字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2010/05/19 15:22:32瀏覽703｜回應0｜推薦3 | |
| 2009年1月22日歐巴馬在國務院對美國的外交政策，發表上任後第一個演講。演講的全部內容文字，可 見華盛頓郵報(Washionton Post)，或者可在Democracy Now看到視訊，以及喬姆斯基的訪談。這裡摘錄有關巴勒斯坦的部 份。 President Obama Delivers Remarks to State Department Employees CQ Transcriptions Thursday, January 22, 2009 4:03 PM JANUARY 22, 2009 Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats. 我要明確指出：美國致力於維護以色列的安全。我們將 一向支持以色列有權保衛自己，對抗實質的威脅。 For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror. 多年來，哈馬斯以火箭射向數以千計的無辜 的以色列 公民。沒有一個民主國家，能夠容忍其人民暴露在這樣的危險中，國際社會也不應該姑息。巴勒斯坦 人民自己也不應該，恐怖行動只會損害其利益。 To be a genuine party to peace, the quartet has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements. 要成為一個真正的和平夥 伴，四國已清楚表明，哈馬斯 必須明確符合下列條件：承認以色列的生存權，放棄暴力和遵守過去的協議。 Going forward, the outline for a durable cease-fire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm. 展 望未來，一個持久的停火，其大致條件是明確的：哈馬斯必須 終止發射火箭，以色列將其部隊完全撤出迦薩; 美國和我們的合作夥伴將支持可信的反走私與攔截機制，使哈馬斯不能重新武裝。 Yesterday I spoke to President Mubarak and expressed my appreciation for the important role that Egypt played in achieving a cease-fire. And we look forward to Egypt's continued leadership and partnership in laying a foundation for a broader peace through a commitment to end smuggling from within its borders. 昨天我向穆巴拉克總統，對埃及在達成停火所起的重要作用，表示我的感謝 。而我們期待埃及持續領導與合作，為奠定一個更廣泛的和平的基礎，杜絕從在其邊界內的走私活動 。 Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians. 現在，正如無辜的以色 列人所承受的火箭襲擊之恐怖是不能容忍的，同樣的，一個對未來沒有希望的巴勒斯坦人也是。 OBAMA: I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long. 奧巴馬：我深為關切在最近幾天，巴勒斯坦和以色列所失去的生命，與迦薩所承 受的大量的苦難及人道主需求。我們關心那些立即需要食品，潔淨水和基本醫療服務的巴勒斯坦平民 ，他們過去面對令人窒息的貧窮的時間太長了。 Now we must extend a hand of opportunity to those who seek peace. As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating. 現 在我們必須為那些尋求和平的人，伸出機會之手。作為持久停火的一部分，在一個適當的監督 制度之下，加沙的邊境關口應該開放，以利救援和貿易物資流動，並讓國際和巴勒斯坦民族權力機構參與。 Relief efforts must be able to reach innocent Palestinians who depend on them. The United States will fully support an international donor's conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy. This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority. 救濟工作必須能夠到達賴以維生的無辜的巴勒斯坦人。美國將全力支持國際捐 助者的 會議，以尋求短期人道援助與重建巴勒斯坦的經濟的長期工作。這項援助將經由巴勒斯坦民族權力機構提供與指導。 Lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire, and that's why I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security. 持久和平比長時間停火需要更多條件，這就是為什麼我 將持續積極致力於尋求兩個國家和平與安全地並肩共存。 Senator Mitchell will carry forward this commitment, as well as the effort to help Israel reach a broader peace with the Arab world that recognizes its rightful place in the community of nations. 參議員米切爾將發揚這一承諾，進而幫助以色列 建立與阿拉伯世界間，一個更廣泛的和平，讓後者承認其在國際社會裡應有的地位。 I should add that the Arab peace initiative contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all. 我要補充說，阿拉伯和平議倡倡議包含建設性 元素，可以幫助推動這些工作。現在是阿拉伯國家行動的時候了，根據這一倡議的承諾，支持總統阿巴斯與總理法耶茲所 領導 的巴勒斯坦自治政府，採取步驟，將與以色列的關係正常化，並且起而反抗威脅我們全體的極端主義。 Jordan's constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel provide a model for these efforts. And going forward, we must make it clear to all countries in the region that external support for terrorist organizations must stop. 為此，約旦是一個模範：它為巴勒斯坦安全部隊的訓練 和培養與以色列的關係，擔任建設性的腳色。 而展望未來，我們必須清楚地向該地區所有國家表明， 對恐怖組織的外部支援必須停止。 Another urgent threat to global security is the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism. There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation. 