制度是演变出来的，以色列的困境对中文世界的警示

2023年10月7日，哈马斯突袭，数周以后以色列展开血腥报复。

随着巴以矛盾骤然白热化，美国通过促成阿以各国签署亚伯拉罕协议，构建中东和平框架的意图被完全破局。

以军残酷报复，激起西方公众尤其是进步派全面反弹，逆转部分民意，对英美政局乃至美国2024年大选将产生深远影响。

美国公众检讨几十年对以色列一边倒的中东政策，倒逼美国外交政策冷战以后最重要的反思与调整。

这一事件也打开一扇意外的的窗口，一窥中国自由派群体对制度形成的理解，对国际历史政治的把握，以及价值理念的取舍。

中国自由派对加沙事件和以色列的评论大致分两派：

1. 压倒多数的中国自由派学者和意见领袖，忠实复述着以色列哈斯巴拉官宣75年来营造维护的语境。比较典型的有
   1. 2023年10月9日上传的秦晖的《巴（阿）以问题的由来^附录1》。 
   2. 江棋生先生发表于民主中国网站《江棋生：哈以战争给我带来的新认知^附录2》其陈述和和以色列新史学为代表的揭示的历史南辕北辙。
2. 极少数学者对于此类观点提出异议，比如
   1. 英国金融时报中文版刊登的暨南大学文学院姚新勇教授《就教于秦晖老师：无瑕的以色列，不存在的巴勒斯坦？^附录3》
   2. 王明远《论张平、秦晖二教授关于巴以问题的若干基本史实错误^附录4》

2023年中国自由派集体站队以色列哈斯巴拉官宣，和2020年大选集体站队川普与玛噶运动，其认知基础深刻同源。

本文将从以下三方面进一步讨论：

1. 演化而非预置：良制形成的路径；
2. 哈斯巴拉官宣，远离事实的共识：中文圈对以色列的普遍认知；
3. 纠错搁浅，以色列的制度困境。

一. 演化而非预置：良制形成的路径

中文世界对于制度的重要性有着高度的共识：无论中共和海外反对派都赞同良好的制度是国家健康成长的关键。

同时，对于制度形成与根本特征，自由派，传统士大夫还是中共的也颇具共识。各派都认为制度的根本特征就是其稳定性。稳定性则来自深思熟虑的预先设置和日后不断充实。按中共话语：制度建设是为了使之稳定而持久，“制度是用来执行的”。

中共与海外反对派的分歧仅仅在于选定什么制度和谁来确定其预先设置。

在中国自由派看来，美国之所以伟大，以色列之所以可爱，是因为他们从一开始就选择了正确的道路，引进了正确的制度，并有一批不世之选的精英人物作了聪明绝顶的预先设置。

将这一认知框架套用于以色列，辅之以中文圈普遍认同的源于欧洲中心主义（Eurocentrism)的先进战胜落后文明的结论，就自然与哈斯巴拉(Hasbara)长期营造的官宣心有灵犀，一点就通：

以色列是美国和西方建立在中东的一个文明桥头堡。代表西方把中东引进现代政治文明的的火车头。作为纳粹大屠杀的幸存者，生于忧患，而又聪明绝顶的尤太人，当然是正义与文明的化身。与之相对的伊斯兰世界，自然而然成为保守落后恐怖，破坏世界秩序的象征。

基于这种预置的，相对静态的制度观，中文自由派排斥抵制西方进步派也就很好理解。

既然良制是预置的和相对静止的，因此不断推动制度演化的西方进步派，当然就是瓦解颠覆良制，把西方文明引入歧途的破坏力量：

1. 1. 在2020美国大选中，西方进步派推动美国内政外交大转向。这些转向包括选举制度改革，文化多元化，终结里根时代开启的涓滴经济（Trickle Down Economy)等。如果落实，将根本上对美国政治制度来一次重新设置。因此，进步派被中文圈解读为篡改国父天才设计，违背国父初心的“解构”势力。而竭力阻挡这一变化的玛噶党，川普，却被中国自由派认同为美国宪政传统的捍卫者；
   2. 在加沙事变以后，西方进步派再一次推动美国外交大转向，推动美国反思对以色列一边倒的支持，推动重新认识伊斯兰世界。如果落实，将根本逆转美国的中东政策，乃至全球外交。又被中文自由圈解读为偏离支持中东民主灯塔的正确方向，与“顽固抗拒现代文明制度”的“极端伊斯兰恐怖主义势力”“神权势力”同流合污的宪政颠覆势力。

但是群情激愤，以捍卫美国和西方文明为己任的中文自由圈，却没有多少人意识到，不仅被秦晖教授推广的以色列官方叙事，早已是被反复确认的伪史。而且美国宪政和以色列建国以来的演变，证明良制形成过程与他们认知迥异：

良好的制度不是人为设计，而是动态演化的结果。自由博弈是演化的动力，不断纠错是演化的结果。

所有被确立的制度都会在日后，因为参与者的博弈，在局部发生根本性的修正。古今中外皆然。而后世通过博弈进行的修改，正是制度最重要的内容。

以中国唐朝为例，武则天以周代唐，对制度进行大幅度修正。虽然后来唐室复辟，但武则天引入的变化大多被保留。唐玄宗体制与其说是初唐制度的继承，不如说是武则天制度的延续。这种变化背后就是中原寒门势力与日渐式微的士族之间长期的博弈较量。中文所说的”制度走样“，实际上反映的就是参与方通过博弈，不断修改制度的过程。

制度的演化，可以是良性纠错，也可以是恶性蜕变。

• 制度演化良性纠错：南非废除种族隔离，英美在19世纪先后废除奴隶制，女性投票权放开，女性参选，美国取消南方种族隔离，等等；
• 制度演化恶性蜕变：中国宋朝削弱相权，明朝废相，确立宦官干政的体制，建立锦衣卫东厂西厂，1927年在南京建立的中华民国建立苏式特务系统军统和中统，以色列对过了30年密期已经解密的历史档案重新加密封存，阻挠公民进行DNA检测，立法制定大量针对阿拉伯公民的歧视性法律等等；

因为制度本身会被不断修正，产生颠覆性的新内容，而人类不具备为未来预定正确道路的能力，因此要确保制度沿着良性的方向演化，就不能在博弈过程预设某一方正确，更不能让被认定为正确的一方掌握控制博弈过程。

要防止博弈导致恶性蜕变，就要为其注入道义元素，同时有序扩大博弈参与面，确保博弈过程公平公正公开，让参与各方在力量消长中有序地将不合理的政策，法律，政治程序推倒重来。这才是法治确保宪政纠错机制发挥作用的根本。承担这个功能的正是西方进步派。

年轻世代聚集的进步派，基于正义，要求权利平等，过程公平，推动扩大参与面，坚持基于人道的博弈诉求，确保博弈注入道义元素，是推动宪政不断纠错的强大动力。

二，哈斯巴拉官宣，远离事实的共识：中文圈对以色列的普遍认知

风靡中文知识精英的哈斯巴拉(Hasbara)官宣为何被视为伪史在“想当然炒冷饭”一文，以及1995年，新史学代表人物阿维施莱姆教授的《关于1948年的争论》^附录5对于此类以色列官宣的批驳，已经详细解释。对该话题有兴趣的朋友可以进一步了解的读者可以参照此前博文，以及博文附录。中国自由圈的认知落伍脱节，不仅在于冲突起源，更在于其75年演变。江棋生《新认知》一文可为样本。全盘接受以色列哈斯巴拉官宣中文圈的中文圈普遍认为：

