anything else.
I see that dieter below wants to ponder it further though. Anybody else?
Rather disappointing to hear that kind of naive talk coming out of you comrade. Up til now I considered you as solid and of your right mind on these issues at least. Barring a hint of you starting to sign on to Raimondo and his Trump/Russia nonsense?
What doesn’t make sense is why the zionists care about Palestine anymore at all. Everything that they *actually* hold sacred is in New York, DC, and London…
“It would have been even better if you hadn’t suggested the possibility of the Jews being ethnically cleansed.”
Why would it have been better if I had been intentionally inaccurate?
A “one-state” solution will, sooner or later, involve either the Israelis ridding Palestine of Arabs, or the Arabs ridding Palestine of Jews. Those are the two possible outcomes. It’s one or the other.
Because only one possibility is possible.