Like mil­lions of Amer­i­cans, I voted for Pres­i­dent Barak Obama. His opti­mistic plat­form rep­re­sented future pros­per­ity, path­break­ing change and an insa­tiable appetite to restore valor and respectabil­ity to the White House. But that enthu­si­asm turned to a dead calm when I read about U.S. Sec­re­tary of State Hillary Clin­ton and Pres­i­dent Obama’s spe­cial envoy, George Mitchell’s recent trip to the Mid­dle East.

First, it’s impor­tant to know that I have the world of respect for Clin­ton. Her plat­form con­sisted of energy inde­pen­dence, uni­ver­sal pre-K (as a mother of twins I know the alarm­ing cost of pri­vate nurs­ery school and pre-K) and most impor­tantly, a change in plans and ideas. Heck, I even liked the corn­flower blue scarf she wore in Cairo while con­sult­ing with Egypt­ian Pres­i­dent Hosni Mubarak.

But I have to ask what hap­pened with the change in plans and ideas? As far as I can tell, the rhetoric from Wash­ing­ton sug­gests that the only solu­tion for Israeli – Pales­tin­ian peace­keep­ing is a two-state solu­tion. This goes against the heart of cre­at­ing a Jew­ish state in the first place. Jews and Arabs have been at war since Israel’s incep­tion in 1947. How can a Pales­tin­ian state inside Israel’s bor­ders cre­ate peace? And how is this a new idea?

Israel is a pro­gres­sive, pro­duc­tive, demo­c­ra­tic nation. Hamas, a known ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion, who recently won the elec­tion in Gaza, is a sting­ing reminder that mix­ing the two is like fire and water. A two-state solu­tion is not a recipe for long-term peace but rather an indi­ca­tion of eter­nal insta­bil­ity. Wash­ing­ton didn’t rec­om­mend state­hood for the IRA within the UK. How is this any different?