NEW YORK – Palestine
is no longer an “entity,” but a state – or, to be precise, a non-member
observer state of the United Nations, just like the Holy See. The Palestinian
bid received the support of 138 member countries (Germany,
Britain, and 39
other countries abstained), while only seven, including the Marshall
Islands, Palau,
and Panama,
joined the US
and Israel in
opposing it, leaving both more isolated than ever.
But Israel
has only itself to blame for what happened. Abbas and his prime minister, Salam
Fayyad, have been more moderate, and more open to serious negotiations with Israel,
than any Palestinian leaders before. The Palestinian police have cooperated
with the Israelis to contain violence on the West Bank.
Improving the economy, rather than violent confrontation, has been the PA’s
main concern.
But, by continuing to build settlements
on Palestinian land, the Israeli government has undermined the authority of
Abbas and his Fatah government almost to the point of impotence. More and more
Palestinians, fed up with the futility of what is still called the “peace
process,” believe that Fatah’s fierce rival, Hamas, the Islamist movement that
rules Gaza, has more effective ways to break the current impasse. The failure
of Abbas’s peaceful methods has made the alternative of violence look
increasingly attractive.
Hamas also emerged as the moral victor
after the latest – but surely not the last – military clash. Far from
intimidating the Palestinians by bombing Gaza
and mobilizing troops, the Israelis made Hamas look heroic in its resistance.
Once again, Abbas looked feeble in comparison. This is why he desperately
needed his victory at the UN. The diplomatic promotion of Palestine
offered him a lifeline.
Did the Israelis really want a
resurgence of Islamist violence in Gaza,
the potential collapse of peaceful politics on the West Bank,
and now the right of a recognized Palestinian state to take Israel
to the International Criminal Court for war crimes? If not, why are they so
ham-fisted?
It appears that Israel
is making the same mistake that others have made in the past. It has been
proven repeatedly that military intimidation of civilians does not break their
morale and turn them against their own leaders, however terrible the regime. On
the contrary, shared hardship usually strengthens the ties between citizens and
their rulers. So it was in bombed German cities during World War II; so it was
in Vietnam; and
so it is turning out to be in Gaza.
But there is another way of looking at
the situation. To call the Israeli government clumsy is to miss the point. Israel
has few illusions about Palestinians toppling their own leaders. In fact, a
strengthened Hamas may play into the hands of the Israeli hardliners currently
in power. They can point to the violent, anti-Zionist, and, yes, anti-Semitic
rhetoric of radical Islamists, and argue that no deal with the Palestinians is
possible. The threat of a large stick is the only language that the natives
understand.
Keeping the Palestinians divided
between Islamist revolutionaries and the more business-minded Fatah suits
Israeli purposes admirably. As long as Fatah keeps things more or less under
control on the West Bank, and all Hamas can do is
periodically lob missiles across the Israeli border or occasionally blow up a
bus, Israel can
easily live with the status quo. Those Israelis who believe that a
two-state solution cannot be achieved feel vindicated; those who simply do not
want two states to coexist are equally well served.
From the current Israeli government’s
perspective, then, the correct strategy is to keep the Palestinian government
on the West Bank weak and off balance, without quite bringing it down, and to
contain Hamas with periodic displays of military power (while destroying
long-range missiles that can do serious damage to Israel).
Israeli policies are not genocidal, as
some commentators, not always free from anti-Semitic animus, like to claim.
Many Palestinians have been killed under Israeli rule, but their number is not
even close to the number of Muslim civilians who are still being tortured,
murdered, and maimed by Muslim governments every day. Israel
is, however, a semi-imperial power, using traditional colonial methods: ruling
by proxy, dividing potential rebels, rewarding obeisance, and punishing opposition.
Colonial history shows that this type
of rule is fragile. Humiliation is not a firm basis for long-term stability.
There comes a point when promises of independence no longer convince anyone.
Fomenting violent resistance by demoralizing those who might still listen to
reason is an invitation to disaster. The chances of a peaceful settlement
vanish. Violence is all that is left.
It is one thing for colonies to blow
up on the other side of the world. It is quite another if the colony is just
next door, and the colonial power is surrounded by countries with limited
sympathy for a mess that is largely of its own making.