另一 個對於全球安全的緊迫威脅乃是阿富汗與巴基斯坦兩國惡化的形勢。這是我們對抗恐怖主義與極端主義持久奮鬥的中央前線。在那裡如同在中東一樣，我們必須了解 我們無法孤立的處理我們的問題。 Obama on Israel-Palestine By Noam Chomsky 歐巴馬談以色列與巴勒斯坦 作者：諾姆 喬姆斯基(杭士基) Sunday, March 01, 2009 Z magazine Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously—both what he says and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace. 奧巴馬被公認是一個極聰明的人，一個法律學者，他仔細選擇他的用字。他理應受到重視----他說的，與他沒說的東西。尤其重要的，是在1月22日國務院，任命喬治米切爾擔任他的中東和平特使得時候，他發表的第一個實質性的外交聲明。 Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine "problem" in the wake of the recent U.S.-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president—a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that, "If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by U.S. arms, about whom he could not speak because there was only one president. 米切爾的焦點將擺在美國-以色列入侵迦薩(Gaza)之後，以色列與巴勒斯坦的”問題”。在這殺戮地攻擊進行的時候，歐巴馬除了些陳辭爛調之外，保持沉默，因為他說，只有一個總統----只不過他並沒有因此停止對其他許多議題的發言。但他的競選總部重複了他的聲明，說”假如飛彈朝我兩個女兒的臥室裡掉下來，我一定會竭盡可能地阻止。” 他指的是以色列的兒童，而不是巴勒斯坦的兒童，後者被美國製造的武器屠殺，但只因為美國總統不是他，所以他不能說三道四。 On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters, avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration. 然而，一月22日，美國總統是歐巴馬，所以他能自由地講講這些事情，然而他卻避而不談迦薩的攻擊。後者很巧妙地在他就職前幾天停止。 Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "The Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all." Obama was not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit was instructive. 歐巴馬的演講強調他致力於和平解決的。他含糊其辭，除了一個具體的擬議之外：阿拉伯和平議倡議倡。毆巴馬說，”它包含了建設性的元素，有助於和平的努力。“現在是阿拉伯國家行動的時候了，根據這一倡議的承諾，支持總統阿巴斯(Abbas )與總理法耶茲(Fayyad) 所領導的巴勒斯坦自治政府，採取步驟，將與以色列的關係正常化，並且起而反抗威脅我們全體的極端主義”。 歐巴馬並沒有直接偽 造阿拉伯聯盟的提議， 但他所細心架設的騙局卻有啓發性。 The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel in the context—repeat, in the context—of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the U.S. and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from U.S. rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the U.S. ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism. 阿拉伯聯盟的和平建議確實呼籲與以 色列實現關係正常化，這個正常化是在作為國際間長期共識的兩國制和解方案(two-state settlement)的脈絡中--重複，在這個脈絡中實現的。美國與以色列孤立於這個共識之外，長期的抵制它，而且仍然反對它。阿拉 伯聯盟的建議的核心在於--奧巴馬和他的 中東問題顧問非常清楚地知道--它呼籲基於兩國制的和平的政治解決。這是眾所周知的，並被確認為和平解決的唯一的依據。而和平解決，正是奧巴馬宣稱所承諾的目標。遺漏了這一關鍵的事實幾乎不可能是偶然的，而且它是明確的信號：奧巴馬並不打算偏離美國的拒絕主義。他呼籲阿拉伯國家依據他們所建議的推論行事，但美國卻無視於這些推論的先決條件，換句話說，忽視建議的中心主張的存在，這超過犬儒所嘲諷的。 The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily U.S.-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called "Bantustans" for Palestinians—an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's conception, now being realized. But the U.S. and Israel continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the U.S. and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (passed 173 to 5, U.S.-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts). 挖兩國制和解牆角的最顯著的做法，就是由美國所支持，無日不為，公認的罪行：強取豪奪有利用價值的土地與資源，與興建造計畫的首席建築師夏隆(Ariel Sharon)所稱的巴勒斯坦的“班圖斯坦(Bantustan)“--這個比擬並不公平，因為班圖斯坦遠比夏隆構想中留給巴勒斯坦人的碎片更能獨立生存。夏隆的計畫現在逐步實現了。但美國與以色列繼續在文字上反對政治解決，最近的一次是在 2008年12月，美國，以色列與幾個太平洋島國投票反對一個UN決議，決議中支持巴勒斯坦人自決的權利（以173對5票通過，美國予以色列以若干藉口逃脫）。 Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security." 歐巴馬對於以下的事物不置一詞：殖民與基礎建設，與被設計用來削弱兩國制和平解決希望的種種控制巴勒斯坦人生存的複雜手段。他的沈默陰沈的否定了自己的堂皇修辭：“我會持續積極的獻身於追求兩個國家安全、和平的並肩共存“。 Also unmentioned is Israel's use of U.S. arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international, but also U.S. law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the U.S.