I really don't like these opinion articles, Missing so much information and making huge assumptions. Like if they had peace, Palestine would loose entitlement to Israel aid? What the heck? The people get aid even though they are enemies because its the right thing to do, peace or not.
Or they can decrease Military spending since they have peace? hehehe like Palestine is their only enemy.
Perhaps you need to re read the post. What Solomon is saying is that the Palestinians have a perverse incentive to keep the fighting going, while Israel has a positive incentive to conclude the conflict with a "Two State" solution. So long as the Palestinians can get access to foreign money and aid, they are free to continue doing what they are doing today, rather than seek a peace treaty and end hostilities.
A Palestinian "state" would be expected to be self sufficient the way other states are, and to devote their resources for the betterment of their people. As an independent state, they would no longer be automatically entitled to aid from Israel (which is essentially carrying out its duties as the de facto administrator of Gaza and the West Bank), and most other states in the region would expect the Palestinians to shoulder their own load as well. The Palestinians could indeed do this if they wished (consider the radical changes to government and society in South Africa after the end of Apartheid, for example.)
Mr. Solomon hints that the state of Palestine could continue to receive certain financial benefits if conflict continued while under Israeli occupation/administration. The article appears to state that Palestinians stand to lose if a peaceful two-state solution is implemented but throws in two caveats towards the end - like it was blackmail.
To be fair, the state of Palestine is not the only party in receipt of foreign aid. Your closing remarks in your previous post said we should cease foreign aid to the Palestinians and see what changes will happen. You must also know that Israel receives more than billion dollars in aid from the United States every year. This is not economic aid as with the state of Palestine but military aid. Mr. Solomon did not make any mention of that.
The state of Palestine does have a lot of problems to address - like how to be self-sufficient in that part of the world - but it is wishful thinking to accept that their beliefs (highlighted by numerous quotes from religious/political leaders and scriptures) will change. Arguments between Israelis and Palestinians seem to focus on quotations and people keep pointing out the fact that at its core the Palestinian people do not seem to be inclined to recognize Israel. Knowing this, it then begs the question of why Israel, having the military might, does not simply wipe them off the map rather than send their infrastructure two decades back in time while also garnering two decades worth of hate for the future?
And Apartheid in South Africa feels a little distant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
Are you comfortable with the idea of the State of Israel imposing a "Roman Peace"? I am not, and it would seem that the people of Israel are not either, otherwise they would have done so a long time ago. I also wonder how many decades of "good will" you think a Roman Peace would generate?
So long as there are perverse incentives for the Palestinians to continue, they will. Remember that only a small fraction of the Palestinians actually voted for Hamas or the "Palestinian Authority", so if there is a stronger incentive for peace than for war, the people will move in the direction of peace.