When Discussing The Peace Talks, No One Mentions the 'D' Word

My Right Word makes an interesting point about comments made by George Mitchell in Sharm el-Sheikh. We have heard the same spiel from various members of the Obama administration to the extent that we don't necessarily pay attention to the finer points.

For example, according to Mitchell:

We have said many times that our vision is for a two-state solution that includes a Jewish, democratic state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable, independent, sovereign, and contiguous state of Palestine. But of course, this is one of many sensitive issues that the parties will need to resolve themselves, and that is the point of negotiations. The parties will reach agreement on all major issues.

See the difference?

Unlike Israel, there is not vision for a democratic state in the West Bank. So what kind of state is it going to be--a kleptocracy, sure but apparently not a democratic one.

Now, sure, if you like you can laud the Obama administration for not following the Bush plan for the democratization of the Middle East--but seriously, what kind of state is it going to be?

Compare with Iraq, where the US has been heavily involved with the infrastructure and establishing a democratic form of government--the success of which has been debated for years. But Iraq is an actual country that for better or worse has been governing and maintaining itself for decades.

The West Bank, on the other hand, is a joke.

There has never been a Palestinian state, and should one be created, it will likely be a formalized Palestinian welfare state that will only require more money and create more corruption.

And this failed state whose leader will be unable to control the Hamas elements withing is going to help stabilize the Middle East?

Technorati Tag: Mideast Peace Talks and George Mitchell.