In the hours leading up to Middle East peace talks that were set to begin at the end of July, 2013, US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Martin Indyk, a former US Ambassador to Israel, would be his chief ‘facilitator’ for those talks (“Former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk to oversee talks with Palestinians”, The Guardian, July 29, 2013). At that time, Indyk was quoted as saying that the goal of these talks was to facilitate the creation of "two states, living side by side, in peace and security" (ibid).
These words were not original to Indyk. They have been a foreign-policy mantra for the US for more than a decade.
For example, consider this string of references to ‘two states living side by side in peace and security’:
-On January 7, 2001, US President Clinton started the concept with two suggestions when he told the Israel Policy Forum that, “I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli's security requirements and the demographic realities”… and, “there is no choice but to create two states” (“Clinton, Bush, & Obama statements on a two-state solution”. Jeremy Pressman, May, 2011).
-On June 24, 2002, US President G. W. Bush made the concept explicit when he said, “My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security” (ibid).
-On April 14, 2004, President Bush wrote, ““the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous [my emphasis], sovereign, and independent” (ibid).
-On November 27, 2007, Bush repeated his ‘vision’ at a speech at Annapolis (the US Naval Academy), saying that he wanted to see “a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security.”
-On June 4, 2009, US President Obama repeated the same message when speaking in Cairo, Egypt. He said, “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”
If this is the US position, it’s a non-starter. It fails to account for the ‘Palestinian’ position. It fails to understand that the so-called ‘Palestinians’ do not see Israel and ‘Palestine’ ‘living side by side’.
To understand what the ‘Palestinian Cause’ does see, take a look at a map of modern Israel. Then, compare that map with a special plaque that pictures what the new ‘Palestine’ would look like.
First, here is the map of Israel: