“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.