If the Palestinians truly wanted a two-state solution, even within 1967 borders, they could have had it by now. Israel is tired of fighting, and wary of the demographic time bomb in their midst. If the Palestinians would give up claims such as the ‘right of return’ (a thinly veiled attempt to, again, destroy Israel from within through demographics), the two-state solution could be implemented in months.

Let’s also be clear that the one-state solution favored by the majority of Palestinians would, by definition, not be a Jewish state – thus Israel would lose its essential identity even before the demographics kicked in…

I do like that she is a fresh-ish player on the scene, and that she is well-studied on international matters.

You know, perhaps the Palestinians would be less of a threat to Israel, and stability in the region, if they had a state to call their own. It’s not like the approaches taken to date have worked so fabulously well that trying something new and different is a completely insane idea. The hero GWB supports a two-state solution.

Here’s what Powers said about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:

“Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; [She's talking about Jews, just so we're clear] it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, [That's right; when we spend money to develop the infrastructure in an oil rich country that we can reasonably hope will develop into a serious ally, it's a wasteful sacrifice; when we pour billions into a worthless patch of desert whose major export has been assassinations and bombings and whose raison d'être is the destruction of its neighbor, we call that "investing"] in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, [So our military isn't overstretched all of a sudden? I guess we're never stretched too thin to invade Israel!] not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.”

I suspect that most Obamatons will be able to put aside their reservations about interventionism, since it’s really not interventionism, per se, that they oppose. It’s interventionism against America’s enemies. As long as she’s talking about invading Israel, they’ll be overjoyed. Do you know if she’s advocated the same course of action in Colombia as well? FARC’s taken a beating under Uribe. Maybe we ought to go in and protect them.

1. Her career trajectory goes from journalist to academic. She’s not a politician and so, rather than grandstand about the world’s foreign policy problems, she’s actually spent her time on the ground trying to understand the cultures involved.

2. She’s pretty seriously dedicated to the idea of Palestinian statehood. Since no amount of justice or reconciliation can be achieved without a two-state solution, I think someone who has spoken out about investing money into peacekeeping efforts rather than the Israeli military makes a lot of sense.

3. She called Clinton a monster. I’m not the world’s biggest Clinton hater, but her behavior during the primaries was borderline unconscionable at points. Also, it’s refreshing that Power isn’t afraid to actually speak her mind (although following her dismissal from the campaign that may no longer be true).

What I don’t like about Power is her insistence on the idea of armed intervention to prevent “genocide”. I think one thing that we’ve learned over the past 50 years (at least) is that interference (military or otherwise) into the internal affairs of other nations is both unjust and either ineffective or counterproductive. Even when the activities taking place interfere with our delicate notions of right and wrong, we rarely actually make the world a better place by violating the sovereignty of other nations. So I’m not crazy about Power’s predilection for putting boots on the ground in places like Darfur, but otherwise I think she would be a really inspired (and “change”-y) sort of pick.

He He, their first meeting should be fun.

Oh, and I really like Hillary simply because I think she is smart, serious, and more committed to getting things done than playing politics (as compared to, say, Richardson, Kerry, and Powell).