第一，巴以冲突来自于伊斯兰对现代国际秩序的抗拒。以色列是中东民主灯塔，伊斯兰是抗拒文明，落后恐怖的堡垒。 

“亡以之心不死”的阿拉伯世界，继1948年发动第一次阿以战争，妄图扼杀新生的民主国家之后，处心积虑，屡屡挑起战争。遭到迎头痛击以后，转而纵容扶持哈马斯极端主义上台。“ （江团委墙报风格脑补原文）

经过人民共和国政治课长期严格训练，对其阶级论，进步论，欧洲中心主义烂熟于心，随时跃跃欲试舞弄一番，又拾了《文明冲突论》的牙慧，而且从来不认真读书，只是严格“自律”，通过背诵考试大纲，复习资料脱颖而出的中文圈小镇做题家们想当然认定，阿拉伯国家这样做，从文明冲突的源头上讲，植根于中东几千年宗教民族冲突错综复杂这一历史现实云云。

第二，中东和平进程难产，巴勒斯坦人民流离失所，罪魁祸首当然就是阿拉伯国家，尤其是巴勒斯坦地区包藏的恐怖主义。以色列忍辱负重，任重道远。而伊斯兰不除，不仅中东转型无望，而且将溢出到全世界，给人类文明带来灭顶之灾。

对比历史，我们来仔细看一下这有多么离谱：

首先，和中文圈普遍认同的阿拉伯人跟尤太人千年矛盾，错综复杂相反，伊斯兰地区是中世纪乃至十九世纪，尤太人逃避欧洲基督教世界的避难所。

1917年英国贝尔福宣言推出以前，阿拉伯人和尤太人在这一地区的关系总体融洽。

其次，引爆阿拉伯人和尤太人尖锐冲突的，并非所谓宗教冲突，更不是什么伊斯兰世界抗拒民主，而是1917年英国基于自身帝国利益推出《贝尔福宣言》，大量向巴勒斯坦移入欧洲犹太移民，让诞生于欧洲的尤太复国主义把巴勒斯坦变成其定居者殖民地(Settler Colony) 建国基地。

以色列右翼历史学家本尼莫里斯在他的专著《正义的受害者》^附录6中，这样写道：

[新来的尤太定居者]每天都与周围的阿拉伯环境接触，因为他们依靠邻近村庄提供食物和肥料、季节工和警卫，以及运输和销售他们的产品。哈代拉（Hadera）、米什马尔-哈亚登（Mishmar HaYarden）和梅图拉（Metulla）的新定居者从阿拉伯邻居或工人那里接受了一些农业培训。一些定居点依赖附近村庄的供水，如 1880 年代中期，盖德拉从卡特拉取水。阿拉伯妇女用头上顶着的水壶给梅图拉送水。尤太人和阿拉伯人的田地相邻，这意味着几乎每天都要与农民接触，其中一些人曾一度租用属于定居点的田地。

…

在整个 1882-1914 年期间，紧张局势和暴力事件的主要原因并不是意外、误解或双方的态度和行为，而是客观的历史条件以及双方利益和目标的冲突。阿拉伯人本能地寻求保留该地区的阿拉伯和穆斯林特征，并维护其作为合法居民的地位；犹太复国主义者则从根本上寻求改变现状，购买尽可能多的土地，在这些土地上定居，并最终将一个阿拉伯人居住的国家变成犹太人的家园。（译自本尼莫里斯《正义的受害者》^附录6）

莫里斯赞不仅同种族清洗^附录7，而且支持尤太复国主义，宣扬伊斯兰的信仰是阿以矛盾之源^附录8，并且不遗余力地宣扬阿拉伯人和穆斯林是以色列境内的是第五纵队^附录9。而他的描述表明，阿拉伯和尤太人矛盾激化，与宗教没有什么关系。以色列建国过程中执行的残酷的种族清洗才是以色列阿拉伯和尤太人矛盾的根源，不仅是以色列新历史学家的共识，甚至许多亲政府，支持犹太复国主义（Zionism) 的历史学家也不反对。

前以色列特拉维夫历史系主任，奥斯陆协议以色列谈判代表，以色列前外长本阿米更是坦承以色列建国对阿拉伯人大规模的强制迁徙，即用血腥手段夺取土地，家园，甚至杀戮在内的种族清洗。（原文摘译参见^附录10）

有关这方面的资料，有兴趣的读者可以参照藕德斋博文，以及博文附录：本尼莫里斯，本阿米原著摘译，也可以了解一下贝尔福宣言。

在种族清洗过程中，阿拉伯人世世代代生存的土地，积累的财产被野蛮剥夺。而这种打着天赐神选，民族复兴旗号，夺地侵产，杀人越货的勾当，不正是秦晖教授一直坚决反对的吗？

相信假如秦晖教授对1990年代以来，就已经日渐称为国际中东研究主流的以色列新史学，及其海量的研究著述稍有了解，跳出以色列哈斯巴拉的官宣藩篱，就能看到问题的实质。

最后，破坏中东和平进程，恰好就是以色列的国策。以色列新史学代表人物伊兰帕佩教授这样评论道：

以色列和约旦以及埃及都选择了和平。以色列得到了和平。戴维营协议以后埃及没有对以色列采取过任何军事行动。但是以色列对巴勒斯坦人选择了殖民压迫，而不是和平。所以冲突不断。（伊兰帕佩接受视频采访）

以色列在1967年六日战争中占领了大量巴勒斯坦土地，但是根据国际法，一国通过战争扩张领土非法。为避免将到手的土地交还给巴勒斯坦人，以色列需要告诉世界，与巴勒斯坦人的和平遥遥无期，它必须为了自卫目的保留被占领土。于是，1982年，以色列的一位重量级战略家，Avner Yanif“机智”地发明了一个名词：巴勒斯坦“和平攻势”(Palestine Peace Offensive)，来掩饰一个难堪的尴尬：巴勒斯坦如果与以色列和解，同时遵照联合国决议建国，以色列就要忍痛吐出大片1967年以来占领的土地。这正是以色列最不愿意做的。

就像芬克尔斯坦在《Method and Madness》中写道^附录11：

“时间快进到 2008 年 12 月 ‘铸铅行动 ’(Operation Cast Lead) 前夕。以色列外长齐皮-利夫尼(Tzipi Livni )表示，以色列希望与哈马斯创造一个暂时的平静期，但长期停战 “有损以色列的战略目标，增强了哈马斯的力量，并给人以以色列承认该运动的印象”…

