The Mideast Peace Talks: What 'Peace' Means

Peace is a function of contentment, contentment means basic needs met. This points to one outcome: two states for two peoples.

With direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks beginning today, observers are naturally wondering not only what the probable outcomes are, but also what the idea of peace actually means.

We wonder whether, after decades of protracted conflict, Israelis and Palestinians truly desire to live in peace with one another. But that question diverts attention from what is at stake for conflict actors. Put simply, peace is a function of contentment. Every national group must feel that its basic security and identity needs are being met. Otherwise, unrest – violent or non-violent – often results.

The Palestinians revile the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. Crossing through Israeli military checkpoints to go about daily life feels humiliating, seriously impedes productivity, and in some cases has led to tragic loss of life as hospital-bound passengers are delayed at crossings. Having to travel along separate roads from those built to facilitate Israeli settlers adds insult to injury.

For their part, Israelis desire a quiet border and a cessation of terrorism in their cities and towns. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 led to a violent Hamas takeover there and the launching of thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian centers. Critics have pointed to the ongoing Israeli naval and land blockade of Gaza as contributing to these attacks, but Israelis are understandably jaded about Palestinian intentions in any post-withdrawal scenario.

Less pressing at a day-to-day security level but still crucial for Israelis is the notion of Israel remaining a Jewish state. If there is one thing that defines the modern Zionist project, it is the idea of Jewish sovereignty.

Both sides want free and open access to their holy sites and the ability to call Jerusalem – that ancient, stony city considered sacred to the world’s three monotheistic religions – its capital.

These basic needs point to one obvious outcome: two states for two peoples.

This would entail a Palestinian state in most, if not all, of the West Bank. A Palestinian state would necessitate the relocation of swaths of Israeli settlers – probably around 70,000 (out of a total half million), with the remaining settlements annexed to Israel in a land-swap scenario.

It would involve a shared Jerusalem, a city that already is de facto divided among both peoples.

And it would involve a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, entailing unrestricted resettlement in the nascent Palestinian state with limited repatriation to within Israel based on humanitarian and family reunification criteria. The remaining refugees would be offered financial compensation packages. By negotiating a solution to the refugee problem, Israel will no longer have to demand that the world recognize it as a “Jewish state.” Israel will simply remain as such by dint of its own immigration policies – at root a domestic issue.

Similarly, Israel’s “right to exist” – that bogeyman that has polarized supporters of each side – will be a non-issue. Two states, where the Palestinians are no longer under Israeli control, will render the punishing question an arcane historical and philosophical one.

Since, according to any plausible two-state solution, it is Israel – not the Palestinian Authority – that will be ceding swaths of territory, it is easy to think that Israel will be giving something (territory) for nothing (peace). But in Palestinian eyes, it is the Palestinians who long ago made their greatest concession: their mass exodus from their homes and towns and villages to make way for the creation of Israel in 1948.

Diaspora communities – Jewish, Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim – can do their part to help the peace process along by promoting the idea of a two-state solution. This would mean neither continuing to prop up the inhumane Israeli occupation, nor pushing for the other alternative: the boycott-divestment-sanction approach and its attendant one-state solution.

While passionately argued, the boycott/divestment/sanctions (BDS) approach increasingly favoured by observers incensed over Israeli policies does more to entrench the status quo than to change it. This is because proponents of BDS declare that these economic and cultural protests shall continue until Israel allows the unrestricted return of Palestinian refugees. Israel is much more likely to cede territory and uproot tens of thousands of settlers than it is to forego its fundamental identity as a Jewish state, which is what a wholesale Palestinian return would mean.

Peace will result from the meeting of basic security and identity needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. The time for a two-state solution, allowing both sides to exercise their fundamental collective national expression, is now.