Israel

Donald Trump Doesn't Care If Israel and the Palestinians Make Peace

With an off-hand remark, the president indicates the status quo of U.S.-supported Israeli occupation is fine with him.

|

Whistling towards apartheid
Andrew Harrer/ZUMA Press/Newscom

We've long known that President Donald Trump has no filter, yet his every utterance now carries the weight of U.S. policy behind it. That's why one of Trump's signature flippant remarks at a joint press conference yesterday alongside Israeli Prime Ministery Benjamin Netanyahu was so extraordinary.

With a few sentences, Trump appeared to have changed the policy embraced by the past two American presidents from supporting the "two-state solution"—a contiguous democratic Palestinian state made up of land in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, living in peace beside the Jewish state of Israel—to a more vague policy resembling indifference.

Trump said:

So I'm looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like…I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I could live with either one. I thought for a while that two state looked like it may be the easier of the two, but honestly if Bibi and if the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I'm happy with the one they like the best.

This is either startling naivete, ignorance of the tortured 50-year history of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the many U.S.-led negotiations to bring about an end to that occupation, or simply something Trump hasn't thought through but popped off on the subject anyway. Regardless, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict knows that getting both parties to be "happy" with any final agreement has long proved fruitless.

A single state made up of Israel and the occupied territories that includes full citizenship and voting rights for Palestinians would immediately end the idea of a "Jewish state." So that's a non-starter for most Israelis. Yet, a single state where the Palestinians lack self-determination is by definition an apartheid state.

So if a two-state solution is the only solution, and Netanyahu demands (as he did yesterday standing beside Trump) that "in any peace agreement Israel must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River," then Israel continues to occupy the majority of the nominal Palestinian state and we're right back where we started.

For Trump to shrug off the gulf between the status quo and what it would take for the U.S. to help faciliate a lasting peace—which every president since Jimmy Carter has failed to do—by saying "I could live with either one," implies Trump won't ask much, if anything, of the Israelis and Palestinians to make what Trump once called "the ultimate deal."

In the relatively early days of the 2016 Republican presidential campaign, Trump distinguished himself from both fellow Republicans and the very pro-Israel Democrat Hillary Clinton by promising to be "sort of a neutral guy" while leading Mideast negotiations. After taking heat from candidates of both parties, Trump walked his neutrality back about a month later, telling CNN, "I would love to be neutral if it's possible. It's probably not possible because there's so much hatred."

But neutrality has long been the official U.S. policy toward the negotations, even if U.S. military aid to Israel dwarfs the amount given to all other countries. Trump being pressured on the campaign trail to abandon that posture demonstrates that all of America's foreign policy and political issues are not exclusively the fault of Donald Trump.

Shortly before leaving office, President Barack Obama increased U.S. military aid to Israel from $3.1 billion to $3.8 annually, a deal which is locked in for 10 years. The deal removed a previous provision allowing Israel to spend about a quarter of that aid on companies within the Israeli defense industry, meaning all of those billions in U.S. government aid to Israel will now come right back to United States as a subsidy to the U.S. miliary industrial complex.

While this aid to Israel didn't include the "strings attached" like the ones the U.S. applied to its aid to Egypt and Jordan—which were meant to encourage and maintain those countries' peace treaties with Israel—the U.S.-Israel relationship has always included the expectation that Israel would continue to take meaningful steps toward a solution that ends the occupation and creates a lasting peace—even if they have rarely had reliable negotiating partners on the other side of the table.

If the policy of the Trump administration is that it has no position on whether or not a Palestinian state is created, it is essentially de facto U.S. support for indefinite Israeli occupation. And while this might please the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the hard-right members of the Knesset who make up a hugely influential part of Netanyahu's coalation, the status quo is untenable for Israel, which risks legitimately being called an apartheid state if the two-state solution is truly dead.

Advertisement

NEXT: An Immigration Crackdown That Could Make Crime Problems Worse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t care if or how the Israelis and Palestinians make peace. And I don’t care if the president cares or not. In fact, it’s probably better if the President doesn’t care/just leaves it alone.

  2. Hey, I don’t care either! Because it’s not our fucking problem, let the Israelis and Palestinians figure it out for themselves. Odd for a libertarian publication to bemoan the reluctance of a US administration to interfere in other people’s affairs and conflicts.

    1. But it’s unseemly.

    2. That’s because you’re a real libertarian, and not an Obama Momma who pretends to be one like Fisher.

      1. That’s because you’re a real libertarian, and not a Block Insane Yomomma who pretends to be one like Pisser.

    3. Fisher didn’t suggest Trump was reluctant to interfere in the conflict.

    4. Also funny (though unfortunately not odd) for a libertarian publication to write as if there were something wrong with Jews’ settling on the west bank of the Jordan.