“以色列袭击的结果可想而知，哈马斯恢复了火箭弹袭击–“作为报复”，以色列情报和恐怖主义信息中心如是写道。不过，据以色列内部安全主管尤瓦尔-迪斯金（Yuval Diskin）称，哈马斯 “对恢复与以色列之间的相对平静很感兴趣”，而且哈马斯愿意接受 “讨价还价”，即 “以停火换取以色列放松……”。以色列国防军驻加沙前指挥官 施慕尔扎凯伊（Shmuel Zakai） 说：”以色列的政策一直扼杀着加沙地带的经济”。但以色列再次加强了对加沙的非法经济封锁，同时要求哈马斯单方面无条件停火。甚至在以色列加强封锁之前，前联合国人权事务高级专员玛丽-鲁滨逊就谴责了封锁的影响： 加沙的 “整个文明都被摧毁了，我没有夸大其词”。据一个以色列人权组织称，到 2008 年 12 月，以色列已使加沙的基础设施 “濒临崩溃”。”萨拉-罗伊报告说：”食品、药品、燃料、供水和卫生系统部件、化肥、塑料布、电话、纸张、胶水、鞋子，甚至茶杯，都不再有足够的数量或根本无法通过。”整个社会的崩溃就发生在我们面前，但除了联合国的警告之外，国际社会几乎没有任何反应，而这些警告却被置若罔闻。“

“如果哈马斯在 11 月 4 日[以色列对加沙的]屠杀事件后保持被动，以色列几乎肯定会加紧挑衅，就像它在 1982 年战争前所做的那样，直到克制在政治上对伊斯兰运动变得站不住脚。无论如何，面对即使停止发射火箭也会遭到以色列窒息性封锁的前景，并因此被迫在 “饥饿与战斗 “之间做出选择，哈马斯选择了抵抗，尽管主要是象征性的抵抗。”这位前以色列国防军驻加沙指挥官说：”你不能只进行打击，让加沙的巴勒斯坦人陷入经济困境，然后指望哈马斯坐视不管。”哈立德-米沙尔在 “铸铅行动 “期间的一封公开信中写道：”我们自制的微不足道的火箭弹，是我们向世界发出的抗议呐喊。但是，以色列现在可以向其故意轻信的西方赞助者提出自卫请求，因为它又开始了一次凶残的入侵。除了剧本上的细微改动–敌人不是 “巴解组织恐怖主义 “而是 “哈马斯恐怖主义”，借口不是北部的炮击而是南部的火箭弹袭击–2008 年的重演非常忠实于 1982 年的原版。它破坏了正常运作的停火协议，挫败了巴勒斯坦的又一次和平攻势。以色列现在可以松一口气了。”

三，纠错搁浅，以色列的制度困境

前面说过，良制只能诞生于博弈演化而非预置。

防止博弈滑向野蛮与混乱就需要不断注入忠于人权，平等价值元素的新生力量，让博弈永葆道义色彩。

而且需要这些新生力量集结强大，在重要关头，足以改变历史轨迹。西方世界包涵大量年轻世代选民的进步派恰好就是这样的力量。美国和西方世界，进步派强大，所以能够尤晓迪进行制度纠错。而缺乏有力量的进步派，恰好是以色列恰好博弈受阻，纠错搁浅，制度恶质化，向极右法西斯蜕变的原因。

（A） 西方宪政左派和美国进步派

要进一步阐明这一点先要对照多年来被中国海外自由派的一部分人士刻意误传的两段西方近现代历史。

首先，西方的宪政左派并非部分中国自由派人士宣称的极权主义力量。

当代西方宪政左派的确有相当一部分脱胎于19世纪的共产主义运动。作为宪政左派先锋的西方进步派的政治诉求和社会主义诉求重合，但这并不证明它就是极左力量。

就像西方保守派的某些政治诉求，与纳粹党重合不证明西方保守派就是纳粹。

传播这一混淆的部分中国自由派刻意忽略西方进步派实现政治诉求的路径是宪政法治前提下的自由博弈，而非暴力压制。

路径不同，遵循规则不同，结果会大相径庭。就像打乒乓和踢足球都是为了赢球，但是乒乓球打不出足球队。足球也踢不成乒乓球。

欧洲共产主义运动一百多年的历史证明，宪政制度本身就是极权主义的天敌。左派按照规则参与宪政，是消弭暴力革命因素的最有效手段。

• • • 国际共产主义运动历史上，十九世纪伯恩施坦主义最终主导第二国际，西欧社会党融入宪政，到1959年11月15日，德国社民党通过戈德斯堡纲领（Godesberger Programm^附录12），1970年代，让克格勃如临大敌的欧洲共产主义(Eurocommunism)都从侧面证明了宪政制度，有序博弈的强大生命力。
    • 所有西方诞生的，企图通过暴力而非宪政手段实现政治目标的组织，无一例外都因为丧失民众的支持，而在实行宪政的西方国家式微消亡，

其次，美国民主党与历史上的欧洲的共产主义更是风马牛不相及。

今天的美国民主党，在1960年代尼克松推行南方战略以前，实际上美国的右翼政党。

• • • 美国内战前，代表南方奴隶主庄园，强调州权不受联邦权制约的美国右翼势力代表是民主党。而林肯创立的共和党主张废除奴隶制，是左派进步政党。
    • 进入二十世纪，经过不断演变，美国两党政治在1960年代以前，逐步形成“夹心面包”的结构。北方民主党逐步成为美国进步派大本营，南方民主党，又称迪克西民主党，是美国极右保守势力的大本营。得克萨斯民主党人约翰逊总统推动美国民权改革，激怒了大批极端保守的南方民主党人。
    • 共和党人尼克松适时推出南方战略，吸收大批南方民主党人转会共和党，同时大批南方黑人共和党人转会民主党，民主党才成为今天美国的左派政党。这也就是今天民主党年轻选民进步派集结的历史成因。

美国民主党不仅跟十九世纪欧洲的共产主义运动没有渊源。民主党成为美国政治左翼，是1960年代，共和党推行南方战略以后出现的现象。今天的民主党进步派，恰好是林肯总统创立共和党所开启的美国进步主义政治传统的继承人。

进步主义才是美国政治最深刻的历史传统。美国历史上进步主义主导的政治运动，包括：

1. 1. 1. 1866年夺取参众两院压倒多数，推动国会主导战后重建(Congressional Reconstruction^附录13)的激进共和党，
      2. 1960年代的民权运动；
      3. 越战以后的美国反战运动；
      4. 以及2020以来，一再为挫败玛噶革命发挥了关键作用的大学生选民团。

不断立法纠错，向曾经被排斥的女性，黑人和各种少数群体，开放选举政治，扩大博弈基础，进步派不仅没有像华人“保守派”宣称的背叛美国立国核心价值，而是继承了美国政治传统。

（B） 激进共和党人和林肯共和国确立

美国历史上最重要的制度纠错就是废除奴隶制。然而中文圈许多人并不清楚，靠废除奴隶制确立的林肯体制却是在内战结束以后的一系列博弈中确立的。

• • 1865年4月15日，刚开始第二任期的林肯总统遇刺，副总统安德鲁杰克逊继任。为促使南方重新回归联邦，共和党人林肯特地选择了民主党人安德鲁杰克逊为其第二任期副总统竞选伙伴，

当时，南方邦联的主要政党就是民主党。内战前，民主党代表小政府和奴隶庄园利益。但是内战爆发时，有一部分民主党人赞成联邦统一，安德鲁杰克逊就是这样一位民主党人。而共和党则分为温和共和党(Moderate Republican^附录13) 和激进共和党(Radical Republican^附录13) 两派。林肯总统是共和党内温和派领袖。激进共和党则主张根本改革，根除奴隶制。激进共和党在推动林肯将保守谨慎的北军总司令麦克莱伦（George B. McClellan）解职，替换为格兰特将军的过程中，发挥了关键的作用。

