It’s been amusing watching the media almost strangle itself trying to interpret Donald Trump’s announcement on the Israel-Palestine conflict. "Trump relaxes US policy on Middle East two-state solution." "Donald Trump tosses away decades of Middle East peace processes." "Trump casually discards decades of US policy."
And then there are the analysts beating their breasts to interpret his comments. The problem is that Trump is not a nuanced language kind of guy. He said he’d accept a two-state solution or the one solution the parties agreed upon. Is it possible that all Trump meant was that he would support whatever the two relevant parties agreed on and no more? That his play on words, inelegant as it was, was just that?
Trump also said that the US would offer support to the process. Perhaps he was being more pragmatic than all those in the international community who insist that only a two-state solution is feasible. That may well be right, but perhaps it’s time to recognise that after 50 years of failing to resolve the conflict, it is entirely up to the two parties to reach agreement in whichever way they can.
Maybe Trump is just saying that the only parties who can find a solution are the parties to the conflict. You’ve got to give it to the man for asking Benjamin Netanyahu to hold back on settlement building. Maybe straight talking instead of diplomatic intervention will resolve some seemingly irresoluble conflicts.