  3. So, just to be clear: Reason opposes US involvement in the Middle East. Except when it doesn’t oppose US involvement?

    1. Reason didn’t write this article

      1. And I’m not seeing where the author states his own opposition to or support for any particular state of affairs.

  4. America’s foreign policy and political issues are not exclusively the fault of Donald Trump.

    Whoa, bold statement there! I see nothing has changed in my absence.

    1. He has been in office 4 weeks which is a weird phrase to say in article. Should be that trump is not at all at fault until some more time can accrue to see what he does

  5. Do people read the articles before they post comments or do they just spout some nonsense if the article title says the word trump?

    1. Nobody reads the articles. It is known.

      1. O.o

        I read 90% of the articles I post on… I used to enjoy them.

        1. I know what you mean, but it’s funny to imagine you getting about 90% through every article before you jus throw up your hands and say, “Fuck it, I have to say something now.”

    2. Didn’t read the article because, like Trump and many others here, I don’t give 2 fucks about the Israelis or the Palestinians.

    3. Do people read the articles

      Actually, almost every comment here is about the substance of the post, and has nothing to do with “Trump”.

      you picked an odd one to bitch about. try a robby or suderman piece next time.

    4. I feel like I should create a YokelBot. All it does is accuse Reason of bias whenever an article with the word “Trump” is in the headline. And complain “did Trump REALLY need to be mentioned here??” in any article where the word “Trump” is in the body of the text but not the headline

      Then I’ll get a CosmoBot that whenever an article containing the words “Free Speech” is mentioned comments that “Of course [first name found in article] is an absolutely horrible person with repugnant views, but violence against them only emboldens their support!!”

      And finally an AnCapBot that just shouts “ROADZ” and “TAXATION IS THEFT” at odd intervals.

      1. Whatever you say, BitchBot

      2. Little more to it than that. Reason is openly biased against Trump. One (of probably several) things people get triggered about with these Trump articles is when it appears that bias leads Reason all the way to siding with the hated left wing (which many writers also appear openly biased toward).

        1. The right wing thinks Libertarians are liberals and the left wing thinks Libertarians are conservative. The fact is that we have common causes with both sides, just different ones, so people see the ones more opposed to their own world view.

          Trump is neither a liberal nor a conservative. He’s an equal opportunity authoritarian.

          1. How symmetric. But a charge of bias doesn’t necessarily imply a dichotomy where Reason is in a lockstep agreement with either the right or left. They can be better and still be biased. Except for Chapman, why do they post his shit here?

            I don’t see Trump as being qualitatively or qualitatively different than pretty much any other politician at that level. That goes two ways, both as a giant narcissist and authoritarian, and as an actual person who isn’t remotely Hitler.

  6. So I read and reread the quote, thinking I must have missed the part calling for cease-fires and negotiations. Who does Trump think he is? It’s almost like he doesn’t have faith in our longstanding tried-and-true foreign policy tradition of doing the same fucking thing over and over and expecting a different result? Ugh

    1. It’s almost like he doesn’t have faith in our longstanding tried-and-true foreign policy tradition of doing the same fucking thing over and over and expecting a different result?

      I came here to say essentially exactly this.

      The reporting I’ve heard on this has completely un-ironically asserted that the two-state solution is a long-standing tradition, and Trump is just showing his non-seriousness by expressing willingness to abandon it.

      The two-state solution will always be the solution we are working towards. All Serious People understand this.

      1. t the two-state solution is a long-standing tradition

        yeah, and as i said the last time this topic came up = the reason there is no “Palestinian State” has very little to do with the US or Israel.

        Because both the US and Israel would love to have some reliable negotiator across the table who represented the interests of the all the Palestinian people, except, WHOOPS Fatah and Hamas basically decided to have a little-civil war among themselves for the last 10 years

        1. Really – it’s not as if they don’t have land. What they don’t have is a government.

          As much as I disagree with much that Edward Said said, he pointed out a long time ago the two-state solution is bullshit and that it’s ridiculous to look at the “Palestinian Nation” as currently comprised and think that it’s going to somehow develop into a sovereign state.

      2. However, as long as one side is fundamentally opposed even to the existence of the other, there’s not a lot of point in beating a dead horse. There’s really no possible negotiation when one of the parties refuses to recognize that the other even has a right to exist.

    2. What about Obama’s radical departure from the tried-and-true method, tut-tutting at Israeli lawmakers and helping stage a little coup in the UN?

      1. that’s different because racist?

    3. They’re doing the same thing because they want the same result. I.e. cash support from those uber rich people that care so much about Israel for some reason.

