The conventional narrative of the second Trump administration simply repudiating multilateralism is incomplete. The record to date is far more mixed and varies across issue areas and institutions.
Gustavo Romero, Stewart Patrick
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Israel",
"North Africa",
"Egypt",
"Palestine"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
The current U.S. approach to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict further undermines the chances for a two-state solution. Rather than pretending that an agreement is possible, it would be far better if U.S. efforts in the remainder of this year began to address underlying problems to improve the scenarios for the next administration, urges Middle East expert Nathan J. Brown.

WASHINGTON, May 13—The current U.S. approach to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict actually further undermines the chances for a two-state solution. Rather than pretending that an agreement is possible now, it would be far better if U.S. efforts in the remainder of this calendar year began to address the underlying problems to improve the scenarios for the next administration, urges Middle East expert Nathan J. Brown in his new report, Sunset for the Two-State Solution?, released today.
The next U.S. administration will face a series of bleak choices on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, of which a two-state solution remains the most attractive. But the framework to support a two-state solution has collapsed. A two-state solution will require a more viable and unified Palestinian leadership and less intrusive Israeli security in the West Bank.
To keep a two-state solution alive for the next administration, the Bush administration should:
“The menu that will greet the incoming U.S. administration in January 2009 is short and unappetizing. The most attractive option—revival of the two-state solution—will require extremely robust efforts indeed. And it will also demand more patience, concerted attention, and tolerance for risk than the United States has shown so far in dealing with the conflict.”
###

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
The conventional narrative of the second Trump administration simply repudiating multilateralism is incomplete. The record to date is far more mixed and varies across issue areas and institutions.
Gustavo Romero, Stewart Patrick
The Franco-German relationship is on the rocks again. But unlike previous moments of tension, the epochal changes on the world stage require that both step up investment in their bilateral ties.
Rym Momtaz
Pashinyan’s pro-European party has been re-elected with a decisive victory. But the pro-Russian opposition could still slow Armenia’s progress toward peace with Azerbaijan and rapprochement with Europe.
Mikayel Zolyan
As geopolitical rivalry weaponizes global supply chains, the EU’s true vulnerability lies in emerging-risk imports. For these goods, suppliers are growing more concentrated, substitution more difficult, and political risk is looming.
Sinan Ülgen
It’s the early days of a new architecture for disaster recovery. Now is the time to build a better, more adaptive funding ecosystem.
Sarah Labowitz, Katie Mears