於2009-01-15發佈

美國與世界:以色列的唯一機會
(柯翰默(Charles Krauthammer)作者為美國《華盛頓郵報》專欄作家)
2009.1.6 刊載於蘋果日報 (Chinese on Apple Daily)

某些地緣政治的衝突牽涉到複雜的道德問題,但以色列與加薩的戰爭不然。其道德內涵的清晰程度不僅罕見,且到了令人痛苦的地步。
 
以色列非常謹慎看待平民的性命,不惜犧牲這次攻擊的奇襲效果,事先與「敵方」非戰士接觸,警告他們危險即將來臨。引發這次衝突的哈瑪斯,用無情的火箭砲與迫擊砲攻擊手無寸鐵的以色列人民(過去3年間自加薩發動6464次襲擊),還刻意將武器放置在加薩民眾的家中或附近。

雙方開戰平民受苦
這有兩個目的。首先,哈瑪斯看準以色列對道德的謹慎要求,認為將軍火存放在接近平民之處,可能有助於保護其中至少一部分。其次,哈瑪斯知道以色列擁有新型精準武器,在這種情況下仍能發動攻擊,但哈瑪斯仍冀望無可避免的附帶破壞力能殺害大批自己的人民,好讓以色列受到全球譴責。

對哈瑪斯而言,唯一比猶太人遇害更有價值的事,就是巴勒斯坦人遇害。對於殺害猶太人以及殉教的狂熱,無所不在。哈瑪斯製作的電視兒童節目就乖張至極,讓可愛的巴勒斯坦米奇老鼠動畫角色被一名以色列人痛毆至死(取而代之的是他更好戰的表弟「蜜蜂納胡」,矢言要繼續米奇的殉教之路)。
 
今天在加薩的戰爭,一方拚命要造成雙方更多的平民受苦。另一方則盡可能避免犧牲性命──對象同樣也是雙方平民。

這是一個不斷循環的命題。在2006年的黎巴嫩戰爭中,以色列也在攻擊真主黨前,向黎國南部村民提出類似警告。以色列知道這麼做會使攻擊喪失突襲性質,並賠上己方官兵的性命。

這就是哈瑪斯與以色列的手段不對稱之處。而結果的不對稱也同樣清楚。對於加薩,以色列只有一個目標──和平:也就是它在2005年撤出加薩時所提出的平靜、開放且正常的關係。以色列讓巴勒斯坦人在加薩首度建立擁有主權的領土,這是土耳其、英國、埃及與約旦等巴勒斯坦過去的統治者都未曾做到的。

經常違反停火協定
但接踵而來的是什麼?這可不是古老的歷史。巴勒斯坦人開始建設起國家了嗎?這應該是他們遠大的國族目標啊。沒有。沒有道路,沒有工業,沒有法院,沒有公民社會,完全沒有。以色列留給巴勒斯坦人花繁葉茂的溫室,盡遭毀棄。由伊朗支持的加薩統治者,傾一切資源將加薩變成一個恐怖活動基地──引進武器、訓練恐怖份子、興建隧道以綁架另一端的以色列人。當然還有不停歇地發射火箭砲。

怨憤不滿?對象不可能是以色列的佔領、軍事控制或屯墾區居民,這些都已在2005年9月撤出加薩了。現在只有一個不滿的對象,且哈瑪斯對此毫不隱晦,那就是以色列的存在。

哈瑪斯拒絕延長其經常違反的6個月停火協定(其間火箭砲攻擊從未停止,只是頻率減少),給以色列一個難得的機會,建立其3年前就應堅持的規範:沒有火箭砲攻擊、沒有迫擊砲、沒有綁架、沒有戰爭行為。就如美國政府正式表述的:可以忍受的長久停火狀態。

如果這次戰爭結束,卻沒有達成上述結果,以色列將再成輸家。它已無法再承擔輸掉戰爭的後果了。

(來源:全國禱告網絡)

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101780.html
Moral Clarity in Gaza
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 2, 2009; A15
 
Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.
-- Associated Press, Dec. 27
 
Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
 
Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the past three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.
This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel , Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel .
 
For Hamas, the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians. The religion of Jew-murder and self-martyrdom is ubiquitous. And deeply perverse, such as the Hamas TV children's program in which an adorable live-action Palestinian Mickey Mouse is beaten to death by an Israeli (then replaced by his more militant cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who vows to continue on Mickey's path to martyrdom).
 
At war today in Gaza , one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible -- also on both sides. It's a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.
 
That is the asymmetry of means between Hamas and Israel . But there is equal clarity regarding the asymmetry of ends. Israel has but a single objective in Gaza -- peace: the calm, open, normal relations it offered Gaza when it withdrew in 2005. Doing something never done by the Turkish, British, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers of Palestine , the Israelis gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza .
 
What ensued? This is not ancient history. Did the Palestinians begin building the state that is supposedly their great national aim? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza 's Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base -- importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.
 
The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There's only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel 's very existence.
Nor does Hamas conceal its strategy. Provoke conflict. Wait for the inevitable civilian casualties. Bring down the world's opprobrium on Israel . Force it into an untenable cease-fire -- exactly as happened in Lebanon . Then, as in Lebanon , rearm, rebuild and mobilize for the next round. Perpetual war. Since its raison d'etre is the eradication of Israel , there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel .
 
Israel's only response is to try to do what it failed to do after the Gaza withdrawal. The unpardonable strategic error of its architect, Ariel Sharon, was not the withdrawal itself but the failure to immediately establish a deterrence regime under which no violence would be tolerated after the removal of any and all Israeli presence -- the ostensible justification for previous Palestinian attacks. Instead, Israel allowed unceasing rocket fire, implicitly acquiescing to a state of active war and indiscriminate terror.
 
Hamas's rejection of an extension of its often-violated six-month cease-fire (during which the rockets never stopped, just were less frequent) gave Israel a rare opportunity to establish the norm it should have insisted upon three years ago: no rockets, no mortar fire, no kidnapping, no acts of war. As the U.S. government has officially stated: a sustainable and enduring cease-fire. If this fighting ends with anything less than that, Israel will have lost yet another war. The question is whether Israel still retains the nerve -- and the moral self-assurance -- to win.
[email protected]
View all comments that have been posted about this article.