  7. “With a few sentences, Trump appeared to have changed the policy embraced by the past two American presidents from supporting the “two-state solution””

    Why should U.S. foreign policy support or push for standards or solutions that other countries should follow in reaching agreements ?

    Sounds interventionist for the U.S. to stick their nose where it doesn’t belong.

    I wonder how a Reason writer decided interventionism was a good thing

  8. For Trump to shrug off the gulf between the status quo and what it would take for the U.S. to help faciliate a lasting peace

    I can’t imagine any sentiment more unbelievably “Interventionist” than the presumption that its a US moral obligation to fix other people’s problems.

    for fuck’s sake, you need a chiropractor to undo the mental contortions here to pretend this is anything other than thinly veiled “Global Paternalism”

    Why don’t you just throw in the problems of South Sudan, and Pakistan/India, while you’re at it? Hell, there’s intractable world issues all over the place = WHY ARENT WE DOING SOMETHING??!

    How exactly has sticking our dicks into one of the most contentious and bitter conflicts in the world helped US interests thus far? Are we any better off for 30 years of faux-diplomacy? Are THEY?

    If the policy of the Trump administration is that it has no position on whether or not a Palestinian state is created, it is essentially de facto U.S. support for indefinite Israeli occupation.

    No, Tony = doing nothing is just doing nothing. What’s the definition of insanity again? has “having positions” thus far produced any incentive for these 3rd party to reconcile with each other?

    1. – also, anyone who writes a piece musing about “Why there is no Palestinian State” without mentioning “Hamas”, then you instantly get a failing grade

      1. living in peace beside the Jewish state of Israel

        Yeah. This stuck out a bit.

    2. I believe the consensus around these parts is that you always stick your dick in crazy.

      1. Here, here!!

    3. “Why don’t you just throw in the problems of South Sudan, and Pakistan/India”

      Because Christ didn’t live in South Sudan or Pakistan or India? The Jews may have killed their Christ, but He is the son of their God, so the Jews must be protected at all cost. That, and I think guilt from not stopping the Holocaust sooner. I mean, isn’t that the reason there is an Israel to begin with. “Hey, sorry about the Holocaust. Here have some land that you say God promised you.”

      1. I think guilt from not stopping the Holocaust sooner

        I suspect it’s mostly just that, actually. Our ruling class now needs to prove that they weren’t ambivalent about Hitler’s project.

      2. To be fair, that land was taken from them by the Romans, arguably the progenitors of Western Civilization. So you see, it was merely reparations for the diaspora.

        Oh, and Palestinians are Jews who converted to Islam a long time ago.

        /sarc

      3. Almost! The territory was created after WWI. Prior it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

  9. “If the policy of the Trump administration is that it has no position on whether or not a Palestinian state is created, it is essentially de facto U.S. support for indefinite Israeli occupation.”

    That’s begging the ever living shit out of that question. Saying “I don’t particularly care, it’s not my problem. Whatever you guys do or don’t do is fine with me” sure as hell doesn’t _sound_ like support for one side over the other. It _sounds_ like indifference, and given what we know of Trump, that’s something he’s thoroughly capable of when it’s on a topic other than himself.

    1. Not giving an eff is the first step to admitting you’ve got someone else’s problem.

  10. This article makes no sense to me. So because the US hasn’t sorted out the cultural issues of these people in 50 years, that’s problematic. But the article hammers how 50 years of what we’ve done has amounted to nil towards peace. But what really pisses the author off is that Trump isn’t maintaining the 50 year song and dance of peace and negotiation, even though the author acknowledges to total failure of that dance up until this point?

    Did I misinterpret? What is reason saying Trump should do?

    1. What is reason saying Trump should do?

      SOMETHING. BECAUSE SOMETHING IS WHAT WE ALWAYS DO.

      /really, that’s what they’re running with

    2. The author is unfamiliar with Einstein’s definition of insanity.

      1. So was Einstein. I’m pretty sure he knew the difference between a definition and an example.

    3. The US meddles so much that when a president doesn’t meddle it scares us. See, Reason, this is what change actually looks like.

      1. *closes eyes and sticks fingers in it’s ears*

        LALALALALALALALAL LALALALALALALALL

        I can’t hear you!

        LALALALLALALALAL LALALALALALALAL

    4. But what really pisses the author off is that Trump isn’t maintaining the 50 year song and dance of peace and negotiation, even though the author acknowledges to total failure of that dance up until this point?

      Did I misinterpret? What is reason saying Trump should do?

      They just really, really want Johnson to get 5% of the vote alright?

    5. I didn’t read it as saying that he should do anything in particular one way or another.

      The fact is that the US is going to continue to be involved. I really don’t see Trump cutting off aid to Israel. And as long as that continues, it is de facto support for the status quo.

