As with a welter of other issues, Donald Trump has now effected a policy shift towards the Middle East and in the company of Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In the net, he appears to have jettisoned US dealings with the region, spanning several decades. He has been explicit on the point that the US is not committed to a two-state solution, generally perceived to be the bedrock of regional stability. He has at the threshold come through as a President with less than a firm grasp over Middle East geopolitics, to use the language of understatement. In a single sentence, and with little or no elaboration, he has rather casually discarded decades of US diplomacy ~ pursued by both Democratic and Republican administrations ~ on the Middle East peace process. While he has corrected his deviation from the traditional China/Taiwan construct, West Asia is a wholly different kettle of fish. He has accorded short shrift to the two-state solution, indeed one of Washington’s “guarantees” in international relations. He has made it plain that he is not concerned over whether negotiations should be geared towards that end, leaving it to the Israelis and Palestinians to sort out what he calls the “ultimate deal”. “I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like,” Trump said. Clearly, the US President’s presentation was rather dodgy. He has stopped short of spelling out a firm preference, let alone a policy according to his lights. “I can live with either one. I thought for a while it looked like the two-state might be the easier of the two; but honestly if Bibi, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best,” was Trump’s assurance, engaging in the cordial informality of addressing Netanyahu by his nickname.

Yet unmistakable was the caveat addressed to the Palestinians, almost an echo of the Israeli government’s stand. For all the hedging over the twostate solution, he did mention the threat of Iran, incitement in Palestinian schools, and the Palestinian need to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. The Israeli Prime Minister has echoed the US President’s view that there will be ‘no daylight’ on issues such as settlements and the Iran deal. Ergo, the contentious issues that have festered for decades will remain intractable for some time yet. Trump’s remarks reinforced the inherent asymmetry between Israel and Palestine. Israel has a powerful military and is a technological power. Most importantly, it is the occupier of Palestinian territories, an occupation that has now entered its 50th year and has been marked by the almost relentless construction of Jewish settlements. The conflict simmers between an occupying body and an occupied body. Has Donald Trump opted for a classic case of fence-sitting?