President Obama's speech of May 19, 2011, on a two-state solution, was disappointing: Too Left for the Right, and too Right for the Left.
In order to define a fairer two-state solution, let us first start out with some common precepts that define America:
-The USA is a respecter of Laws over peoples
-The USA believes in "the rights of peoples to self-
Since the inception of the Israeli State on May 15, 1948, the USA has had a policy position of a two state solution.
Let us return to the beginnings of this Land divide. In 1948, the USA was:
(1) A segregated society -- where the Black man was denigrated. Similarly, the white European Jew was considered of higher order then the "Brown heathens" in Palestine.
(2) In 1948 -- the USA was ashamed of it lack of action (alacrity) in saving the Jewish peoples from the death camps (holocaust) all across Eastern Europe.
(3) There was still a Christian-Jewish divide. It took a personal connection of President Truman having a Jewish partner at his haberdashery in Independence, MO, that led to the leading Jewish leaders having access to the White House and the formation of a "two-state" solution.
(4) However, with (1) -- (3) in place, the United Nations under the USA leadership formed a two-state solution giving 71% to the new Israeli State (Israel) and only 29% to the current occupants (minimum 2500 year history). The Palestinians would not/ could not accept such an unequal, insulting resolution. (This is by way of an explanation to those who blame the Palestinians for not accepting the droppings given to them in 1948!) At a minimum it should have been a 50-50% split, if not, more to then primary occupants of the land.
Let us consider an Illustration:
Imagine a Father cutting a birthday cake, and giving 71% to his newly adopted son, and only 29% to his own son. It would be fully understandable, if the birth right son threw his piece at his Dad, or at his new brother, or on the floor, and stomped out.
Now let us consider an Illustration that may hit closer to home:
Imagine further, if as part of the Civil Rights Laws, the reparations paid were that each White Family had to share their home with a Black family. Imagine now, instead of the Blacks getting a room of two they were given 71% of the home/ land, and the White family was given only 29%. Would that have been acceptable to the Whites who originally owned the land? This would rightly have been seen as highly unfair. The Whites would have been hollering "NO, NO, HELL NO!"
Yet, we Americans seem to have no compunction giving away others people's lands!