-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers. 同樣沒講的是，以色列在迦薩使用美國製造的軍火，這不僅違反了國際法，也違反了美國的法律。另外，華盛頓在美國-以色列的攻擊行動顛峰時期，將一批新的軍火運到以色列。當然歐巴馬的中東問題顧問們不會不知道。 Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleezza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed—a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance. The Financial Times observed: "As they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else's border—Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as 'fictional'." Egypt's objections were ignored. 然而，歐巴馬卻堅定的表示，必須停止走私武器到迦薩。他支持萊斯(Condoleezza Rice) 與 以色列外交部長 立夫尼(Tzipi Livn) 的協議，埃及-迦薩的邊界必須予以封閉--帝國傲慢的毫不掩飾的展現。倫敦金融時報做了如下的觀察：當他們站在華盛頓哪兒互相道賀的時候，兩個人都忘了一件事實：他們所作的的協定是有關於別人的邊界上的非法交易--這次是埃及。隔一天，埃及官員以“虛構“描述這個協議。沒人在意埃及的反對。 Returning to Obama's reference to the "constructive" Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 Palestinian election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the U.S. and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas's term ran out on January 9 and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha'aretz describes Fayyad as "a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank." The report also notes Fayyad's "close relationship with the Israeli establishment," notably his friendship with Sharon's extremist adviser Dov Weisglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, the latter attributes not the norm in the U.S.-backed political sectors. Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control. 讓我們回到歐巴馬所稱的”建設性的阿拉伯聯盟和平倡議，由他的用詞顯示，歐巴馬持續的只支持2006年一月選舉中失敗的黨。那次選舉是阿拉伯世界唯一的自由選舉，對於巴勒斯坦人違抗主子的意志，美國，以色列立即與公開的反應是，施與嚴厲的懲罰。一個次要的技術細節是，阿巴斯的的任期在一月9日結束，法耶茲沒有在巴勒斯坦議會的同意之下被認命（許多的議員被一色列綁架，關在以色列牢裡）。Ha’aretz 描述Fayyad是巴勒斯坦政治裡一個“怪鳥“。他是最受到以色列與西方推崇的巴勒斯坦政客。 然而另一方面，他在西岸或者迦薩毫無號召選民的力量。那篇報導也留意到Fayyad與以色列權貴之間的密切關係，其中以他與夏隆的極端派的顧問魏斯格拉斯(Dov Weisglass)的友誼。雖然缺乏群眾支持，他被視為稱職而且誠實的，而後者屬性，不是美國所支持的政治集團的常態。歐巴馬堅持只有阿巴斯與法耶茲存在的態度，符合西方一慣的對於民主的蔑視，除非它受到控制。 Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the quartet [U.S., EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements." Unmentioned, as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the U.S. and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet's central proposal, the "road map." Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the U.S.). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time—and in the mainstream, the only time. 為甚麼要忽視哈瑪斯所領導的當選政府，歐巴馬提供了常見的理由。他宣稱，“要成為一個和平真誠的夥伴，四國（美，歐盟，俄，聯合國）已清楚表明，哈馬斯必須符合幾個明確的條件：承認以色列存在的權利，聲明放棄暴力，遵守過往的協議“。一如往常不提的尷尬事實是，美國與以色列堅拒這三個同樣的條件。孤立於國際共識之中，他們橫阻包含一個巴勒斯坦國的兩國制和解方案；他們當然不會聲明放棄暴力；而且，他們拒絕四國的主要提議，“the road map”`。以色列曾形式上的接受它，但提出14點保留意見，有效的挖空它的實質內容（美國默然地支持）。吉米卡特的書【沒有種族隔離的和平】的一大優點就是把這些事實第一次帶給大眾知曉--在主流媒體上，唯一的一次。 It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the U.S. nor Israel is a "genuine party to peace." But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language. 由最簡單的推理可得，美國與以色列都不是和平的真正夥伴。但這是不可能的，這甚至不是一個英文句子。 It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution. Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas as a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the U.S.-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly. 也許為此進一步的虛偽做法去批評歐巴馬是不公平的，因為它幾乎是普遍的，不像他謹慎的將阿拉伯聯盟的和平提案的核心元件挖除，那是他自己的新貢獻。同樣幾乎普遍的是稱哈馬斯是以消滅以色列（也許所有的猶太人）為志業的恐怖組織的標準說法，沒講的是以下這個尷尬的事實：美國與以色列不僅獻身於消滅任何可獨立生存的巴勒斯坦國家，而且堅定不移的實現這些計畫。