  11. I didnt see anything wrong with what trump said. And why does one assume the US needs to do something about it

  12. The Palestinians (a real people and a real nation?) have forever rejected the fundamental requirements of a two state solution. To wit:

    1. Cease and desist all violence against Israel
    2. Acknowledge and affirm the right of Israel to exist.

    The solution is theirs for the taking but they refuse. I suspect they have determined it is in their interest to be forever aggrieved.

    1. The two-state solution has always been asinine. Israel is roughly the size of the SF Bay Area. It’s like saying Oakland and San Francisco should be separate, and hostile, countries.

      The “two-state solution” is another name for “kicking the can.”

      1. It’s like saying Oakland and San Francisco should be separate, and hostile, countries.

        Except Oakland and San Francisco haven’t been in a constant state of in-all-but-name war for the last few decades.

        1. As a resident of the Bay Area, I beg to differ.

    2. Two State Solution? Are they arguing that Israel should give the West Bank back to Jordan, who they took it from in 1967? Or create an entirely new country that has never existed before? I would like peace over there as much as any person, but as my Grandfather would say, “..it’s none of our business.”

      1. Gaza/West Bank would be one country, Israel another.

        You don’t usually hear it stated that succinctly, because when you state it that succinctly, it’s baldly stupid.

  13. how about we just let them figure it out?

  14. Im not sure they or either side really wants peace cause then what would be the self worth of activists

  15. Bizarre. I saw that press conference and took Trump’s statement to distill to “meh, whatever works, I’m fine with”.

    Shouldn’t that be exactly what Libertarians should want for such a foreign policy situation?

    1. Yup and that doesnt mean he doesnt care. Otherwise only people who you can say care are meddling busybodies

      1. Yup and that doesnt mean he doesnt care.

        You think? Seems like that’s exactly what it means if you say “I’m fine with whatever”. Maybe ambivalence isn’t exactly the same as not caring, but it’s pretty close.

        1. I’d say it’s closer to asking someone if they want Italian or Mexican food for dinner, and they say they don’t care. That doesn’t mean they’re not hungry, just that tacos and pizza work fine either way.

        2. nonsense. His statements clearly indicate that he is ambivalent to the route, not the destination. That is a critical distinction and one with Libertarians should be cheering as a breath of fresh air in USA foreign policy.

          US and UN meddling in this situation is why the Palestinians have been empowered to simply drag feet and make unrealistic demands. Tell both parties to STFU and work it out…ideally blocking any aid until it is resolved to light a fire under their arses.

    2. That’s one difference that I can see between Obama and Trump. Both ran on a platform of hope and change, but only one of them is a true change agent, a true SV-style disruptor. Him being open to non-interventionism is just one of many things that go against the status quo, and that is scary even to some that like the idea on principle.

    3. Trump too border-adjustment-y with regard to Mexico, China. Not border-adjustment-y enough with regard to Israel, Palestine. – Reason

  16. Yet, a single state where the Palestinians lack self-determination is by definition an apartheid state.

    Are we talking “rockets into apartment buildings and suicide bombers blowing up cafes” apartheid state or “most of them mow our lawns and do manual labor, some even own businesses, a few even hold public offices” apartheid state or “they make $0.77 for every dollar” apartheid state?

    Because, unless your talking specifically about South African Apartheid. Apartheid is another one of those liberal-progressive divisive words that doesn’t really mean anything (bad).

    Also, I’ll take ‘mowing lawns’ apartheid and ‘$0.77 on the dollar’ apartheid over random rocket attacks not-apartheid any day of the week.

    1. Well, if Israel wants it to remain a Jewish state, it would have the be the kind of state where a majority of the population is disenfranchised.

  17. Headline makes a bit of a leap to say he doesnt care

  18. So I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like…I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I could live with either one. I thought for a while that two state looked like it may be the easier of the two, but honestly if Bibi and if the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best.

    So it’s like not one single writer at Reason has sat in a conference room while two less-than-cheerful parties negotiate a deal that isn’t actually going to make anyone happy, but it has to happen anyway.

    Reason complains that the billionaire deal-maker doesn’t talk like a sack-of-shit career politician. And yet, isn’t that the very fucking reason he was elected over the sack-of-shit career politician last November?

    1. ^ This.

      It’s almost a negotiating proverb that if anyone walks away from the table happy, someone got screwed.

    2. I’m starting to wonder whether Trump & his supporters aren’t better for individual liberty around the world than Reason is.

  19. Donald Trump Doesn’t Care if Israel and the Palestinians Make Peace

    Or maybe, maybe, he knows it’s not going to happen, and sees no point in wasting effort in a hopeless cause.