• • 1864年，北军节节胜利，激进共和党人俄亥俄参议员本杰明韦德（Benjamin Wade）和马里兰众议员亨利戴维斯（Henry Winter Davis）推出重建法案^附录14，遭到林肯总统否决。戴维斯愤怒至极，发表声明，公开谴责林肯迎合南方选举人，”听命于其个人野心 “，篡夺国会权力。并呼吁”国会的权力至高无上，必须得到尊重”。

林肯遇刺以后，激进共和党担心的噩梦几乎成真。安德鲁杰克逊继任总统，大量启用原南方邦联政客，南方各州民主党控制的议会也纷纷推出地方立法，变相恢复战前奴隶制种种做法，北方胜利几乎名存实亡。

• • 1866年美国中期选举，选民通把废除奴隶制参与最积极，最富于进步主义元素的激进共和党推上舞台。在国会夺得压倒多数。 激进共和党人撒迪厄斯·史蒂文斯（Thaddeus Stevens^附录13）查尔斯萨姆纳（Charles Sumner^附录13) 出掌参众两院。开启了美国历史上著名的国会重建时代(Congressional Reconstruction^附录13)。

美国宪法第十四和第十五修正案也是国会重建时代最重要的历史遗产。

（C）以色列的陷阱

以色列的定位是一个尤太人的民主国家。尤太公民在以色列依旧享有比较充分的自由，批评者在以色列有一定的空间，他们对以色列的问题认识深刻。

但是以色列有两个难以逾越的陷阱：

1. 1. 尤太人国家定位导致政教无法分离（尤太人是宗教概念，而非民族概念）；
   2. 无法放弃1967年战争获得的殖民利益。以色列1967年6日战争以后控制大片土地。但是二战以后，通过军事胜利扩张领土为非法。如果落实两国方案，以色列必须要吐出它1967年战争以后占领的土地。这恰恰是以色列不愿意做的；

同时，以色列立国的意识形态，尤太复国主义假设阿拉伯国家对尤太国家家怀有无法消解的敌意。^附录15。

按照芬克尔斯坦的研究，为维护殖民利益，以色列将“阻吓能力”(Deterrence Capacity)^附录16视作其阿拉伯国家外交的基石。以军承平日久，满洲八旗，蒙古铁骑，奥斯曼土耳其禁卫军不能逃脱的命运，躺在殖民利益上骄奢淫逸惯了的以色列官兵同样不能摆脱。2006年第二次黎巴嫩战争以后，中东国家都看到，曾经让人闻风色变的以军战斗力今非昔比。真主党更是有恃无恐。

越是吓唬不了邻国敌对势力，因为官宣日益失灵，而道义力量荡然的以色列，反而更加需要依赖对巴勒斯坦和邻国平民使用恐怖武力，来继续其阻吓能力。而长时间滥用武力，在当今世界会激起西方民意反弹，削弱西方国家对以色列支持。没有了西方的支持，以色列更加担心无法维持其既得的殖民利益，担心阿拉伯国家对其天然的敌意，反而更加离不开恐怖武力带来的阻吓能力。

这样的恶性循环，在以色列国内也越来越行不通，以色列对于西方国家的自由派尤太人越来越失去吸引力，随着自由派尤太人外流，右翼极端选民在以色列的比例越来越高，以色列政坛越来越依靠纯粹依靠殖民利益寄生的巴勒斯坦地区定居点移民来支持，国家越来越法西斯化。

巴以危机无解，以色列深陷穷兵黩武的军国主义泥潭，内政日益极右化恰好是这一顽疾的症状。

以色列《国土报》专栏作家B Michael在2023年10月17日撰文^附录17，提出加沙惨案以后，以色列全民亢奋，军国主义，种族主义失控背后的最重要的制度原因：

1. 1. 以色列没有一部宪法；
   2. 以色列要建立一个尤太人国家的长期国策，导致国家政教不分。极端神职人员，也就是拉比，正在成为以色列国防军的太上皇；
   3. 1967年六日战争闪击阿拉伯国家奇迹般的胜利，大片战争中夺取的阿拉伯土地成为以色列的神主牌。而五十多年的殖民占领，使得以色列国防军由一支现代化的军队蜕变为劣迹斑斑，残害被占领地区人民的殖民地警察部队。

2021年1月12日，以色列最重要的人权组织以色列占领地区人权信息中心（又称贝策勒姆简称B’Tselem)发表题为《这是种族隔离^附录18,¹⁹》的研究报告，直指以色列推行尤太人至上的种族主义，这样写道：

以色列政权在其控制的所有领土（以色列主权领土、东耶路撒冷、西岸和加沙地带）实行种族隔离制度。以色列一系列广泛政策的基础是一个组织原则：推动和延续一个群体–犹太人–对另一个群体–巴勒斯坦人的优越地位。以色列占领领土人权信息中心反对将以色列视为一个民主国家…以色列占领地区人权信息中心得出的结论是，在考虑了以色列为加强对巴勒斯坦人的控制而制定的一系列政策和法律之后，已经达到了将以色列政权定义为种族隔离政权的标准。

2022年12月28日，包括以色列阿拉伯少数民族权利法律中心、以色列占领领土人权信息中心、和平战士组织、保护个人中心（HaMoked）、人权捍卫者基金、父母反对拘留儿童组织、以色列医生促进人权协会、以色列反对酷刑公共委员会、正义之炬(Torat Tzedek)和以色列人权理事会（Yesh Din)在内的10家以色列NGO为贝策勒姆报告背书，并且之心国际法院检察官：“我们承诺协助贵办公室推进对巴勒斯坦局势的持续调查。^附录20”

以色列不仅没有像美国那样的机制，而且依仗西方袒护为所欲为，将巨额资金人力投入哈斯巴拉官宣，操纵西方舆论。这种饮鸩止渴，到了内塔尼亚胡时代，以色列在把曾经强加在尤太人身上的种族迫害，不仅制度化，永久化，而且推进到了一个人类历史前所未有的恶劣程度。

假如美国同样深陷泥潭，没有进步派在选民支持下夺取1866国会压倒多数，哪里会有宪法第十四十五修正案。南北战争成果也会前功尽弃，二十世纪的民权运动更不可能，甚至废除排华法案，重新开放中国移民也不可能发生。

四，启示

正如哈耶克指出，人不具备预测未来的能力。正确的认知，只能来源于不断试错。

因此，良制离不开博弈纠错的演化。 确保演化有序持续，才是宪政的使命。无法通过持续博弈不断纠错的制度不可避免地向暴政沉沦。

制度来自演化，而非设计和预置恰好是中文圈最顽固和普遍的认知盲区。

从宣扬顶层设计，到杜撰美国国父开国轶事，到集体痴迷所谓保守主义，到附和哈斯巴拉官宣，中文圈一如既往地沉溺定见，醉心良制天才预设的幻觉。自由博弈和演化纠错的观念不仅陌生，而且被许多人视为有害。

