United States: the possible consequences of abandoning the two-state solution

The meeting between Trump and Netanyahu scored the paradigm shift that had so far marked the US attitude about the possible solution of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis; the assumption in fact provided for the conclusion of the long question hostilities, thanks to the two-state solution on a single territory. The new US president stated that he considered valid, if accepted by both sides, both the two-state solution, that of a state. It is at least a confused and unclear position, which seems only functional to the ambitions of a part of Israel, well represented in the government and, above all, Netanyahu, who has repeatedly publicly demonstrated the intolerance towards a solution that gives territorial sovereignty to the Palestinian people. The Trump statement seems to highlight a little-defined approach to the problem between the Israelis and Palestinians, a result probably of a lack of information and little knowledge of the consequences of such a vision. Implicitly encouraging the part that already has a state and an administrative and bureaucratic organization well defined, it is likely to blow up again seriously the situation between the two sides, since it appears highly unlikely that the Palestinians will accept only the existence in the region the Israeli state, no state entity similar expression of Palestinian instance. The change in the White House was seen favorably by the Israeli government, which in the eight democratic years, suffered the dislike of Obama, precisely due to Netanyahu's behavior, too unreliable for policy that Kerry wanted to carry on about the solution of two states. The ambiguous position of Trump threatens not to allow the creation of a Palestinian state, and this may cause a shift in the Palestinian leadership towards more extreme positions, functional state eager to become the champions of this cause, for reasons and political reasons that go beyond the narrow contingency. It could be the case of Iran, which, although belonging to the Shiite branch of Islam, would use Palestinian reasons, for instrumental reasons in comparison with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states. This could be the natural evolution to counter the reports, real though not official, that Israel has with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan and other Sunni states. The main reason for these alliances are prevention and the potential contrast to the Islamic State and other radical movements, to avoid the attentions of Islamic terrorism are also aimed against Israel, but Tel Aviv has in common with the Sunni states aversion to Iranian state, which is also concerned as a regional nuclear power, a sentiment shared just with Saudi Arabia. In the intentions of the Israeli government would have the intention to take advantage of these contacts with the Arab states, to promote a stable and lasting peace process with the Palestinians, but that may not even provide for the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. The risk is that the Arab states sacrifice the ambitions of the Palestinians to establish links with a state like Israel is militarily strong and enjoys the full US support, even more reinforced by the Trump presidency. Without the balance of a diplomatic agriculture policies similar to those conducted by Obama and Kerry, which had as its goal the creation of two states, the Palestinians are likely to get in a kind of isolation, that could be broken with a closeness to Iran. This possibility could become reality if states Sunnis did not get favorable results to the Palestinians; the risk is to see the continuation of the tactics of Netanyahu to remove any final decision to buy time with the aim to increase settlements and then present the fait accompli. You are likely to get to a Palestinian terrorist recovery scenario and a return to radical positions of Tehran, also stressed the willingness of revision of the Treaty on nuclear power, expressed by Trump. The Palestinian issue as well is likely to return to the center of the international scenario, but with dangerous conditions to the regional and global balance.