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 forÂ Israeli â€“ Palestinian peacekeeping is a two-state solution. This goes against the heart of creating a Jewish state in the first place. Jews andÂ Arabs have been at war since Israel’s inception in 1947. HowÂ 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?