由一批不世之选，天命所归，为黎民苍生选择一套好的制度，再由一批为生民立命，为万世开太平的饱学之士制定典章，令制度丰满，多么熟悉的运作模式，

它不仅概括了楚汉相争，朱元璋打天下，也指引了追求自由的中国人，从武昌首义，奔向宝塔山，涌向天安门。

黄炎培畅谈历史周期律。执念良制预置最终只能卷进历史周期的循环。这一点，海外自由派并不比自称已经摆脱周期律的中共高明。

历史是政治理念的实验室。他山之石可以攻玉。

中国是政治文明的后来者。其他国家留下的历史经验教训是转型宝贵的精神财富。了解以色列历史，和美国宪政演变，不仅是因为巴以冲突催化着美国历史上最重大的内政外交转向，也因为这一窗口给我们提供两个现实的样本：美国和以色列都是定居者殖民地起源。和美国一样，以色列建国大量沿用英国制度。种族隔离都是两国建立时接受的政治现实。

美国是制度自我纠错的典范，而以色列走不出种族隔离的泥潭。为保持西方国家袒护，以色列把巨额资源投放在哈斯巴拉官宣和构筑遍布西方各国的游说机构，力图操纵各国政商学界。最著名的就是2009年，以色列动用各种游说机构，企图迫使联合国指派的大法官撤回自己对以军在加沙犯下战争罪行的戈德尔斯通报告(the Goldstone Report^{附录21, 22, 23}) 。

这些作为，表面上给以色列“赢得”了全球独一无二的政治运作空间，却让它的极右势力更加有恃无恐，而一再延误纠错。实际上在2023年加沙惨案爆发前二十年，西方年轻一代却早就在21世纪到来以后，跟以色列渐行渐远。2003年，欧盟的民意调查更是将以色列列为世界和平的威胁^附录24。

加沙事变以后以军的疯狂报复，并将其上传社交网络炫耀，终于成为压垮骆驼，逆转西方民意的最后一根稻草。舆论一夜翻盘的背后，是冰冻三尺非一日之寒。随着以色列遭到南非在国际法庭上以大屠杀起诉，积重难返的公关灾难才刚刚开始。

以色列究竟滑落了多远，我们来把它和美国以外的国家横向对比一下。历史上日本也搞定居者殖民地，南非也长期推行。相比之下：

1. 日本对台湾，韩国的殖民统治，以及关东军的满洲屯垦，没有大规模持续对原住地居民进行毁灭性的财产剥夺的记载；
2. 南非的种族隔离期间，比勒陀利亚的白人当局并没有对黑人社区进行类似加沙那样的定期割草。所谓割草行动，就是以色列用现代化武器对于在加沙的阿拉伯人社区，进行定期屠杀。

1995年希伯来大学教授齐默曼对《耶路撒冷》报发表评论^附录25：

“看看希伯伦[尤太定居点]的孩子们：他们和希特勒青年团一模一样。他们从零岁起就被洗脑，被灌输阿拉伯人是坏蛋和排尤分子的理念，使他们变得跟希特勒青年团一样偏执和种族主义。”

2009年1月，美国加州大学圣巴巴拉分校社会学教授尤太学者，发表公开信^附录26,27：

我是一名尤太人…

我们这一代人从小就被灌输了这样的观念：圣经中的应许之地是一片广袤的沙漠，居住着少数贫困的巴勒斯坦人，他们与骆驼为伴，在沙地上勉强度日。尤太人的到来被吹捧为给这些沙漠居民莫大的福音。梅厄夫人甚至向我们保证 “不存在巴勒斯坦问题”。

我们现在知道，情况并非如此。巴勒斯坦是一片到处都是以巴勒斯坦为家的人。那里有繁荣的城镇和村庄、学校和医院。这里曾经共同生活着尤太人、基督徒和穆斯林。

事实上，在尤太新移民占领这块土地之前，尤太人仅占人口的 7%，拥有 3%的土地。

摘下裹着的蒙布，我看到了暴行重演，犯下这些暴行的人本应由于自身苦难的历史对他人的苦难极为敏…

我与巴勒斯坦人交谈过。我见过的每一个巴勒斯坦人都因为以色列的浩劫而失去家人，每一个巴勒斯坦人都能说出在以色列监狱遭受非人折磨的亲友的名字。以色列一次又一次地被指责侵犯人权，但照旧我行我素

…

我们尤太人正在欧洲起诉，要求归还财产、赔偿误工费、补偿房屋、土地、奴工和拖欠工资。我支持巴勒斯坦难民返回其出生地的权利，支持对被夺走的无法归还的东西进行赔偿，难道就成了尤太人的叛徒吗？

死去的尤太人不能复生，被屠杀的巴勒斯坦人也不能复活。戴维-本-古里安说过：”让我们不要忽视我们之间的真相……在政治上，我们是侵略者，他们捍卫自己……这个国家是他们的，因为他们居住在这里，而我们想来这里定居，在他们看来，我们想夺走他们的国家……”。

…我想我同意埃胡德-巴拉克（1998 年 6 月 3 日）所说的：”如果我是巴勒斯坦人，我也会加入恐怖组织”。也许我会更进一步。与其绝望地扔小石头，不如扔大石头。

关于加沙，2021年12月14日，以色列《国土报》专栏作家B Michael 写道^附录28：

“现在正式宣布 这里是种族隔离区，不是监狱。 是种族隔离区 。监狱和种族隔离区 有什么区别？在监狱里，人们因犯罪而被监禁 在种族隔离区 ，人们因基因而被限制在隔离区内。

 200多万人挤在种族隔离区 里。 99%的人都是无辜的。但这并不影响种族隔离区 及其建造者。毕竟，种族隔离区 一直都是为无辜者而设的。有谁比我们更清楚这一点呢？”

让我们祈祷，当中国人千辛万苦，再度叩开自由之门，引领他们的中国自由派，不会将他们又一次推入恶性循环的深渊，未来的中国人不会发出类似今天以色列清醒者徒唤奈何的悲叹。

和三年前的华人社区大挺川一样，巴以冲突让人们窥豹一斑。中文圈知识精英不仅依旧对历史实用主义，肤浅草率，还仍然对祖传的制度预置论情有独钟。晚清开始转型的中国，就是被这样的精英前仆后继领回天安门。或许政治文明离开中国人真的还很远。

---

附录：资料来源

1）^秦晖：巴（阿）以问题的由来（https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/701085.html）

2）^江棋生：哈以战争给我带来的新认知（https://minzhuzhongguo.org/default.php?id=104319））

3）^姚新勇：就教于秦晖老师：无瑕的以色列，不存在的巴勒斯坦？（https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/701781.html）

4）^王明远：论张平、秦晖二教授关于巴以问题的若干基本史实错误（https://www.chinesepen.org/blog/archives/194322）

5）^Avi Shlaim: The Debate About 1948 (https://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Debate%20About%201948.html)

原文：

“The conventional Zionist account of the 1948 War goes roughly as follows. The conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine came to a head following the passage, on 29 November 1947, of the United Nations partition resolution which called for the establishment of two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted the UN plan despite the painful sacrifices it entailed but the Palestinians, the neighbouring Arab states and the Arab League rejected it. Great Britain did everything in its power towards the end of the Palestine Mandate to frustrate the establishment of the Jewish state envisaged in the UN plan. With the expiry of the Mandate and the proclamation of the State of Israel, seven Arab states sent their armies into Palestine with the firm intention of strangling the Jewish state at birth. The subsequent struggle was an unequal one between a Jewish David and an Arab Goliath. The infant Jewish state fought a desperate, heroic and ultimately successful battle for survival against overwhelming odds. During the war, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled to the neighbouring Arab states, mainly in response to orders from their leaders and despite Jewish pleas to stay and demonstrate that peaceful co-existence was possible. After the war, the story continues, Israeli leaders sought peace with all their heart and all their might but there was no one to talk to on the other side. Arab intransigence was alone responsible for the political deadlock which was not broken until President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem thirty years later.

