Trump’s support of a two-state solution is just

In a recent article by Ynetnews, it was mentioned that the Trump administration supports the two-state solution as the base for negotiation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

American officials have allegedly been in contact with officials in Jerusalem and have sent ideas to the prime-minister on promoting the two-state solution.

Being that David Friedman, US’s ambassador to Israel, supports Israeli settlements, this statement may come as a surprise to some closely following the situation – however, it’s most certainly the right one to take if any progress is to be made in the situation.

A one state-solution is simply not a viable one.  Palestinians would certainly back this solution and Israelis with any form of sense would not.

A one-state solution would lead to the right-of-return for millions of Palestinians, turning Jews into a minority within their own country, something which the Jews fought to avoid in 1948. The idea was also ruled out by the UN when they partitioned Palestine. Simply said, this would end the Jewish state by demographic means.

Even more so, were a one-state solution to come into play, a mass civil war would likely ensue; and a bloody battle would occur, one much worse than the bloodshed that occurred during the Second Intifada.  History has proven that Israelis and Palestinians cannot live in harmony, and to think a one-state solution would bring the two together is folly.

Moreover, a one-state solution would likely lead to a pro-Palestinian government in the Knesset; which would most certainly spell the end for Israel as a Jewish state, and would likely create another majority Arab state in the Middle East – one where Sharia law runs rampant and women are treated like second class citizens etc.

That being said, there is no other solution than a two-state one.  Most Israeli’s would be happy with a return to ’67 borders, and Palestinians will finally achieve their goal of getting their own state – and both countries can move on. Of course, the current Trump administration can look the other way for the next 4 (or 8) years, and let settlement building continue unimpeded; however, they released a statement last week saying,

“While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”

This, a very even-minded statement, knowing full well that building settlements does not help anything to further the cause of peace.  Building settlements only seeks to draw attention from the international community; putting Israel in a negative spotlight.  Of course, there is no shortage of room in Israel for settlements, and it was Ben-Gurion who did indeed say that Israelis should populate the Negev.

To digress however, it seems Trump and his administration would like to solve this 70 year conflict while they are in office.  No doubt, would solving the crisis not only give the Trump administration legitimacy, but the prospects for peace in the Middle-East would greatly increase, as other issues would be brought to hand and more resources could be committed to stomping out terrorism throughout the rest of the Middle-East.

Hopefully, in this Trump administration, we can see this long, bloody and drawn out conflict finally come to an end.  Already Trump and his administration have taken on a reasonable approach to this situation.  Hopefully that’s a sign for good things to come.

Related posts:

About Jake Beaumont 55 Articles
BA in Media Studies from the University of Guelph. Graduated from the University of Guelph-Humber with a Diploma in Journalism. Former Research Analyst for Honest Reporting Canada. Published in the Huffington Post, Vancouver Province and many other newspapers across Canada. Specializes in Middle-East politics. Currently situated in Toronto.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*