Although the Israeli prime minister has repeatedly said that in his view it would be best for there to be two states living side by side in peace and security, the Obama administration is now pouncing on him and suggesting that view is entirely inconsistent with what Netanyahu expressed just before the election.
Balderdash.
Wisely or not, Netanyahu has not backed away from his view that it would be best if there would be two separate states, what he said is that such a change will not be able to come any time soon. To suggest otherwise is simply inverting the idea of a way to get to peace with the idea of peace itself.
For Obama, for McDonough, for the J Streetsters, the creation of a Palestinian State has become the primary goal, rather than a vehicle by which many profess to believe peace can be brought about.
Threaten that vehicle, the creation of a Palestinian State, and its primary advocates respond as if one is saying peace is off the table, rather than explaining that the vehicle cannot get the passengers to the correct destination.
McDonough’s flat-footedness is highlighted by his continued criticism of Netanyahu’s statements: “his claim that conditions in the larger Middle East must be more stable before a Palestinian State can be established. We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never mad, or that they don’t raise questions about the Prime Minister’s commitment to achieving peace through direct negotiations.”
Ah, and here comes the mantra: “America’s commitment to a two-state solution is fundamental to U.S. foreign policy. It’s been the goal of both Republican and Democratic presidents, and it remains our goal today. Because it is the only way to secure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.
And this is where McDonough delivers the threat, one surely cheered by the “Palestinian State, Peace or Not” J Street crowd: “We will look to the next Israeli government to match words with actions and policies that demonstrate a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. And, like every administration since President Johnson, we will continue to oppose Israeli settlement activity since it undermines the prospects for peace.”
Because, you see, the U.S. administration knows just what a peace agreement should look like. It is the same one so many believe a peace agreement should look like: “The borders of Israel and an independent Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. Each state needs secure and recognized borders, and there must be robust provisions that safeguard Israel’s security”
Here comes the zinger, the flying leap across the chasm of reality, the one that reveals the rotting core upon which the inability to imagine a different path is premised: “An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state.”
Why must a people which never before existed in a state which never before existed be birthed and handed to a leadership which has nurtured and fostered only terrorism and shunned economic, cultural and technological advancements throughout its tenure?
The nonsense continues:
President Obama still firmly believes what he said in Jerusalem two years ago—that peace is necessary, just, and possible. Peace is necessary because it is the only way to ensure that a secure State of Israel is both Jewish and democratic. Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. That’s the truth. And as President Obama has said, neither occupation nor expulsion of Palestinians is the answer. Anything less than true peace will only worsen the situation. A “one-state solution” would effectively end Israel’s nature as a Jewish and democratic state. Unilateral annexation of the West Bank territories would be both wrong and illegal. The United States would never support it, and it’s unlikely Israel’s other friends would either. It would only contribute to Israel’s isolation.
Advertisement