This conventional Zionist account or old history of the 1948 War displays a number of features. In the first place, it is not history in the proper sense of the word. Most of the voluminous literature on the war was written not by professional historians but by participants, by politicians, soldiers, official historians and by a large host of sympathetic chroniclers, journalists, biographers and hagiographers. Secondly, this literature is very short on political analysis of the war and long on chronicles of the military operations, especially the heroic feats of the Israeli fighters. Third, this literature maintains that Israel’s conduct during the war was governed by higher moral standards than that of her enemies. Of particular relevance here is the precept of tohar haneshek or the purity of arms which posits that weapons remain pure provided they are employed only in self-defence and provided they are not used against innocent civilians and defenceless people. This popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war is the one which is taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad. It is a prime example of the use of a nationalist version of history in the process of nation-building.

…

Although many of the arguments of the new historiography are not new, there is a qualitative difference between this historiography and the bulk of the earlier studies, whether they accepted or contradicted the official Zionist line. The difference, in a nutshell, is that the new historiography is written with access to the official Israeli and Western documents whereas the earlier writers had no access, or only partial access, to the official documents. This is not a hard and fast rule; there are many exceptions and there are also degrees of access. Nevertheless, it is generally true to say that the new historians, with the exception of the late Simha Flapan, have carried out extensive archival research in Israel, Britain and America and that their arguments are backed by hard documentary evidence and by a Western-style scholarly apparatus.

…

This article is concerned with the old Zionist version of the first Arab-Israeli war and with the challenge to this version posed by the new historiography. My conclusion is that this version is deeply flawed and needs to be radically revised in the light of the new information that is now available. To put it bluntly, this version is little more than the propaganda of the victors. The debate between the old and the new historiography, moreover, is not of merely historical interest. It cuts to the very core of Israel’s image of herself. It is for this reason that the battle of the historians has excited such intense popular interest and stirred such strong political passions.”

 

6) ^Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 by Benny Morris

Two The Beginning of the Conflict, Jews and Arabs in Palestine: 1881-1914， 

• • Relations Between Olim And Arabs And The Causes Of Arab-Jewish Antagonism:
    

原文：

The new colonists were in daily contact with the surrounding Arab milieu, for they relied on neighboring villages for food and manure, for seasonal laborers and guards, and for the transporting and marketing of their produce. Colonists in Hadera, Mishmar HaYarden, and Metulla received some agricultural training from Arab neighbors or workers. Some settlements depended on nearby villages for their water, such as Gedera from Qatra in the mid-1880s. Arab women brought water to Metulla in jugs carried on their heads. Contiguous Jewish and Arab fields meant almost daily contact with the fellahin, some of whom for a time rented fields belonging to settlements.

• • Arab Hostility Toward The New Jews

原文：

There was of course another, equally important, side to the coin. The settlers lived in perpetual fear of attack by their employees inside the moshavot or by Arabs from outside. Like white colonists everywhere, they felt perpetually threatened by the surrounding mass, and they were a minority exploiting and occasionally displacing a native population. Moreover, the Arabs often enjoyed the sympathy, if not the backing, of the Ottoman officials and police. They had the right to bear arms and knew how to use them better than did most Jews. The settlers, who regarded Arabs as hot-tempered, naturally violent, and lawbreaking, often feared to fire them lest they be provoked to violence. And dependent as the Jews were on Arab labor, they could not afford to  alienate the workers.

But the major cause of tension and violence throughout the period 1882–1914 was not accidents, misunderstandings, or the attitudes and behaviors of either side, but objective historical conditions and the conflicting interests and goals of the two populations. The Arabs sought instinctively to retain the Arab and Muslim character of the region and to maintain their position as its rightful inhabitants; the Zionists sought radically to change the status quo, buy as much land as possible, settle on it, and eventually turn an Arab-populated country into a Jewish homeland.

For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence among the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt. Vladimir (Ze’ev) Dubnow, one of the Biluim, wrote to his brother, the historian Simon Dubnow, in October 1882: “The ultimate goal … is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years.… The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.” (Dubnow himself shortly afterward returned to Russia.)

7） ^Survival of the fittest, Haaretz.com 2004/9/1 (该文是对莫里斯专访第二部分，原网页已被国土报删除，现存网络档案版：http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984）

“There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.”

…

o when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

“I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.”

You do not condemn them morally?

“No.”

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

“There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide – the annihilation of your people – I prefer ethnic cleansing.”

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.

“You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.”

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

“If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country – the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.”

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

“If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself.” 

8）^Survival of the fittest, Haaretz.com 2004/9/1 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984）

Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some sort of deep cultural problem?

“There is a deep problem in Islam. It’s a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn’t have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons, it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide.” 

9）^Survival of the fittest, Haaretz.com 2004/9/1 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984）

What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.

“I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war. 

10） ^Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, The Israeli-Arab Tragedy by Ben Ami

1. 1. Bisecting the Land or Zionism’s Strategy of Phases? 

原文：

It would come if only because, as he wrote, the Jewish state would have ‘an outstanding army’ that would ensure that ‘we won’t be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, whether out of accord and mutual understanding with the Arab neighbours or otherwise’. If endorsing partition would have meant ‘relinquishing our historical rights over the whole land of Israel’, he said in a speech in August 1937 to the Twentieth Zionist Congress, ‘then I would reject the State’. The attitude of Chaim Weizmann, more moderate and always more measured in his words than Ben- Gurion, was not essentially different. To him as well the ‘Peel state’ was only the beginning. “The Kingdom of David was smaller,’ he said, ‘but under Solomon it became an empire. C’est le premier pas qui compte,’ he consoled the sceptics.

In other words, the defeat of the territorial drive by the demographic imperatives, which would be the core reason for the Israeli Right’s flirtation with the idea of ‘unilateral disengagement’ in the wake of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, was not yet clear to the Zionist leaders in the 1930s, especially as the Peel Commission itself advanced a panacea that they were quick to embrace. Probably the most appealing article in the recommendation of the Commission was that about the ‘forced transfer’ of Arabs from the future Jewish state. To Ben-Gurion this was an ‘unparalleled achievement’. It was ‘the best of all solutions’, according to Berl Katznelson. ‘A distant neighbour’, he said, ‘is better than a close enemy.’ Transfer was such an ideal solution that ‘it must happen some day’, he concluded. A strategy of phases, admittedly always vague and anything but an articulate plan of action, could only prevail if a solution could be found to the demographic problem. “Transfer’ was the magic formula.

The idea of transfer for the Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionist thought. Moral scruples hardly intervened in what was normally seen as a realistic and logical solution, a matter of expediency. Israel Zangvill, the founding father of the concept, advocated transfer as early as 1916. For, as he said, ‘if we wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two peoples…. One of the two a different place must be found either for the Jews or for their neighbours.’