    1. Or maybe suggesting whichever solution the two sides agree on is ipso facto a good solution means you do care if they make peace, you just don’t care how they make peace and the headline is wrong to say otherwise.

  20. It took me a long time to let go of Interventionism — and my mind still often jumps to that idea when pondering the worlds ills. In my youth I believed (or wanted to believe) that America and it’s ideals were noble and just. And obviously America is indisputably strong — America is Superman sans virtue in so many ways.

    And I would think, ‘With great power comes great responsibility.

    And when the masses of innocent civilians were stripped bare and bloody by their respective states — I would say, ‘these people do not have the means to protect themselves from their dictatorships — only America, or the joint United Nations could save the innocent from state destruction.’

    Honestly I still often think that. But history shows the folly of intervention and more than anything the truth of that should guide us.

    1. “But history shows the folly of intervention ”

      History shows no such thing. The only thing history shows is the complete fallibility of human endeavors. There are interventions by outside parties that have led to wonderful things. There are interventions by outside parties that have led to catastrophe. It is important to approach intervention with fear and humility, not arrogance and hubris. Too often in recent decades we’ve seen the latter.

  21. While this aid to Israel didn’t include the “strings attached” like the ones the U.S. applied to its aid to Egypt and Jordan

    F–k you, cut spending

    1. Waiter, I’ll have what he’s having.

  22. I’m happy to see Trump expressing ambivalence over things the US should be ambivalent about. What concerns me is why an author at a pseudolibertarian (sorry folks, that’s what it’s become) online magazine thinks this is a problem.

    1. Other than on immigration and trade, Trump seems so far to be one of the most libertarian figure in politics this decade (who’s not named Paul, Amash, or Massie), and certainly the most disruptive of the last 20 years. If Reason wants to appeal to actual libertarians, they need to find a way to praise him when he meets our principles and criticize him when he doesn’t. What they’ve been doing this election is basically a slightly more fact-driven version of the leftist, TDS-afflicted media, and that won’t drive any libertarians to read your magazine.

    2. …an author at a pseudolibertarian (sorry folks, that’s what it’s become) online magazine

      No apologies needed. A lot of us have noticed this, lately.

      1. What happened? Does the fish stink from the head? Or did the rot start from the roots?

    3. There was nothing ambivalent about Trump’s expression of support for one side of this conflict. Republicans like, Trump or Sean Hannity, LOVE hardliners like Netanyahu. His ambivalence was towards the idea of a two state solution. He’s throwing fire on the conflict in the name of the USA. It’s exactly the opposite of nonintervention.

      1. Sure, let’s go with that.

  23. At least the headline stated it was a “TRUMP IS A BIG POOPYHEAD!” article, so I didn’t have to read three paragraphs of filler first.

  24. Wow this is all too funny. Any minute now we’re going to get a hot mike moment: “Wow that Netanyahu is a bigger liar than Ted Cruz!”

  25. The big story is the nice Jewish kids arrested protesting Friedman. Let me assure you this country will convulse if anything happens to them.

  26. This is all just too damn funny I can’t stop giggling. My stupid, stupid anarch0-frankentrumpkenpoops – how did you get so stupid?? Where oh where did I go wrong??

  27. With a few sentences, Trump appeared to have changed the policy embraced by the past two American presidents from supporting the “two-state solution”?a contiguous democratic Palestinian state made up of land in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, living in peace beside the Jewish state of Israel?to a more vague policy resembling indifference.

    And this is being presented as a bad thing on a libertarian site?

    1. Where does it say that? The piece seemed pretty neutral on whether it’s good or bad to me.

      1. Well, you know, near the beginning. And somewhat in the middle. And definitely at the end.

        1. Well, that was helpful.

  28. Basically what Trump just did was drastically accelerate progress to one-state with equal rights for all citizens. This is great! The only thing they need to do is enshrine full freedom of speech and religion in their Constitution – without exceptions like ‘hate speech’ or ‘incitement’ or other nonsense that only ends in witch hunts and wars. They’ll be fine. Welcome to New Somalia. 🙂

  29. But we have to do something! We can’t just let them solve their own problems. Wold Police America is needed.

  30. Trump’s current press conference is one of the most hilarious things i’ve ever seen.

      1. He went on a 20 minute stream of consciousness ramble, then decided to play with reporters like a kitten with a ball of string. He had the entire press corps laughing out of their seats a few times.

        what’s so refreshing is this abandonment of the pretentous deference to the “Seriousness and thoughtfulness” of our political leaders. They think he’s an idiot, and he thinks they are all idiots (and tells them so), and they basically try and insult one another constantly and its far more … well, “honest” than anything we saw during 8 years of Obama, where he’d tell whopping lies and everyone would stroke their chins and pretend he’d just imparted great wisdoms.

