“Israel has to work for a two state-solution. You’re not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement … and access to economic opportunity,” Vice President Joe Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The response to these comments was not quite the same as the previous day’s response to Newt Gingrich’s remarks before the nearly 7,000 gathered delegates at the Washington Convention Center. But why should it be? Gingrich told the crowd everything it wanted to hear and nothing it did not.
The VP came however, with a more nuanced message. He told the gathered masses “there is one enduring, essential principle that will not change; and that is our commitment to the peace and security of the state of Israel.” But he also told them that Israel would have to, in my words, “eat its spinach”, not as a condition of sustained good relations, but in the interest of good policy and world peace.
Interestingly, whatever the response in the room, and whatever the views of the current Israeli administration, most Israelis remain committed to the two-state solution that Biden demanded. What a great many both in Israel and beyond, including myself, do not understand is why that commitment comes with either an obligation to undermine the basic security of Israel, or the obligation to assure the economic viability of the new state of Palestine, which absolutely must be created.
At what cost must Israel guarantee Palestinians freedom of movement? Does that mean all Palestinians all the time? What if doing so brings with it a marked rise in bombings of civilian targets? Hopefully this was just one more Biden over-statement; well-intentioned but inappropriate.
And is access to “economic opportunity” a call for more jobs for more Palestinians in Israel, which is in the long-term interest of both? Or is this one more call for Israel to do what the rest of the world will not i.e. assure the economic viability of Palestine? It’s particularly ironic that Mr. Biden should mention this in light of our own nation’s ongoing debate about economic obligations to Mexicans living along our own border – and they are not blowing us up!
I am all for the US taking a more activist role in the Middle East, even one that may not always brings those gathered at the AIPAC conference to their feet. But the more activist the current administration becomes, the more carefully I hope they will choose their language.
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
posted May 6, 2009 at 6:41 pm
George Washington on Israel
“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” ~George Washington Farewell Address
“The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests.” ~ George Washington
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
posted May 6, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“why that commitment comes with either an obligation to undermine the basic security of Israel…”
Zionism makes both Israel and the U.S. less safe. Oppressed people are bound to strike back. Palestinians have a legal right to resist an occupying army. They do not have the right to attack civilians. But given that death from Israel comes from an untouchable F16 it’s tragic but inevitable desperate Palestinians seeing their lives with no hope might consider unspeakable acts.
The myth that Arabs want to wipe out Israel is just that, a myth, a fabrication intended so the U.S. will continue to rubber stamp Israel’s atrocities. If Israel began abiding by international law peace would break out in wonderful ways.
“the obligation to assure the economic viability of the new state of Palestine, which absolutely must be created.”
Release them from their prison in Occupied Gaza and remove the settlers and restrictions of movement in the Occupied West Bank and the Palestinians will do fine on their own. They did well before they were driven out of the homes and land, they’ll do fine without our help.
Contrary to hyped belief this is not a complicated issue. It boils down to no justice, no peace.
posted May 7, 2009 at 9:08 am
I second what Gerry is saying. Without political and economic justice, security will never be realized. I don’t detect even the slightest trace of concern in the Rabbi’s comments for the other side.
Its funny that Newt brought up Jimmy Carter as ‘weak’, because this provides a good example of what being reasonable and fair with the other side can accomplish. It could really be as simple as what Biden is saying.
What is wrong with a Palestine enjoying economic prosperity or freedom? I know that many quietly are too ashamed to admit their feeling that by keeping these people in a perpetually disheveled condition, that they will be less dangerous. It seems hard to image that they will forgive us if we set them free.
As to the ‘two-state solution’ (I don’t like the history of that ‘s’ word, btw), why don’t we devote a blog to look at the Netanyahu position. It makes Newt look like a peacenik. You should check out his website.
posted May 7, 2009 at 3:12 pm
It seems as though every time Israel has shown good will, and withdrawn from any part of the so-called “occupied territories”, it has not contributed to world peace.
When Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah moved to the border and kidnapped Israelis.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas started shooting rockets into Israel and kidnapped and Israeli.
I suppose those organizations take those good-will gestures for weakness.
The Palestinians could have had a state.
But, their leaders decided to have an intifada instead.
posted May 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I don’t agree that there needs to be a two-state solution in Israel. It’s such a little piece of acreage to start with, and to partition is seems — well– silly. If the Arabs want to live in Israel, why can’t they live as Israeli citizens, subject to the laws of Israel?
Why? Because they don’t want to. They don’t want to be Israeli anything, and partitioning that little bit of land is a good start toward their aim of total elimination of Jews and Israel as a state.
posted May 10, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Personally, I am in favor of moving all the Palestinians to Uganda.
posted May 12, 2009 at 10:25 am
Perhaps there will be 2 states some day. I think that if the Palestinians really wanted a state, they could have had one. But, their leaders preferred to have an intifada.
Yes, the Palestinian people should have better lives. But, will having their own state give it to them?
I am not all that sure.