|
|
以色列在加沙自作自受
此時以色列正轟炸加沙，試圖粉碎哈馬斯，但別忘了，以色列自己也培育了哈馬斯。
當哈馬斯成立於1987年，以色列主要擔心阿拉法特的法塔赫運動，以為一個巴勒斯坦宗教組織將有助於破壞法塔赫。以色列估計所有的穆斯林原教旨主義者全部時間都在清寺祈禱而已，所以以色列打擊法塔赫，放任哈馬斯成長作為反作用力。
我們現在在中東看到的是自作自受綜合症。阿拉伯恐怖主義建立了對以色列右翼政客的支持，右翼政客採取了嚴厲的行動打擊巴勒斯坦人，而巴勒斯坦人回以更多的恐怖主義，等等。一方的極端分子支撐了另一方，從長遠來看，以色列在加沙過度的的地面攻擊很可能會創造更多的恐怖分子。
如果這種模式繼續下去，我們最終可能看到哈馬斯風格的巴勒斯坦人對抗強硬路線的以色列人，每一方都使得對方生活悲慘，而中東的政治溫和派銷聲匿跡 。
去年夏天我訪問了加沙地帶，發現許多巴勒斯坦人非常矛盾，而美國人和以色列人常常不理解這種矛盾。許多加沙人鄙視法塔赫的腐敗無能，他們不喜歡哈馬斯的過激和鎮壓。但是，當他們遭受痛苦和羞辱時，他們很高興看到哈馬斯反擊。
當然，在這種情況下，以色列被深深地激怒了。以色列要求延長與哈馬斯的停火協議，埃及願意調解 -但哈馬斯拒絕了。當以色列遭到哈馬司炮轟，以色列必須做一些事情。
但是，以色列有權做"一些事情"並不意味著它有權利做"任何事情"。根據以色列人權團體的統計，自從2001年哈馬斯開始炮轟以色列，一共有20位以色列平民被殺害。這並不能證明以色列全面地面入侵是正當的，以方的入侵造成了超過660名巴人死亡（現在還很難知道有多少是武裝人員，有多少人是平民） 。
那以色列能合理地做些什麼呢？轟炸加沙走私武器的隧道將是一個適度的反應，如果以色列能到此為止，空襲哈馬斯的某些目標也沒有錯。一個更好的辦法是減輕加沙地帶的圍困，也許創造一種可以使得哈馬斯同意延長停火的環境。這當然值得試一試--不管怎樣都比將產生更多壞結果的動武強。
「這並不能使以色列更強大。」GISHA執行主任Sari Bashi說。GISHA是一個著重加沙問題的以色列人權組織。 「加沙150萬人一直以來承受的創傷將對共存的忍耐有長遠的影響。"
「我的同事在加沙地帶的以色列機構工作。她在學習希伯來語，她是那種能夠與之創建未來的一個人。每次炸彈從空中掉下，她和6歲的侄子，一開始感到害怕，然後說-希望是-也許是哈馬斯在向以色列發射火箭彈。 」
以色列的戰略已經使得普通巴勒斯坦人不再那麼敵視哈馬斯。這就是為什麼，從2007年開始，以色列減少對加沙地帶運送公共事業設備用的燃料，也就是為什麼現在以色列空襲加沙之後，80萬加沙居民缺乏自來水，Bashi女士說。
「以色列對加沙地帶的政策對外宣稱針對哈馬斯，但實際上這是一個針對加沙150萬居民的政策。 」她說。
我們都知道，最合理的解決方法是兩國並存，大致跟美國前總統柯林頓提議的一樣。很難說我們如何能達到該目標，但關鍵的一步是要加強阿巴斯總統和他的巴勒斯坦民族權力機構。
相反，初步報告表明，對加沙的攻擊激起了阿拉伯人對阿巴斯先生和溫和的鄰國比如約旦的憤怒，破壞了和平。
正在加沙的，勇敢的紐約時報同事Taghreed el-Khodary 引述一名在11歲的女兒屍體邊哭泣的37歲的父親的話說： 「從現在起，我是哈馬斯。我選擇反抗。」
奧巴馬很少就加沙的形勢發表看法。首先，鑒於哈馬斯的挑釁，這是可以理解的。但是，隨著地面入侵，更多的生命喪失，他需要跟歐洲領導人一起呼籲一個新的停火協議-在他上任后，他必須提供如世界渴望的，真正的領導才能。
亞倫大衛米勒長期任美國在中東地區的和平談判人員，在他的新書「太樂土(The Much Too Promised Land)」上寫道總統應給予以色列"「愛，但強硬的愛。 」
因此，奧巴馬先生，找到您的聲音。給予以色列強硬的愛。
Op-Ed Columnist
The Gaza Boomerang
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 7, 2009
At a time when Israel is bombing Gaza to try to smash Hamas, it』s worth remembering that Israel itself helped nurture Hamas.
