Defining Peace in Palestine

Jim Arkedis is frustrated with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu:

How do you define peace? My hunch is that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu defines it quite differently from President Obama.

When multiple parties are trying to solve a problem, it’s perhaps common to talk about examining differing means to achieve the singular end. Netanyahu’s visit to the White House yesterday (transcript here) was a study in the exact opposite: using the same means to achieve quite different ends.

Netanyahu talks of peace; he says he doesn’t want to “govern the Palestinians”; he says he wants to “resume negotiations”. This is what he’s supposed to say, words that play well on cable news and convey a sense of “common goals” with the American administration. But they mask the fact that Netanyahu has very little intent - if any - of granting the Palestinians a state of their own.

[...]

A sovereign state is never absent any power. A sovereign Palestinian state can do as they please - raise an army, ally, trade, and and negotiate as they see fit. Which of these (or other) powers would Netanyahu like to withhold from the Palestinians? Netanyahu’s version of living “side by side in dignity” is far different from granting a sovereign state.

I'd prefer to give Bibi the benefit of the doubt, and hope he has enough sense to realize that his country faces an untenable demographic imbalance that will only weaken the Israeli state if left unaddressed.

On Arkedis' first point: I think this is an interesting question, and it makes sense to sort out what does or does not constitute a 'peace' in the region. I'm not sure how statehood = peace in this equation, as there are obviously failed and failing states all over the globe at war with external and internal enemies.

Israel, I think quite understandably, prefers to reach agreement on identity and understanding before agreeing on land. These identity concessions preceded territorial concessions in Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, for example.

Withdrawal to pre-1967 borders will be an expensive and sticky endeavor. Many of these people are Israeli citizens who filled out all of the appropriate paperwork and did everything their government seemingly asked of them. Relocating these settlers will require compensation packages, and could be political suicide in Jerusalem. Doing this before the Palestinians have a unified, coherent government, or before they even have any semblance of an economy, could prove disastrous.

Around 8,000 settlers were removed from Gaza in 2005; there are roughly 250,000 settlers currently in the West Bank. There is no Israeli precedent for such an operation, making Israeli hesitance to such a plan - minus certain security and stability guarantees - somewhat understandable.