        Its basically what i argued last year would be the “1 guaranteed upside” of a Trump presidency = people would stop worshiping leaders, and see politics as the WWF-style charade it is.

        1. Brilliant. I’ll need to load that up later.

          1. Hmm… Just realized that the usage of ‘awesome’ shows my age — good memes are ‘dank’.

    1. Since you mentioned it, would you be so kind as to distill it down for those of us that don’t have the luxury of watching the video?

    2. Im listening as well. It is pretty frickin awesome indeed.

    3. Great Press Conference or the Greatest Press Conference?

    4. I was listening to it on the way into work and enjoyed all of it. Nice to see their bias being exposed. “Could you imagine if I had received the debate questions in advance”

      What the hell is the left so upset about with Trump. He basically sounds like Bill Clinton from the 90s.

      1. The problem is that by today’s standards, Bill Clinton is a right wing extremist

    5. +1 finely tuned machine

  31. Donald Trump Doesn’t Care if Israel and the Palestinians Gay Dudes Make Peace Sweet Sweet Love in the Privacy of Their Bedroom

  32. You wrote: “…anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict knows that getting both parties to be “happy” with any final agreement has long proved fruitless”.

    Maybe a fresh perspective, different from the failed policy essentially shared by the last 5 US administrations, is warranted.

  33. Trump’s been all over the map on this issue. A couple of weeks ago it was he had the classiest, yoogest solution ever. I expect it will change in another two weeks.

    1. Ain’t gonna happen. The GOP is fundamentally chickenshit.

      1. Bad news ZP – Rand is the RINO in the room. When 99% of your party of wolves are sheep, well, you really ain’t a wolfpack, you’re a flock of sheep.

        1. Good point, unfortunately. Talking about liberty and action always puts Rand on a lonely island.

    2. Repeal has passed the House, what, half a dozen times at least already? Just pass the same bill again and let it go to the Senate, you sniveling cowards.

  34. Poor Trump he’s in such a bind. He has to pretend to support Israel to incite war with the muslims, but his Trumpkins despise the Jews because they control all the media and the industries and voted for Trump because he wouldn’t be beholden to them. So Trump can’t be too affectionate or promise them more money. So he can’t decide what to do! Too funny!

  35. “We’ve long known that President Donald Trump has no filter, yet his every utterance now carries the weight of U.S. policy behind it.”

    Not really.

    I didn’t care much about what Obama said either. You judge them by what they do.

    Anybody who thinks U.S. policy was all about what Obama, Bush, Reagan, Lincoln, George Washington or Donald Trump said is really out to lunch.

    Incidentally, you shouldn’t judge women, employees, or friends just on what they say, either. It’s about what people do. You are what you do. Trump’s take on policy is revealed in what he does.

    If he lowers tariffs and opens up more international trade, it doesn’t matter if he says he’s against free trade.

    You judge people by what they do.

    I understand that may be hard for journalists to accept. They need to write new headlines every day, and the president doesn’t do something every day. So you report on what he tweets, says, etc. as if that were important.

    But it isn’t.

    1. his every utterance now carries the weight of U.S. policy behind it

      Rest assured that not even the retard who wrote this shit seriously believes it.

  36. If the policy of the Trump administration is that it has no position on whether or not a Palestinian state is created, it is essentially de facto U.S. support for indefinite Israeli occupation. And while this might please the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the hard-right members of the Knesset who make up a hugely influential part of Netanyahu’s coalition, the status quo is untenable for Israel, which risks legitimately being called an apartheid state if the two-state solution is truly dead.

    If that is true, than Isreal will embrace the two state solution on its own. Either way there is no reason for the US to care. The US has spent decades trying to shove a two state solution down the Israelis’ throats. Commitment to a two state solution is a great example of a failed bipartisan solution. “We don’t care, let them sort it out themselves” is a much needed change.

    1. Hell, even if it is true — who cares? If their worst outcome with ditching the two-state solution really were that they’ll get called an apartheid state by leftists, they really would be extremely blessed in their options and should ditch that albatross immediately.

      It’s always amusing to see reporters write serious foreign policy think pieces premised on the idea that the worst outcome is “the cool kids won’t like me”.

      1. If Gaza goes up in multiple mushroom clouds, I fail to see how that would be a bad thing.

  37. http://pjmedia.com/trending/20…..tj20-plot/

    Two more leftist protesters arrested thanks to the Project Veritas video sting during the run up to the inauguration. These guys are real pieces of work.

    The message has to be, we do not recognize the city government either,” Kuhn says. “If you try to close us down we will look for your house, we will burn it. We will physically fight the police if they try to steal one of our places. We will go to war and you will lose.”

    Please come to my house and try to burn it down. Please. Just try it when I am home. Come on fight the power dude.

