Analysis - President Donald Trump has abandoned a decades-long US policy in the Middle East - the consistent and clear insistence on a so-called two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
At a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he revealed he was not at all committed to the two-state solution that has been at the heart of US policy, and in fact he could easily live with a "one state" solution.
"I'm looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like," Mr Trump said.
"I can live with either one."
The Palestinians want to establish an independent state in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, territory captured in the 1967 Middle East war - and the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The "one-state solution" refers to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of a unitary, federal Israeli-Palestinian state, which would cover Israel, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and possibly the Gaza Strip.
Many Palestinians believe the current Israeli government has no intention of ever allowing them to develop their own homeland. The continued expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land also makes it increasingly difficult to make a two-state scenario work in any meaningful way.
Around half a million Israelis have set up home, in defiance of international law, in the very territories the Palestinians claim for their homeland.
On the Israeli side, there is fear and suspicion that any newly-created state of Palestine would simply become a terrorist camp with a national flag, and an on-going security threat.
Mr Netanyahu said "radical Islamic terror" was the greatest threat to his nation, and for any peace deal to be successful, Palestinians must recognise the "Jewish state" and end their calls for Israel's destruction.
Mr Netanyahu also repeated his familiar demand the Palestinians accede to Israeli security forces having control of any Palestinian nation.
Those measures are of course completely unacceptable to the Palestinians.
So, for the moment, it's difficult to see how the "two-state solution" can move from rhetoric to reality, without perhaps the intervention of the Trump administration.
Mr Netanyahu agreed to the two-state goal in a speech in 2009 and has been broadly in support of it ever since. But he has also laid out a "state minus" option, in which the Palestinians get a sort of second-grade statehood without full sovereignty.
Even as President Trump promised to pursue peace, saying "it might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand," ... he made no effort to actually address the distrust that has prevented any real negotiations since 2014.
It's a diplomatic and political puzzle that eluded the Obama administration.
But President Trump is nothing if not unpredictable - what could he actually do to unlock the issue?
The US and the world has a stake in what happens in this region.
The Palestinian hardliners, Hamas, remain in control in the crowded Gaza Strip, their animosity towards Israel driving their cause, and also contributing to their extension of power into neighbouring nations like Syria.
The occupation of Palestinian lands, and Israel's policy towards Gaza fuel their fight, and surely any solution must begin with an end to the occupation, and a move towards a more democratic model in Israel.
The two-state solution holds huge sway for the Palestinians, and a great many Israelis. But its endless delay in becoming a reality has left Israel with a de-facto "one state" solution - albeit an apartheid state of occupation and dispossession - when it comes to the Palestinians.
Mr Trump's opt-out answer that the US is happy with any scenario appealing to both sides misses the point that a one nation solution cannot work fairly with the Palestinians still under occupation, and the two-state solution can only work with significant backing down on both sides.
To make it work, Mr Trump would have to play a heavy hand with both sides - possibly threatening to pull US support from Israel if they did not agree, and possibly threatening to pull US opposition to Israel annexing the West Bank if the Palestinians would not play ball.
"If the Trump administration rejects the two-nation policy it would be destroying the chances for peace and undermining American interests, standing and credibility abroad," said Hanan Ashrawi, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
"Accommodating the most extreme and irresponsible elements in Israel and in the White House is no way to make responsible foreign policy," she said.
Maybe Mr Trump is the man to break the impasse, but whether he has a new plan, or whether he was simply attempting to back the US away from the issue, is yet to be made clear.