The two-state solution is dead. Or, at the very least, it has been reduced to the one and a half state solution
- Trump is using his position as the world’s “disrupter-in-chief” to throw a set of spanners into the machinery of the Middle East. None of the above are an appetizing scenario
By Tom Arms
The two-state solution is dead. Or, at the very least, it has been reduced to the one and a half state solution. But then the other Palestinian half is likely to be killed off in the next few weeks.
The concept of a Jewish and Palestinian state living side by side cannot work without American backing. No other state has the international clout or sufficient leverage over Israel.
The Palestinian state was envisaged as existing in two distinct halves—the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Donald Trump’s proposal that the US take control of Gaza, move out all the Palestinians, bulldoze it and turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” means that the US has in one press conference eliminated the Gazan half from the political equation.
The other half is expected to soon follow suit. Trump has promised a statement on the West Bank “in a matter of weeks.” In his first term he declared Israeli settlement was no longer—in his opinion—a breach of international law. He also recognized Jerusalem—which is part of the West Bank—as the capital of Israel. In his second term he quickly lifted Biden-imposed sanctions on violent Israeli West Bank settlers.
It is extremely likely that he will announce approval of Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-held wish to annex the West Bank. That means an estimated 5 million Palestinians would be forced out of their homes. Where do they go?
“They should go to new homes,” said President Trump. Someplace where they live and not die.” Specifically, the president has suggested Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and possibly Saudi Arabia. They have all responded with an emphatic: “No way!!!”
Read: Trump says Israel will hand over Gaza to US after fighting ends
There are several reasons for their opposition. First of all, it is morally wrong and a clear breach of international law. Secondly, their own populations would object to a sell-out of the Palestinian cause. This is one of the main reasons that the Saudis have so far refused to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.
Next, is that millions of Palestinians would be a heavy strain on the national resources of any country or countries that agreed to take them. And finally, exiled Palestinians would quickly became a state within a state which would end up destabilizing the host country.
This has happened several times before. After the creation of Israel in 1948 and the 1967 war, Jordan took in hundreds of thousands of fleeing Palestinians. These Palestinians became the nucleus of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) under Yasser Arafat and operated as a state within the Jordanian state. They had their own army, training camps and controlled roads and checkpoints. Jordan became their base for attacks on Israel and Israel retaliated with attacks on Jordan.
Starting in September 1970, Jordan’s King Hussein, re-asserted his authority by expelling the PLO to Lebanon. From 1970 to 1982 they controlled all of southern Lebanon and large chunks of Beirut. Their presence undermined the central government’s fragile sectarian balance and laid the foundations for Lebanon’s current status of “failed state.”
In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon and the PLO was forced to flee to Tunisia. Because that Arab state has no border with Israel, the PLO was forced to shift its efforts from the military to diplomatic recognition. This did not, however, stop the Israelis from bombing Tunisia in October 1985. The PLO left Tunisia in 1993 when Arafat returned to Gaza following the signing of the Oslo Accords.
Read: World reacts with anger to Trump’s shock plan for Gaza
Egypt, meanwhile has had a long and unhappy experience in Gaza. From 1948 to 1967 it was the administering authority for the Gaza Strip. Its military government ruled with a heavy hand and refused to invest in the territory. To do so, argued the Egyptians, would be a tacit admission that the Palestinian refugees would not be returning to the homes they fled in 1948. The experience left the Gazans with bad feelings towards Egypt and the Egyptians with a keen desire to never again become involved.
But Trump does have leverage over Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. All three countries are heavily dependent on the US for financial assistance which keeps their governments in power. Egypt receives more than $1.3 billion in US aid—most of it military. When Trump recently announced his aid freeze, Egypt was one of two countries (Israel was the other) that was exempt from cuts. Autocratic President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi needs that aid to maintain his iron grip on power.
Jordan is also heavily dependent on US aid—mainly to help it cope with the roughly 3 million refugees are already being hosted by that country. The country has a total population of 10 million. In 2022 Jordan and the US signed a ten-year Memorandum of Understanding for Jordan to receive $10 billion in US aid over the following seven years.
Both Jordan are key pillars in America’s Middle East policy. Withdrawal of US aid to force them to take Palestinian refugees would have a profound effect on the ability of President al-Sisi and King Abdullah II to govern. Trump’s advisers will tell him that, assuming that they have not been fired and he is listening.
If Trump is listening, then his advisers will probably also tell him that his proposal has threatened the success of the Gaza peace deal. Hamas may now take the view that there is no point in releasing any hostages if all the Gazans are about to be marched into exile. This would provide the Israeli far-right with the excuse they need to continue the war.
Alternatively, Trump may be cashing in on his reputation for unpredictability to throw out an idea which he retracts later. Or he is using his position as the world’s “disrupter-in-chief” to throw a set of spanners into the machinery of the Middle East. None of the above are an appetizing scenario.
World Review
Germany’s Friedrich Merz is gambling big. The leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is gambling with the upcoming elections, his political career, his country’s future and Europe’s future.
He is gambling that by opening—ever so slightly—the door to the German far-right that he will be able to slam it shut again after winning elections on February 23.
Ever since the end of the Second World War the mainstream political parties have maintained a firewall (or “Brandmauer”) between themselves and any far-right, neo-Nazi party that might undermine the political consensus that Germany maintain a sense of contrition for its Nazi past.
In recent years that has meant no coalitions, no deals, no talk of parliamentary support with the far-right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD).
Merz blew a hole in the Brandmauer at the end of January when he used AfD votes in the Bundestag to push through the first reading of an anti-immigration bill. The “Influx Limitation Law” would have tightened existing immigration laws and grant police powers to detain people due for deportation and to deport immigrants at the border.”
The move provoked a stern protest from Merz’s predecessor, elder statesperson Angela Merkel. “I consider it wrong,” she said in a statement, “to abandon this commitment (the firewall) and, as a result to knowingly allow a majority vote with AfD votes in the Bundestag for the first time.”
The vote also sparked off a series of anti-AfD and pro-immigration demonstrations over the weekend.
The result was defeat for the bill at its second reading this week as 12 members of Merz’s own party voted against him.
Merz was unrepentant and has vowed even tougher anti-immigration laws if he wins the election. At the moment his party is predicted to win 30 percent of the vote. The AfD is projected to secure the number two slot with 20 percent of the vote while the opposition coalition of the Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals is likely to come in third with 29 percent.
Merz is gambling that his politics will steal some of the AfD’s far-right clothes and push up his share of the vote. But he also risks losing the centrist votes that were secured by Angela Merkel’s moderate positions. And his defeat at the second reading undermines Merz’s leadership of the CDU and runs the risk of pushing Germans concerned about immigrants into the arms of the AfD.
***
“Europe,” Trump recently warned, “you are next.”
The newly-elected American president was referring to those “lovely, lovely tariffs” that he is imposing left, right and center, especially on those who dare to disagree with him.
Trump has never liked the EU. With half a billion reasonably well-off people, it is the world’s largest trading bloc, and trading bloc’s exist to protect the economic interests of their members, and they use the leverage that their size gives them to negotiate the best possible trading terms.
Trump would love to break-up the EU so that he can use the size of the American market to negotiate bilateral deals that are more favorable to the US. This is why he is a big fan of Brexit.
The EU imposes a tariff of ten percent on American cars and whisky. It has also introduced a number of regulations on America’s tech giants to which Trump’s new buddies in Silicon Valley object vociferously.
Trump also wants the European members of NATO to increase their defense spending. Two percent was the figure he used in his first term. Pressure from Trump, Biden and the Russian invasion of Ukraine means that 23 of the 32 European members of NATO now spend two percent or more. But now Trump is talking about 3.5 percent. Only Poland reaches that target with spend of four percent.
Trump is also concerned with protecting aluminum and steel production which he regards as vital to America’s national security. He put tariffs of 25 percent on those European products in his first term.
Finally, he uses tariffs as a political weapon. If he doesn’t like the political complexion or position of a country then he will bully them with the threat of tariffs. He has already threatened Denmark with “massive tariffs” unless it sells him Greenland. Conversely, if he likes a country’s policies, Trump may well exempt it from US tariffs.
So, expect retaliatory tariffs on cars, Scotch whiskey and luxury European goods. There are likely to be tariffs on aluminum and steel. Countries that do not pay what Trump regards as a fair share of NATO’s defense costs could also suffer tariffs, along with countries who oppose his policies in other areas.
Populist-led countries such as Viktor Orban’s Hungary and Giorgia Meloni’s Italy may well be exempt from certain US tariffs, partly to support them with the voters and partly to encourage the break-up of the EU.
***
Volodomyr Zelensky has something Donald Trump wants. What’s more he appears willing to provide it in return for continued US military support.
The something is Ukraine’s substantial deposits of rare earth minerals.
The minerals are essential for computers, electric cars and high-tech defense equipment. At the moment China is the dominant source of rare earth minerals. Eighty percent of the minerals that Silicon Valley uses are imported from China.
America’s military planners are understandably concerned about being so heavily dependent on their number one enemy for such vital deposits. Also worried are Trump’s new Silicon Valley friends—Musk, Zuckerberg, Thiele, Bezos and Co. who are pushing Trump to back off China until alternative sources of rare earth minerals are established.
The US recently re-opened a minerals mine in California and are retrieving other deposits in Alaska, Wyoming and Texas. They have also introduced an extensive recycling program.
But this is not nearly enough, which explains Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland and making Canada the 51st state—both of whom are overflowing with untapped rare earth resources.
Zelensky may be accused of short-termism by selling the seed corn to keep the Russians at bay with no guarantee of success. He would not be the first to do so and this would not be the first time that the US benefitted from war in Europe.
After World War I Britain owed America $4.3 billion ($87 billion in 2024 prices). It struggled to pay it off and the debt was finally forgiven at the height of the Great Depression in 1934. But Britain had no time to recover before World War Two. In 1940 it gave America 99-year leases on eight bases in the Western Hemisphere (three of which are still active) in return for 50 old destroyers.
At the end of war the UK owed the “Arsenal for Democracy” $11.5 billion ($176 billion in 2024 prices). A large part of that debt was written off or renegotiated in the 1945 UK Loan Adjustment Agreement, but the US still came out way head. Today it has the world’s largest gold reserves – 8,133.5 metric tons, largely as a result of payments made after European wars.
_______________
Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of The Encyclopedia of the Cold War and America Made in Britain.