Article: What Obama Didn't Say About A Palestinian State

It is difficult to explain why Obama's statements about a two state solution should not excite those who are concerned about the plight of the Palestinians. This is especially true even when Conservatives think that Obama is bowing to Islam rather than just greeting royalty. But when I hear Obama talk about a two state solution, I have two reactions.

My first reaction is to ask, has Obama seen the current condition of the remaining Palestinian territories? These territories are so torn up that even if Israel was to stop expanding settlements, because of the segmentation of the territories and the destruction of infrastructure and private property, a viable Palestinian state could not be a realistic expectation of any sane, rational person.

My second reaction to Obama's statements about a two state solution is that of YAWN! What Obama said was simply the same old same old with no intention to address and reverse present or past injustices that provide the basis for today's violence. Is what Obama saying today any different than what Bush said in 2003? No. We should note that after the Arab-American-Israeli conference that produced the Roadmap For Peace, Israel successfully sabotaged, with American support, the Roadmap from working by conducting fatal raids on "militants," the word "militants" is used to "prove" that whatever Israel did was justified.

If Obama really wanted to say something that has not been said before, then he would have said the following, "we will work for a two state solution that will create a Palestinian state that is EQUAL in all respects to the state of Israel." The word "EQUAL" is what is missing in every American President's promise to the Palestinians. This is as expected because in today's world, equality is a benefit for the privleged, not a right for all--this is especially true for those who live outside of the U.S. And if we are honest, we will admit that American foreign policy has never been about spreading democracy, which should imply equality; rather, it is about controlling who is in control. Only those who, in some important way, do our country's bidding are allowed to govern their own countries, that is if we have anything to say about it.

This is why no American President has, or will in the foreseeable future, promise to work for a Palestinian state that is equal to Israel. It is because our policies are not concerned with spreading democracy as much as determining who will lead each important country. To show our point here, we need to simply ask why America has not insisted that Israel recognize the right of return for Palestinians, a right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though democracy would continue to be practiced? The answer is simple. The answer is that the "right" group would no longer be in control of the country. It is the same reason why Israel will never allow for the right of return. At this point, we might have to agree with ICAHD's Jeff Halper's when he says that Israel is an "ethnocracy," not a democracy. It seems, then, that even democracy has its limits.