The idea of transfer was not the intimate dream of only the activists and the militants in the Zionist movement. A mass exodus of Arabs from Palestine was no great tragedy, according to Menachem Ussishkin, a leader of the General Zionists. To him the message of the Arab Revolt was that coexistence was out of the question and it was now either the Arabs or the Jews, but not both. Even Aharon Zisling, a member of the extreme Left of the Zionist Labour movement, who during the 1948 war would go on record as being scandalised by the atrocities committed against the Arab population, saw ‘no moral flaw’ in the transfer of the Arabs, although he avoided the term in favour of the euphemism of ‘concentrating the development of national life’. ‘In a new world order’, he said, ‘it can and should be a noble human vision.’ But again, Ben-Gurion’s voice had always a special meaning and relevance. At a Zionist meeting in June 1938 he was as explicit as he could be: ‘I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral.’ But he also knew that transfer would be possible only in the midst of war, not in ‘normal times’. What might be impossible in such times, he said, ‘is possible in revolutionary times’. The problem was, then, not moral, perhaps not even political; it was a function of timing, and this meant war.

11）^Method and Madness by Norm Finkelstein， 

1/Peace Offensive (2011)“If Only It Would Just Sink Into The Sea,”

原文：

Fast forward to the eve of Cast Lead in December 2008. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated that whereas Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce “harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement.” Translation: a protracted cease-fire, which cast a bright light on Hamas’s pragmatism in word and deed and consequently increased international pressure on Israel to negotiate a diplomatic settlement, would undermine Israel’s strategic goal of retaining the West Bank. Israel had already resolved to attack Hamas as far back as March 2007 and only acquiesced in the June 2008 truce because “the Israeli army needed time to prepare.”

The predictable sequel to Israel’s attack was that Hamas resumed its rocket attacks—“in retaliation,” as the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center wrote. Still, Hamas was “interested in renewing the relative calm with Israel,” according to Israeli internal security chief Yuval Diskin, and Hamas would have accepted a “bargain” in which it “would halt the fire in exchange for easing of . . . Israeli policies [that] have kept a choke hold on the economy of the Strip,” according to former IDF commander in Gaza Shmuel Zakai. But Israel tightened yet again the illegal economic blockade of Gaza while demanding a unilateral and unconditional cease-fire by Hamas. Even before Israel intensified the blockade, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson decried its effects: Gaza’s “whole civilization has been destroyed, I’m not exaggerating.” By December 2008, Israel had brought Gaza’s infra-structure “to the brink of collapse,” according to an Israeli human rights organization. “Food, medicine, fuel, parts for water and sanitation systems, fertilizer, plastic sheeting, phones, paper, glue, shoes and even teacups are no longer getting through in sufficient quantities or at all,” Sara Roy reported. “The breakdown of an entire society is happening in front of us, but there is little international response beyond UN warnings which are ignored.” 

If Hamas had stayed passive after the 4 November killings, Israel would almost certainly have ratcheted up its provocations, just as it did in the lead-up to the 1982 war, until restraint became politically untenable for the Islamic movement. In any event, faced with the prospect of an asphyxiating Israeli blockade even if it ceased firing rockets, and thus forced to choose between “starvation and fighting,” Hamas opted for resistance, albeit largely symbolic. “You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing,” the former IDF commander in Gaza observed. “Our modest, home-made rockets,” Khalid Mishal wrote in an open letter during Cast Lead, “are our cry of protest to the world.” But Israel could now enter a plea of self-defense to its willfully gullible Western patrons as it embarked on yet another murderous invasion. Apart from minor adaptations in the script-the bogey was not “PLO terrorism” but “Hamas terrorism,” the pretext was not shelling in the north but rocket fire in the south-the 2008 reprise stayed remarkably faithful to the 1982 original. It derailed a functioning cease-fire and foiled another Palestinian peace offensive. Israel could now breathe a deep sigh of relief.

12）^Godesberger Programm

戈德斯堡纲领德语版：https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Grundsatzprogramme/godesberger_programm.pdf

英语版摘要：

Basic Demands for a Society Worth of Man

…

We are fighting for democracy. Democracy must become the universal form of state

organisation and way of life because it is founded on respect for the dignity of man and his individual responsibility.

We resist every dictatorship, every form of totalitarian or authoritarian rule because they violate human dignity, destroy man’s freedom and the rule of law. Socialism can be realised only through democracy and democracy can only be fulfilled through Socialism.

Communists have no right to invoke Socialist traditions. In fact, they have falsified Socialist ideas. Socialists are struggling for the realisation of freedom and justice while Communists exploit the conflicts in society to establish the dictatorship of their party.

In the democratic state, every form of power must be subject to public control. The interest of the individual must be subordinated to the interest of the community. Democracy, social security and individual freedom are endangered by an economic and social system in which striving for profit and power are the distinguishing features. Democratic Socialism therefore aspires after a new economic and social order.

人类社会的基本要求

…

我们为民主而战。民主必须成为普遍的国家形式

组织和生活方式，因为它建立在尊重人的尊严和个人责任的基础之上。

我们抵制一切独裁、一切形式的极权或专制统治，因为它们侵犯了人的尊严，破坏了人的自由和法治。只有通过民主才能实现社会主义，只有通过社会主义才能实现民主。

共产党人无权援引社会主义传统。事实上，他们篡改了社会主义思想。社会主义者为实现自由和正义而奋斗，而共产党人则利用社会矛盾建立党的独裁统治。

在民主国家，一切形式的权力都必须接受公众的监督。个人利益必须服从社会利益。以追求利润和权力为显著特征的经济和社会制度会危及民主、社会保障和个人自由。因此，民主社会主义渴望建立一种新的经济和社会秩序。

The Order of the State

The Social Democratic Party affirms its adherence to democracy. In a democracy the power of the state is derived from the people and the government is always responsible to Parliament whose confidence it must possess. In a democracy the rights of the minority as well as the rights of the majority must be respected; government and opposition have different tasks of equal importance; both share in the responsibility for the state.

Legislature, executive and judiciary should operate separately and it is the duty of each to serve the public interest. The existence of three levels of authority–Federal, State, and Local – ensures the distribution of power, strengthens freedom and through co-determination and co-responsibility gives the citizen manifold access to democratic institutions. Free local communities are vital to a living democracy. The Social Democratic Party therefore supports the principles of local self-government which must be extended and given adequate financial support.

Associations in which people of different groups and sections of the population unite for

common ends are necessary institutions of modern society. They must be democratically

organised. The more powerful they are, the greater is the responsibility they carry, but the greater also is the danger of their abusing their power. Parliaments, administration and courts must not be allowed to come under the one-sided influence of vested interests.

Press, radio, television and cinema fulfill public tasks. They must be independent and free to gather information wherever they wish, to comment on it and to distribute it, and to form and express their own opinions. Radio and television should remain under the control of public corporations, and be directed by free and democratic boards. They must be safeguarded against pressure from interest groups.

Judges must have outer and inner independence if they are to serve justice in the name of the people. Lay judges should play an equally important part in jurisdiction. Only independent judges can pass judgment on criminal offences. Neither wealth nor poverty should have an influence on people’s access to courts or on jurisdiction. Legislation must keep pace with the development of society if justice is to be done and if the people’s sense of justice is not to be violated.

