Trump supports two-state solution, rejects settlements

The Jerusalem Post reported today that senior Trump administration officials have confirmed that President Trump is committed to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a shift from his prior harsh rhetoric on the topic.

No to settlements: “We urge all parties from taking unilateral actions that could undermine our ability to make progress, including settlement announcements,” Trump officials told the paper. This comes after Israel authorized 5,500 new settlement units in the West Bank during Trump’s first two weeks in office.

Still up in the air: Trump had previously pledged to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which would be a major stumbling block for the peace process.

axios.com/trump-supports-two-state-solution-rejects-settlements-2234070946.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_term=politics&utm_content=textlong

This is a surprising shift. Maybe there is hope. I wish I could listen in on President Trump’s next phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Now this is interesting. :slight_smile:

Agreed.

There isn’t enough information to know whether Trump really opposes settlements or not.

This language from the article is pretty non-committal.

“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 … The Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits with President Trump later this month.”

But if he does, I, for one, do not agree with him. I very much disagree with an “Arabs only” state in the West Bank. And if the West Bank is not to be “Arabs only”, then the Jews have to live somewhere. While I could be wrong about this, it is my impression that the good land in the West Bank is already pretty clearly owned, either by Arabs or Jews. Most of these settlements seem to be out in the desert, where few people of any kind live, and where claims to ownership are pretty shaky.

It is my impression that Jews in the West Bank live in very compact settlements, much smaller than a town of similar population would be in the U.S. It is my further impression they’re that way for safety. Jews cannot safely live in separate habitations out in the desert.

Interesting how things are. I recently read an article about a Canadian company that laboriously acquired title to a sizeable parcel of land in the West Bank, subdivided it, established an ownership record system, and is selling the tracts to Arabs. Nobody complains about that, to my knowledge.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.