Define “peace.”
It takes up eight and a half columns in Volume XI of the many-volume edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. That’s equivalent to about two and two-thirds full pages. A few definitions:
-
1. a. Freedom from, or cessation of, war or hostilities; that condition of a nation or community in which it is not at war with another.
2. Freedom from civil commotion and disorder; public order and security.
11. at peace. a. In a state of concord or friendliness; not at strife or at variance
15. a. to make peace. (b) to enter into friendly relations with a person, as by a league of amity, or by submission; (c ) to enforce public order; (d) to enforce silence.
In his op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman, darling of pro-Israel East Coast liberal journalism with a free hall pass into any government office in Israel and Palestine, used the following phrase: “…why Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinian Authority.”
I am taking it out of context intentionally. The context doesn’t matter. What Friedman does here is makes the assumption, or exploits the commonly-held belief, that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not at peace. Reading his language, Israel is not at peace with the Palestinian Authority. This brings to mind images of guns drawn across borders, UN troops dragging Netanyahu and Abbas apart à la frat boys in a bar fight.
Who knows what goes on behind closed doors, but I highly doubt this is the situation. In fact, I would go so far as to argue Israel and the Palestinian Authority are at peace according to the definitions above.
Definition 1: Freedom from war or hostilities. As far as I am aware, there are no wars or hostilities currently underway between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
Definition 2: Public order and security. No, there is not always public order, but any public disorder is quickly squashed by Israeli security forces with the tacit support of the Palestinian Authority.
Definition 11: In a state of concord or friendliness. I have a hard time believing a bunch of men who sit in conference rooms together for so many hours each year are not in a state of concord or friendliness. If there weren’t warm and fuzzies between them, there would be war, and certainly no peace. Clearly the PA’s demonstrable willingness to sell out everyone and anyone who might have had an inkling of faith in them is indicative of their state of concord (complicity?) with the GOI.
Definition 15: (b) to enter into friendly relations with a person, as by a league of amity, or by submission; (c ) to enforce public order; (d) to enforce silence. The Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority are at peace because the Government of Israel has total functional control over the Palestinian Authority. Any misconceptions of autonomy were effectively shattered by the Palestine Papers leak, and it should be eminently clear to everyone by now – Thomas Friedman included – that this level of complicity constitutes if not peace, then certainly “amity,” “submission,” and “silence.” Can we describe the relationship between puppet-master and puppet in the terms normally reserved for sovereign bodies?
Perhaps my carefully-chosen self-serving definition of peace in this context differs somewhat from yours; but can we not all agree there is some sort of pseudo-amicable functional arrangement between these two bodies? There is certainly a well-documented record of friendly (ish) negotiations and accord between the PA and the GOI (see Palestine Papers for any questions regarding this track record).
Do not misunderstand me; there is unquestionably not peace between the Israeli government and the Palestinian people. I also do not believe there is peace between the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people. Paying people off to wear the black Fatah kuffiyeh and fly a Fatah flag does not constitute popular support. To be as clear as possible: there is no peace at all between the people and their oppressors, Israeli and Palestinian alike. It is between their “leaders” that some peace exists.
This conception of peace negotiations, of “creating peace” between the GOI and the PA – which Friedman is playing off in his op-ed – is a media farce, designed for sensationalism and punditry and diplomacy salesmanship. It is an untruth. There is no peace to be negotiated, not because it’s impossible, but because it already exists.
