The US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said that her country "absolutely" supports the idea of a two-state solution, the day after President Donald Trump indicated in his press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he would not insist on one or two states. Trump said he would accept what both parties like and that he could live with either. But can the two relevant parties do likewise? And which format are they supposed to choose? For many years, the US has advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel, however; the parties themselves are farther apart on the process - the borders of a Palestinian state, Israeli security arrangements within a Palestinian state, the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem - than they were at the start of the Obama administration eight years ago. The two-state solution, which almost the entire international community favors, is a well-known plan, having been on the negotiating table for decades. The one-state solution is not nearly as familiar. So when Trump seemingly offered the possible choice of one state, he put it out without defining what he or the concept means. From Israel's perspective, a one-state solution means it would annex either part or all of the West Bank and Gaza. More so, Israel would have to make a decision: Since there are approximately an equal number of Jews and Arabs throughout Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, if Israel gives Palestinians a right to vote, then Jews would soon be a minority since the Arab population is growing faster as a demographic than the Jewish population. Most Israelis reject this idea because it's seen as removing the Jewish character of the country and a way of eliminating the state of Israel by non-military means. If Israel doesn't give Palestinians the right to vote, Israel would become an apartheid state, with one set of rights for Israelis and another set for Palestinians. In any one-state agreement, Palestinians would insist on citizenship, voting rights and a government of and for all the people. But a one-state solution potentially presents Israel with an existential choice. It can be a Jewish state or a democracy, but not both. Trump did ask for both sides to compromise. In particular, Netanyahu might have to dampen the prospects of the US embassy moving from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Although Trump had campaigned on such a promise, since taking office he has somewhat backtracked, realizing the step would risk the specter of violence. The Obama administration tried to close existing gaps and achieve at least a framework agreement that would set the stage for a final deal. It could not. The center of Israeli politics has moved markedly to the right; the left that embraced land for peace has taken a back seat. The existing Israeli governing coalition will not make concessions. Trump's comments urging Netanyahu to "hold back on settlements for a little bit" might not be too much of a sacrifice for Netanyahu, not after the recent surge of pro-settlement moves, including the approval of 6,000 new housing units and a highly controversial legalization bill aimed at regularizing nearly 4,000 illegal outposts on the West Bank. The right is pushing Netanyahu to increase the settlement presence in the West Bank while accelerating construction in East Jerusalem. Israel prefers the status quo to making the politically painful concessions that a negotiation would require. That makes the odds of meaningful negotiations, over one or two states, remote and much less an actual agreement.