或者不像這兩個拒絕主義的國家，哈馬斯公開的、重複的、明確的要求實現依照國際共識的兩國制和解方案。 Obama began his remarks by saying: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with U.S. support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm. Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliché is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit. 歐巴馬以“讓我明講，美國允諾擔保以色列的安全。而且我們將一如既往的支持以色列對抗真實的威脅的自衛權利“作為開場白。 歐巴馬對於巴勒斯坦人所面對更甚極端的威脅的自衛權利，甚麼也沒提，這些威脅可是每天在佔領區內發生，而且是由美國撐腰的。然而，這種沈默是常態。同樣常態的是，公開宣稱以色列有自我防衛的權利。這是正確但空洞的宣示：每個國家都有此權利。但從宣示的情境來觀察，這個陳腐的宣示比空洞還糟，它更甚於偽善的欺騙。 The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force. It is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are. 問題不是以色列與其他國一樣，是否有自衛的權利，而是它是否有權訴諸武力。沒有人，包括歐巴馬，相信國家享有武裝自衛的廣泛權利。首先， 必須要說明不存在可行的和平解決替代辦法。 而在本例中，顯然存在。 A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a ceasefire, for example, the ceasefire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the U.S. and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out "the wrong way." There are many other highly relevant cases. 對以色列來說，一個有限的選擇就是遵守停火協議，例如哈馬斯政治領袖 Khaled Mishal 在以色列於（2008）12月27日發動攻擊前幾天所提議的。Mishal 公開呼籲2005年的協議。那個協議要求終止暴力與持續不斷地開放邊界，並且以色列保證貨物與人員能在兩個巴勒斯坦佔領區（西岸與迦薩）之間自由移動。幾個月後在2006年1月的自由選舉產生“錯誤“的結果之後，美國、以色列拒絕了它。有幾個其它相關的例子。 The broader and more significant alternative would be for the U.S. and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism and join the rest of the world—including the Arab states and Hamas—in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from U.S.-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of U.S. policy, if he were interested in doing so. 一個更寬廣與重要的替代方案，就是美國與以色列放棄他們極端的rejectionism 並且加入這世界所有其它人--包括阿拉伯國家與哈馬斯--依循國際共識，支持兩國制和解方案。我們該注意，過去30年美國--以色列曾有一次脫離 rejectionism：當2001年的Taba會談似乎接近一個和平決議的時候，以色列提前取消會議。因而，若是歐巴馬有興趣，則甚至在美國的政策架構之內， 同意讓美國加入全世界也不會顯得突兀。 In short, Obama's forceful reiteration of Israel's right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit—though, it must be admitted, not unique to him. 簡而言之，歐巴馬強力重申以色列自我防衛的權利是另一個偽善欺騙的操作--雖然我們必須承認，這不是他所獨有。 The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell's primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell's mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional U.S. rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms. 在這種情況下，他的欺騙是特別引人注目，因為 這個日子是任命米切爾為特使。米切爾的主要成就是他在北愛爾蘭和平協議裡的領導腳色。協議呼籲結束英國的暴力與愛爾蘭共和軍的恐怖活動。協議默認，儘管英國有權利 保衛自己不受恐怖攻擊，它沒有權利以武力反擊，因為存在和平的選項：認知爾蘭天主教社區的委屈不平是真實的，而且是愛爾蘭共和軍恐怖活動的根源。當英國採用了這一明智的做法，恐怖結束。對於米切爾就以色列和巴勒 斯坦的使命，其義涵是太明顯了，不待說明。它 們被遺漏，在一次醒目的顯示：除了最極端的條件外，奧巴馬政府仍然獻身於美國傳統的對和平的排拒與反對。 Obama also praised Jordan for its "constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel"—which contrasts strikingly with U.S.-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment's scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the U.S. in arming and training Palestinian security forces so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of the U.S.-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants "were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally," according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy. 奧巴馬還讚揚約旦為“巴勒斯坦安全部隊的訓練 和培養與以色列的關係，擔任建設性的腳色”，與之顯著的對比是：美國和以色列拒絕應對自由選舉產生的巴勒斯坦民族權力機構， 同時以上述不堪一擊的藉口，野蠻懲罰巴勒斯坦人作如是的選擇。誠然，約旦加入美國武裝並 且培訓一支巴勒斯坦安全部隊，使他們能暴力鎮壓任何對美-以迦薩攻擊之悲慘受害者表達支持的集會，並且逮捕了哈馬斯的支持者和著名記者哈立德 Amayreh，同時組織他們自己的遊行集會，支持阿巴斯和法塔赫，根據耶路撒冷郵報，其中大多數參與者是“是巴勒斯坦民族權力機構指示下參加的公務員和 學生。