巴勒斯坦觀察員國
紐約—巴勒斯坦不再是一個“實體”，而是一個國家——確切地說，是聯合國非成員觀察員國，和梵蒂岡一樣。巴勒斯坦的議案得到了138個成員國的支持（德國、英國和其他39國投了棄權票），只有7個成員國表示反對，馬紹爾群島、帕勞和巴拿馬加入了美國和以色列的反對行列，後兩個國家的孤立愈加深刻了。
以色列總理內塔尼亞胡怒不可遏，他稱巴勒斯坦權力機構主席阿巴斯為騙子，並批准在巴勒斯坦被佔區建設3 000個新猶太新家園。他的外交部長利伯曼（Avigdor
Lieberman）威脅說，如果聯合國舉行投票，以色列將摧毀約旦河西岸的巴勒斯坦權力機構政府。
但以色列才是現狀的罪魁禍首。阿巴斯及其總理法耶茲（Salam Fayyad）比他們之前的各任巴勒斯坦領導人都更加溫和，對與以色列展開嚴肅對話的態度也更開放。巴勒斯坦警察與以色列人展開合作阻止約旦河西岸暴力。巴勒斯坦權力機構的主要關注點是改善經濟，而不是武裝沖突。
但是，通過繼續在巴勒斯坦土地上建設定居點，以色列政府已經讓阿巴斯及其法塔赫政府威信掃地。越來越多的巴勒斯坦人領教了仍被稱為“和平進程”的東西的無能，他們認為法塔赫的死對頭哈馬斯——統治加沙的伊斯蘭運動——更能打破當前僵局。阿巴斯的和平方式讓暴力替代方案變得越來越有吸引力。
哈馬斯也是最近——顯然絕不會是最後一次——軍事打擊的道德勝利方。以色列轟炸加沙和動員軍隊的動作並沒有嚇倒巴勒斯坦人，反倒讓堅持抵抗的哈馬斯披上了一層英雄色彩。在這裡，阿巴斯再一次相形見絀。這就是為何它急切地需要在聯合國的勝利。巴勒斯坦外交地位的提升給了他一線生機。
以色列真的願意看到加沙伊斯蘭暴力重新抬頭、約旦河西岸和平政治遭受崩潰危險、而如今得到承認的巴勒斯坦國有權以戰爭罪將以色列送上國際刑事法庭？若非如此，以色列為什麼如此魯莽？
以色列似乎在重蹈其他人在過去犯過的錯誤。歷史一再証明，對平民的軍事恐嚇並不會讓他們嚇破膽，讓他們反對自己的領袖，不管他們面臨怎樣的體制。相反，共患難通常能夠加強公民與其統治者的聯系。在二戰中遭到轟炸的德國城市是如此﹔越南是如此﹔這一回，加沙也是如此。
但我們可以換一個方式看待局勢。說以色列政府愚鈍顯然不適合。以色列並不幻想巴勒斯坦人會推翻他們自己的領袖。事實上，實力增強的哈馬斯也許正是目前掌權的以色列強硬派所故意培養的。他們可以把矛頭指向暴力的反猶太復國主義者——以及的確存在的激進伊斯蘭教徒的反閃族論調——指出與巴勒斯坦達成協議是不可能的。大棒威脅是唯一能夠讓本地人明白的語言。
讓巴勒斯坦人在伊斯蘭教革命分子和更具商業頭腦的法塔赫之間分裂最符合以色列的目的。只要法塔赫或多或少掌握約旦河西岸的局面，哈馬斯所能做的充其量無非是不定期地向以色列境內射幾枚火箭，或是偶爾引爆幾輛公交車，而以色列可以在現狀中逍遙存活。相信兩國方案無法實現的以色列人自認無責﹔而不願看到兩國共存的以色列人也能滿意。
因此，從當前以色列政府的角度看，正確的策略是維持約旦河西岸的巴勒斯坦政府的弱勢和無序，但不讓它垮台，同時以不定期的武力炫耀遏制哈馬斯（與此同時，要摧毀可能給以色列帶來重大傷亡的長程導彈）。
以色列的政策不是一些評論者所說的大屠殺，也從未擺脫過反閃族敵意。許多巴勒斯坦人死於以色列統治，但其數量遠低於被穆斯林政府虐待、謀殺和致殘穆斯林平民。不過，以色列算得上半帝國主義，它使用的是傳統殖民伎倆：用代理人統治，分裂潛在叛亂者，獎賞合作者，懲罰反對者。
殖民歷史表明，這種類型的統治是脆弱的。羞辱感絕非長期穩定的堅固基石。總有一天，獨立的承諾無法讓任何人相信。通過讓仍相信理性之人泄氣來煽動暴力抵抗不啻制造災難。和平解決的可能由此灰飛煙滅。剩下的唯有暴力一途。
殖民統治在世界另一頭被推翻是一回事。但殖民地就在隔壁、殖民者被對其自己造成的混亂同情有限的國家包圍是完全不同的另一回事。