    1. Are all of these people just LARPing and playing out some fantasy in their head, so make up for the fact they are useless pieces of shit.

      1. Yeah. They had months to plan and their big Trump inauguration resistance amounted to a few hundred bums on K Street burning some Muslim guy’s limousine and ruining his business. They are pathetic.

        The most pathetic part is they have likely bought themselves felony convictions and years in federal prison. All because they couldn’t keep their mouths shut and somehow thought threatening the police and plotting civil insurrection was without risk. They have likely spent their entire lives talking shit and never once been held accountable. They are about to learn a very nasty lesson. Dumb asses.

    2. Huh, I googled their names and there’s been no coverage of this by the national MSM, including the first guy who was arrested last month. How strange.

      1. I guess the media hasn’t gotten around to reporting it yet. How strange.

  38. If I were president I’d just say, “You’ll never make peace so just leave us out of it. Oh, and no more free money for either side.”

    1. Somehow both sides in Washington convinced themselves that the only reason Muslims and Gulf Arabs hate us is because Israel and the Palestinians can’t make peace. It is one of the more remarkable examples of magical thinking I have ever seen.

      1. I think Trump hinted that other parties should be involved as well, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (which doesn’t have diplomatic ties with Israel).

        1. They are the ones who claim to care about the Palestinians so much. So yeah, they should be involved. They of course won’t be because they don’t give a shit about the Palestinians and just use the conflict as a way to distract their populations and keep them from noticing how shitty their governments’ are.

  39. So, this Isreali-Palestianian problem has been going on for too long, now. What we need is some kinda of solution. A final solution, if you will.

    1. If only the last four American administrations had not ignored this problem and really tried to work for a peaceful solution, we likely would have solved it by now. You know?

      1. *zoom* right over John’s head.
        It was a joke, John, a play on “final solution”. Perhaps Holocaust jokes are not funny, but it was a joke.

        1. What the fuck are you talking about? I got your joke and made a sarcastic remark of my own in response.

          You are the one whose head a point went over, not me.

          1. Fair enough

  40. anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict knows that getting both parties to be “happy” with any final agreement has long proved fruitless

    Then why bother? One side started a war and lost. That samesaid side has opposed us in every conflict we’ve had since WWII. Really, looking out for their happiness should be somewhere around the average size of gnat dung in our priority of interests. We can well enough wind down our ally’s status as a client state without demanding they make peace with people not particularly interested in peace.

    1. Both sides being happy with a resolution of a conflict is not the measure of its effectiveness. I seriously doubt the Germans and the Japanese were happy with the resolution of World War II. That fact however didn’t prevent there being a lasting peace with those countries.

      That statement is an expression of the idiotic idea held nearly universally among journalists and policy types that conflicts can only be solved when a resolution satisfactory to both parties is found. That is just complete fantasy. If such a resolution existed, there wouldn’t be a conflict. Conflicts are solved when for one side the pain associated with continuing the conflict outweighs the pain associated with ending it. When that happens, one side is the loser and surrenders and the conflict ends. But the conflict doesn’t end a minute before that.

      1. Are we talking about sex?

        1. The pain of not having sex with you is never going to outweigh the pain of having it no matter how much you nag, cry and beg.

  41. Finally

  42. the “two-state solution”?a contiguous democratic Palestinian state made up of land in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, living in peace beside the Jewish state of Israel

    Contiguous? Such a state can’t be contiguous, unless Israel is broken up into two discontiguous pieces. I don’t think it was ever U.S. policy that it should be.

    1. You must not be familiar w gerrymandering. Just make a corridor an inch wide on the borders w Egypt & Jordan, & cut a connecting piece thru the Gulf of Aqaba.

  43. When Canada went independent, they reaffirmed that they would honor all their treaty obligations. Point was, if you’ve got treaties with the U.S. and half the world, you don’t want them thinking that all their treaty obligations to you are suddenly null and void simply because you’ve become independent. They needed their navigation rights, fishing rights, respect for their waters and borders, etc.

    Thing is, they had all these treaties with Native Americans that the British made and then broke. Suddenly their Constitution said they were bound by all the treaties the British had made–and that meant all the old treaties with First Nations, as well. If there’s a treaty saying that some tribe owns half of Toronto, then what?

    It isn’t just Israel and the Palestinians. It’s Canadians and First Nations. It’s Australians and aboriginals. It’s the Ukrainians and the Russians. It’s the Germans and the Poles. It’s the Brazilians and the Amazonians.

    If Israel and the Palestinians ever get to where First Nations and the Canadians are, I suppose that’ll be an amazing success. But if even the Canadians and the French and the Canadians and the First Nations, and the Canadians and the Metis, and the Canadians and the . . .

