It has taken time – and has happened for the wrong reasons – for the US to abandon support for the two-state “solution” of the Israel-Palestine conflict (Trump rips up decades of US policy on Israel, 16 February). Now it’s time for the British government to do the same. The only reason for Israel and the US in the past to support the idea of two states has been to maintain the Jewish exclusivity of Israel at the expense both of the Palestinians who live in it and of those Jewish Israelis, perhaps 50%, who are secular and chafe under the rule of the rabbis.

Whichever “one state” Trump is willing to accept, it will surely be a step in the right direction. If it is a single state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, with equal rights for all its inhabitants, it will effectively revive the original state of Palestine, albeit with a larger proportion of Jews than lived there before 1948. Those Jews who wish to adhere to the Jewish religion will be free to do so, those who don’t will be relieved of the control of a religiously dominated government and constitution, and the Palestinians will finally be living in a land from which they have been excluded for nearly 70 years. And, miraculously, the problem of the settlers will disappear because they will be able to stay where they are as citizens of the new state, although without the privileged access and security they have today.

Of course the one state that Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are prepared to consider may be different. It could be a colonist-controlled state, run on racist lines and permanently depriving the indigenous inhabitants of their rights. In that case, it would contain the seeds of its own destruction in a world in which illiberal and undemocratic states are seen increasingly as an affront to civilised values.

Karl Sabbagh

Author, Palestine: A Personal History

• Of course, to most non-religious outsiders, and many religious ones too, the creation a single, non-denominational state of Jews and Arabs makes the most long-term sense. But, as we now expect from Donald Trump, his tweet diplomacy ignores the realities and history of the problem and can only lead to even deeper grievances and prejudices in all the communities involved.

A two-state solution seems to be the only way forward at present, and Israel’s undermining of trust in this approach by continued building in disputed territories must be stopped, or at least condemned. Trump’s words have already reinforced Israel’s rightwing fanatics and supporters of radical Islamic terror will also use his words to incite yet more nastiness.

David Reed

London

• It would be premature to jump to conclusions on President Trump’s change of policy towards Israel. His latest comments signalling a decoupling of US foreign policy from a two-state solution do not necessarily restrict future policy to a one-state solution; there is instead the possibility of a three-state solution, comprising Israel, Palestine, and Gaza. A first important move here would be to initiate serious discussions over the future of the West Bank. This has in the past been looked at seriously by the Israeli government and it would be well-advised to look at it again, now that the political kaleidoscope has been shaken up by President Trump.

Frank Field MP

Labour, Birkenhead

• Progress toward a Palestinian state is possible if the Arab League is interested in one. It is not Israel that holds the cards. As the Arab goal for the past 100 years has been to drive the Jews into the sea, perhaps the concept of two separate states, a Jewish one with a large Arab minority and an Arab one, ethnically cleansed of Jews, is no longer feasible. From 1967 to 2000, there were no demarcation lines between Gaza, Israel and Judea and Samaria. Israelis and Arabs crossed back and forth freely. Trade schools and universities were built in the former Egyptian and Jordanian occupied areas where none existed before. Electricity usage grew. Infant mortality rates declined. Arab incomes and their standard of living grew.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between a binational state and two totally separate states. An independent Palestinian Arab state would be quickly overrun by Hamas or IS. Perhaps a confederation, with separate civil administrations, an Israeli military and joint policing and economic cooperation is a more reasonable solution.

Len Bennett

Ottawa, Canada

• In telling the Israelis and Palestinians to go and negotiate a deal together – which in resources and strength is like telling a cat and mouse to work alongside each other – President Trump has in a few words completed the betrayal of the Palestinians 100 years after the Balfour declaration of 1917, when Britain promised the Jews a state on Palestinian land that neither of them owned. This betrayal continued with UN security council resolutions 242 and 338 and the Oslo accords of 1993 and 1995 which were designed to fulfil the “right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”, but which were never fully implemented. Where precisely do the Palestinians go now?

Dr Mike Barnes

Watford, Hertfordshire

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters