A two-state solution — no matter how far off — probably remains the best hope for an acceptable peace deal between the Palestinians and Israelis. But Donald Trump, in his first meeting as President with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is right to have insisted it is up to the two sides, in direct negotiations, to agree on a formula that will end the conflict over Palestinian statehood, be it a two-state or one-state solution. “I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like,” Mr Trump said at a joint media conference with Mr Netanyahu. “I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with that,” he added. Predictably, Palestinian leaders are outraged. Veteran spokesman Saeb Erekat has denounced Mr Trump’s remarks, without any credible grounds for doing so, as a plan for an “apartheid” state and issued an SOS to the international community to take “concrete measures to save the two-state solution” (a solution Palestinians have done little to facilitate).
With a view to the historic first visit by a sitting Israeli Prime Minister to Australia next week the Palestinian outrage has been joined by the ALP’s lunar Left, with federal MP Maria Vamvakinou, co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine group, demanding the party recognise a Palestinian state. Former foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr, too, have added their voices to Bob Hawke’s in demanding Australia support the push, echoing the argument about an “apartheid state”. It would be hard to conceive of a more wrongheaded approach to the vital issue of peace in the Middle East or one that would do greater harm to our national interest. Bill Shorten would be foolish to let the ALP be beguiled by it.
The trouble with those like Mr Erekat and others who raise the bogey of “apartheid” is that they ignore reality. The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for Mr Trump’s reversal of decades of US insistence on a two-state solution. By obdurately failing to return to the negotiating table on the most specious of grounds, especially settlements, and misguidedly cultivating the canard that Palestinian statehood can be achieved through the back door via the UN rather than direct negotiations, they have provided the impetus for the consideration of alternatives.
Read the full editorial at The Australian (subscription required).