    They’re never going to solve all those issues. It’s a lot easier to get along with a growing economy, though. Show me a place where the economy is flourishing, and I’ll show you a place where people are willing to overlook their differences.

  44. I would be able to handle the “Israel is apartheid” argument better if I wasn’t pretty sure that as soon as Israel became majority Muslim the mass slaughter/exodus of Jews would begin.

  45. Yet, a single state where the Palestinians lack self-determination is by definition an apartheid state

    …political rights are not quite the same thing as “apartheid state”, as any number of countries (the US and for that matter modern South Africa included) maintain autonomous zones where the population of those autonomous zones is not allowed political rights to vote in their sovereign’s elections.

    So as with most things leftist, the two-state solution is the “only” solution if one limits one’s options to agenda items that don’t immediately have leftists screaming about racism, fascism, or a combination thereof.

    As for the US, when did IDGAF stop being an option for another nation’s internal affairs? Hell, how is this even in our top ten of “Middle East problems the US cares about”?

  46. After 70 years, it should be obvious that no one “cares” in any useful sense.

  47. The entire article presumes that advocating for the “two state solution” has been helpful.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

  48. This is what non-intervention looks like.

    What did you expect?

  49. Israel has been fought over for over 3,000 years. I don’t think the problem’s ever going to be solved. I do know that even as an “apartheid state”, Israel under the Jews provides more freedom and prosperity for Arabs and Jews than it would under Hamas or the PA.

  50. As an aside, let’s get real cold-blooded for a minute:

    The thing that should’ve been done was a complete exiling of any Palestinian who wasn’t downright enthusiastic about Israel following the Israeli War of Independence. The Israelis would obviously have been better off in myriad ways, the displaced Palestinians would’ve emigrated and integrated elsewhere, and after 20 years no one else in the region would’ve given a fuck. How do I know this? Because that is how virtually every other mass displacement in the whole damn world has gone down. Hell, if you’re Muslim you can straight up murder large swathes of your Christian and Jewish populations, and the worst you’ll get is an occasional letter campaign from pissed-off Armenians. Whether it’s Germans living in the Baltics or Greeks in Anatolia, it’s shocking how much a population transfer can improve the situation.

  51. I think the best proposal I’ve heard is a 3 state solution. Give Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan.

    Surely those enlightened Islamic states would welcome their religious brethren.

    1. Neither of those countries want those territories despite that they were sovereign over them prior to 67.

  52. No Deal, is better than a Bad Deal!
    The Palestinians will have “peace” when they stop trying to exterminate the Jews.

  53. LOL – Bibi thinks Trump cares – so let me see – the Prime Minister of Israel who at 25 was an Israeli commando and whose brother led and died in the Raid on Entebbe or you – you lose –

  54. Why should Trump care if the Palestinians don’t? They had a State within their grasp in 2000 and shit on it. What they REALLY care about is killing as many Jews as they can, and then moving on to Americans.

    1. The Gazans should be destroyed.

  55. The Arab Palestinians are a Paris/Madison avenue creation, designed to paint the Jews as persecutors of a minority (in this case a phony minority since they’re Arabs no different from Syrians or Egyptians). What Israel should do is kick the Arabs out along the principle laid out by Rabbi Meir Kahane, zt”L. Authentic believers in limited government are shocked by a so-called Libertarian publication such as “Reason Magazine” would call for foreign intervention; however, we all know the answer for your magazine’s hypocritical/interventionist position. If this was the late 1890s, “Reason magazine” would have been the first to publish Whilhem Marr’s refinement on medieval Juden Hass.

    There’s no need to fear., Underzog is here.

  56. The Arab Palestinians are a Paris/Madison avenue creation, designed to paint the Jews as persecutors of a minority (in this case a phony minority since they’re Arabs no different from Syrians or Egyptians). What Israel should do is kick the Arabs out along the principle laid out by Rabbi Meir Kahane, zt”L. Authentic believers in limited government are shocked by a so-called Libertarian publication such as “Reason Magazine” would call for foreign intervention; however, we all know the answer for your magazine’s hypocritical/interventionist position. If this was the late 1890s, “Reason magazine” would have been the first to publish Whilhem Marr’s refinement on medieval Juden Hass.

    There’s no need to fear., Underzog is here.

  57. How about, “It’s introducing unpredictability where it’s least expected”?

    Part of the problem is the positions are entrenched.

  58. This is either startling naivete, ignorance of the tortured 50-year history of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the many U.S.-led negotiations to bring about an end to that occupation, ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? or simply something Trump hasn’t thought through but popped off on the subject anyway. Regardless, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict knows that getting both parties to be “happy” with any final agreement has long proved fruitless.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.