When Hamas was founded in 1987, Israel was mostly concerned with Yasser Arafat』s Fatah movement and figured that a religious Palestinian organization would help undermine Fatah. Israel calculated that all those Muslim fundamentalists would spend their time praying in the mosques, so it cracked down on Fatah and allowed Hamas to rise as a counterforce.
What we』re seeing in the Middle East is the Boomerang Syndrome. Arab terrorism built support for right-wing Israeli politicians, who took harsh actions against Palestinians, who responded with more terrorism, and so on. Extremists on each side sustain the other, and the excessive Israeli ground assault in Gaza is likely to create more terrorists in the long run.
If this pattern continues, we may eventually see Hamas- Palestinians facing off against hard-line Israelis, with each side making the others』 lives wretched — and political moderates in the Middle East politically eviscerated.
I visited Gaza last summer and found many Palestinians ambivalent in a way that Americans and Israelis often don』t appreciate. Many Gazans scorn Fatah as corrupt and incompetent, and they dislike Hamas』s overzealousness and repression. But when they are suffering and humiliated, they find it emotionally satisfying to see Hamas fighting back.
Granted, Israel was profoundly provoked in this case. Israel sought an extension of its cease-fire with Hamas, and Egypt offered to mediate one — but Hamas refused. When it is shelled by its neighbor, Israel has to do something.
But Israel』s right to do something doesn』t mean it has the right to do anything. Since the shelling from Gaza started in 2001, 20 Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets or mortars, according to a tabulation by Israeli human rights groups. That doesn』t justify an all-out ground invasion that has killed more than 660 people (it』s difficult to know how many are militants and how many are civilians).
So what could Israel have reasonably done? Bombing the tunnels through which Gazans smuggle weapons would have been a proportionate response, if Israel had stopped there, and the same is true of airstrikes on certain Hamas targets. An even better approach would have been to ease the siege in Gaza, perhaps creating an environment in which Hamas would have extended the cease-fire. It was certainly worth trying — and almost anything would be better than lashing out in a way that would create more boomerangs.
「This policy is not strengthening Israel,」 notes Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights group that works on Gaza issues. 「The trauma that 1.5 million people have been undergoing in Gaza is going to have long-term effects for our ability to live together.
「My colleague in Gaza works for an Israeli organization. She』s learning Hebrew, and she』s just the kind of person we can build a future with. And her 6-year-old nephew, every time a bomb drops from the air, is at first scared and then says — hopefully — maybe the Qassam Brigades will now fire rockets at the Israelis.」
Israel』s strategy has been to make ordinary Palestinians suffer in hopes of creating ill will toward Hamas. That』s why, beginning in 2007, Israel cut back fuel shipments for Gaza utilities — and why today, in the aftermath of the bombings, 800,000 Gaza residents lack running water, Ms. Bashi said.
「The Israeli policy on Gaza has been marketed as a policy against Hamas, but in reality it』s a policy against a million-and-a-half people in Gaza,」 she said.
We all know that the most plausible solution to the Middle East mess is a two-state solution along the lines that former President Bill Clinton has proposed. It』s difficult to tell how we get there from here, but a crucial step is to strengthen President Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority.
Instead, initial reports are that the assault on Gaza is focusing Arab anger on Mr. Abbas and moderate neighbors like Jordan, undermining the peacemakers.
My courageous Times colleague in Gaza, Taghreed el-Khodary, quoted a 37-year-old father weeping over the corpse of his 11-year-old daughter: 「From now on, I am Hamas. I choose resistance.」
Barack Obama has said relatively little about Gaza. At first, given the provocations by Hamas, that was understandable. But as the ground invasion costs more lives, he needs to join European leaders in calling for a new cease-fire on all sides — and after he assumes the presidency, he must provide real leadership that the world craves.
Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East peace negotiator for the United States, suggests in his excellent new book, 「The Much Too Promised Land,」 that presidents should offer Israel 「love, but tough love.」
So, Mr. Obama, find your voice. Fall in tough love with Israel. |
|
狗仔卡
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色卡
搶沙發
