PALESTINE is no longer an “entity”, but a state — or, to be precise, a non-member observer state of the UN, just like the Holy See. The Palestinian bid received the support of 138 member countries including Ireland (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.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was furious; he called Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas a liar, and gave permission for 3,000 new Jewish homes to be constructed on occupied Palestinian territory. His foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, had already threatened to crush the PA government on the West Bank if the UN vote went ahead.
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 co-operated with the Israelis to contain violence on the West Bank. Improving the economy, rather than violent confrontation, has been the PA’s main concern.
However, 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 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 mobilising 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 recognised Palestinian state to take Israel to the International Criminal Court for war crimes? If not, why are they so clumsy in their approach?
It appears 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 the Second World War; 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 demoralising 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 next door, and the colonial power is surrounded by states with little sympathy for a mess largely of its own making.
* Ian Buruma is a professor of democracy, human rights, and journalism and the author of Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents. Copyright: Project Syndicate