這就是我們要的民主。 Obama made one further substantive comment: "As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime...." He did not, of course, mention that the U.S.-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders. 奧巴馬做了個進一步的重要的評論：“作為持續 性停火的一部分，迦薩的邊境關口應該開放，在適當的監察制度下，允許救援物資和貿易的流動...."他當然不會提到，美以兩國早在2006年1月選 舉之後拒絕很多這樣的協議，而且之後類似的邊界協定。以色列從來沒有遵守過。 Also missing is any reaction to Israel's announcement that it rejected the ceasefire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be "lasting" are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, "Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn't let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit" (AP, January 22); "Israel to keep Gaza crossings closed.... An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006" (Financial Times, January 23); "Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit's release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007" (Christian Science Monitor, January 23); "an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit" (FT, January 23); among many others. 同樣的，他對以色列宣布拒絕停火協議毫無反應， 所以它會持續的希望不容樂觀。根據報導，“參與安全事務討論的以色列內閣部長 本雅明本埃利澤，在週四告訴軍方電台說，以色列不會重新開放迦薩邊境關口，除非[吉拉德] 沙利特(Schalit)” 獲釋 （美聯社 1月22日）。“以色列對加沙地帶的過境點保持封閉 ....一位官員說，政府計劃利用這一問題進行討價還價 作為釋放沙利特的籌碼，他是伊斯蘭組織從2006年起扣押的以色列士兵“（ 金融時報 1月23日）；”本星期早些時候，以色列外長利夫尼說，沙利特下士的釋放問題的進展，將是開放邊境關口的一個先決條件。自從哈馬斯在2007年，從西岸的 巴勒斯坦機構(PA)奪取了對迦薩的控制權後，這些關口大部分已封閉”（ 基督教科學箴言報 ，1月23日），”一名以色列官員說解除封鎖會有苛刻的條件的，他指出與釋放沙利特相關“（ 金融時報 1月23日）;等等。 Shalit's capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas's criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that the capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel's prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel's regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a ceasefire. 在西方沙利特的被捕是一個顯著的議題，再次說 明了哈馬斯的罪行。無論我們怎麼想，毫無爭議，捕獲來犯軍隊的士 兵，其罪遠不及綁架平民，以色列軍隊也正是在沙利特被補的前一天，入侵迦薩城和綁架兩兄弟，然後將他們越過邊境偷偷帶走，他們消失在以色列的監獄系統中， 不知去向。不同於沙利特案，這一罪行幾乎沒被報導，並已被 人遺忘，同被遺忘的是，以色列幾十年來的慣常做法：在黎巴嫩和公海上綁架平民，遣送他們到以色列監獄，經常關押多年，作為人質。但是，沙利特被補卻不讓他們停火(譯注，開放邊 境是停火協定的一個條件)。 Obama's State Department talk about the Middle East continued with "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan...the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." A few hours later, U.S. planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. "Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council" (LA Times, January 24). 歐巴馬在國務院有關中東的談話，續以“不斷 惡化的阿富汗和巴基斯坦局勢...我們打擊恐怖主義和極端主義的持久鬥爭的中央前線。”幾個小時後，美軍飛機襲擊 了阿富汗的偏遠村莊，企圖殺死一名塔利班指揮官。“然而，該村落長老告訴省 級官員，在該地區有沒有塔利班，他們形容小村莊人口主要是牧羊人。他們說，根據該省議會議長Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai，22人死亡，其中有婦女和兒童“（ 洛杉磯時報 1月24日）。 Afghan president Karzai's first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai's call for a timetable for departure of U.S. and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their "responsibilities." Among them, the New York Times reported, is to "provide security" in southern Afghanistan, where "the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining." All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example. 奧巴馬11月當選後，阿富 汗總統卡爾扎伊傳給他的第一個消息是，呼籲結束轟炸阿富汗平民，並於奧巴馬宣誓就職前幾個小時前再次重申，這被認為是意義重大，因為卡爾扎伊呼籲建立美國和 其他外國部隊離開的時間表。根據紐約時報報導，富國和強國，得負他們的“責任”， 包括在阿富汗南部“提供安全”，這裡的“叛亂是本土的和自我維持的”。聽來很耳熟。例如，像是上世紀80年代真理報 (蘇聯的國家報紙) 。 |
|
| ( 時事評論｜國際 ) |
