Two fairly significant developments in the Israeli Palestinian conflict took place over the last few days.

The first was a public comment made by Israeli President Reuven Rivlin on the nature of the peace process. President Rivlin’s new position is that wholesale annexation of the West Bank and the transfer of all people within it to Israeli citizenship is preferable to the piecemeal annexation of settlements built on land taken from private Palestinian citizens. In making this statement, the one state solution idea has been officially re-introduced into the Israeli mainstream political discourse.

The other development was the outcome of today’s conference between President Trump and Prime Minster Netanyahu. At the conclusion of their meeting President Trump asked the Prime Minster to hold off on building new settlements, at least on a short-term basis. President Trump also stated that the administration will not predicate its policy on the two state solution – if that pathway is not working for the two parties to the peace agreement.

At the same conference, Prime Minster Netanyahu said that peace would invariable include Israeli control of security “over the entire area west of the Jordan river”, in other words – the whole West Bank. Out of all of this then, it is tempting to conclude that Israel is going to shoot for the one state solution. However, there was little mention of the following:

1. The concept of defining ‘what works for the parties’ is a seriously difficult one to untangle: the Israeli position is regularly hijacked by special interest groups; while the Palestinian position has been variously controlled by decision-makers in Jordan, the Arab League, and the PLO (while it was a terrorist organization, rather than a political one), amongst others.
2. Palestine is already is state, unless it is formally adjudged by the Security Council to be non-self-governing territory. Under no scenario would the full, unilateral annexation of all territory within the West Bank be remotely legal under international law.

To that end, there may well be no tangible, short-term change, other than a short holdup to the settlement building. However, there are two points which are worth keeping in mind. The first is that the seed of an idea of Israeli citizenship has now been sown in the minds of the West Bank Palestinians. This is a seed that will almost certainly be instantly rejected. That being said, for West Bank Palestinians, the idea of equal rights before the law, full civic participation, social security, education, and relatively unhindered travel, may present a more interesting idea over time.

The second factor is that despite all the positive noises from the American administration towards Israel, the way that the policy-defining narrative is presented is largely un-implementable. For example, a slightly closer look reveals that moving the embassy to Jerusalem remains a work in progress. The two state solution can also be dropped as an idea ‘if it doesn’t work for the parties’, but it doesn’t mean that the one state solution is going to be pushed either. At the same time, with this new approach President Trump might be able to achieve what President Obama was not – a halt on settlement construction.

The statements from President Trump may seem overwhelming given their contrast with the guarded statements from the previous administration; however, they are forming an observable tactic – providing gentle pressure where results can be best achieved: Israel. Despite overwhelming international goodwill to the Palestinians, the fact of the matter is that on the ground (where it matters most) the Israelis hold nearly all the cards. To that end, it is a business-like approach, and may hold out the prospect of being able to put together some form of agreement. Perhaps there is a ‘third way’ of approaching the peace process after all.