国家秩序

社会民主党坚持民主。在民主制度下，国家权力来自人民，政府始终对议会负责，必须得到议会的信任。在民主社会中，少数人的权利和多数人的权利都必须得到尊重；政府和反对党承担着同等重要的不同任务；双方都要分担国家的责任。

立法、行政和司法机构应分开运作，各自有责任为公众利益服务。三级权力机构–联邦、州和地方–的存在确保了权力的分配，加强了自由，并通过共同决定和共同负责，使公民有更多机会利用民主机构。自由的地方社区对于生机勃勃的民主至关重要。因此，社会民主党支持地方自治的原则，必须扩大地方自治并为其提供充足的财政支持。

不同群体和阶层的人为共同目的而联合起来的社团是现代社会的必要机构。

社团是现代社会的必要机构。它们必须以民主方式

组织起来。它们的权力越大，承担的责任也就越大，但滥用权力的危险也就越大。绝不允许议会、行政机构和法院受到既得利益的片面影响。

新闻、广播、电视和电影承担着公共任务。它们必须是独立的，可以自由地收集信息，对信息进行评论和传播，并形成和表达自己的观点。广播和电视仍应由公营公司控制，并由自由民主的董事会领导。必须保护它们免受利益集团的压力。

如果法官要以人民的名义伸张正义，他们就必须具有外在和内在的独立性。非专业法官应在司法中发挥同样重要的作用。只有独立的法官才能对刑事犯罪做出判决。无论贫富都不应影响人们诉诸法院的机会或管辖权。立法必须跟上社会发展的步伐，这样才能伸张正义，人民的正义感才不会受到侵犯。

The Economy

Free choice of consumer goods and services, free choice of working place, freedom for

employers to exercise their initiative as well as free competition are essential conditions of a Social Democratic economic policy. The autonomy of trade unions and employers’ associations in collective bargaining is an important feature of a free society. Totalitarian control of the economy destroys freedom. The Social Democratic Party therefore favours a free market wherever free competition really exists. Where a market is dominated by individuals or groups, however, all manner of steps must be taken to protect freedom in the economic sphere. As much competition as possible – as much planning as necessary.

经济

自由选择消费品和服务、自由选择工作场所、雇主发挥主观能动性的自由以及自由竞争是社会民主经济政策的基本条件。工会和雇主协会在集体谈判中的自主权是自由社会的一个重要特征。对经济的极权控制会破坏自由。因此，只要真正存在自由竞争，社会民主党就支持自由市场。但是，如果市场被个人或团体所控制，就必须采取各种措施来保护经济领域的自由。尽可能多的竞争，必要时尽可能多的规划。

Religion and Church

Only mutual tolerance which respects the dignity of all men regardless of differences in belief and conviction, offers a sound basis for political and human co-operation in society.

Socialism is no substitute for religion. The Social Democratic Party respects churches and religious societies. It affirms their public and legal status, their special mission and their autonomy.

宗教与教会

只有相互宽容，尊重所有人的尊严，不分信仰和信念的差异，才能为社会中的政治和人类合作奠定坚实的基础。

社会主义不能取代宗教。社会民主党尊重教会和宗教团体。它肯定它们的公共和法律地位、特殊使命和自主权。

13)

^Teed, Paul E.; Ladd Teed, Melissa (2015). Reconstruction: A Reference Guide. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. pp. 51, 174 ff. ISBN 978-1-61069-533-6

Benedict, Michael Les (1974). “Preserving the Constitution: The Conservative Basis of Radical Reconstruction”. Journal of American History. 61 (1): 65–90. doi:10.2307/1918254. JSTOR 1918254

14) ^Wade Davis Bill 1864, National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/wade-davis-bill

Transcript:

Section 10. And be it further enacted, That, until the United States shall have recognized a republican form of state government, the provisional governor in each of said states shall see that this act, and the laws of the United States, and the laws of the state in force when the state government was overthrown by the rebellion, are faithfully executed within the state; but no law or usage whereby any person was heretofore held in involuntary servitude shall be recognized or enforced by any court or officer in such state, and the laws for the trial and punishment of white persons shall extend to all persons, and jurors shall have the qualifications of voters under this law for delegates to the convention. The President shall appoint such officers provided for by the laws of the state when its government was overthrown as he may find necessary to the civil administration of the slate, all which officers shall be entitled to receive the fees and emoluments provided by the state laws for such officers.

Section 12. And be it further enacted, that all persons held to involuntary servitude or labor in the states aforesaid are hereby emancipated and discharged therefrom, and they and their posterity shall be forever free. And if any such persons or their posterity shall be restrained of liberty, under pretence of any claim to such service or labor, the courts of the United States shall, on habeas corpus, discharge them.

15) ^Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 by Benny Morris

• • Two The Beginning of the Conflict, Jews and Arabs in Palestine: 1881-1914，
    • The Ripening Of The Arab-Zionist Conflict After The Young Turks’ Revolution

原文：

The Arabs, wrote a Zionist official, “are and will remain our natural opponents…….. The Jew for them is a competitor who threatens their predominance in Palestine.” On the most basic level, Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement. As Ruppin later wrote (though his words apply with almost equal relevance to the pre-1914 period): “Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands we arebound in each case to remove the peasants who cultivated the land.”

16）^Method and Madness by Norm Finkelstein， 

1/Peace Offensive (2011)“If Only It Would Just Sink Into The Sea,”

Sharon admonished Israeli cabinet members hesitant to launch a first strike, “our main weapon-the fear of us.’ ” In effect, “deterrence capacity” denoted, not warding off an imminent lethal blow, but instead keeping Arabs so intimidated that they could not even conceive challenging Israel’s freedom to carry on as it pleased, however ruthlessly and recklessly. Israel unleashed the war on 5 June 1967, according to Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz, “to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence.”

…

At the start of the new millennium, Israel confronted another challenge to its deterrence capacity. After a nearly two-decade-long guerrilla war, Hezbollah had ejected the Israeli occupying army from Lebanon in May 2000. The fact that Israel suffered a mortifying defeat, one celebrated throughout the Arab world, made another war well-nigh inevitable. Israel almost immediately began planning for the next round,29 and in summer 2006 found a pretext when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers inside Israel (several others were killed during the operation) and in exchange for their release demanded the freedom of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel. Although Israel unleashed the full fury of its air force and geared up for a ground invasion, it suffered yet another ignominious defeat. One indication of Israel’s reversal of fortune was that, unlike in any of its previous armed conflicts, in the final stages of the 2006 war it fought not in defiance of a UN cease-fire resolution but in the hope that a UN resolution would rescue it from an unwinnable situation. “Frustration with the conduct and outcome of the Second Lebanon War,” an influential Israeli think tank reported, prompted Israel to “initiate a thorough internal examination… on the order of 63 different commissions of inquiry.”

After the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel was itching to take on Hezbollah again but was not yet confident it would emerge triumphant from the battle. In mid-2008, Israel sought to conscript the US for an attack on Iran, which it believed would also decapitate Hezbollah (Iran’s junior partner), and thereby humble key rivals to its regional hegemony. To Israel’s chagrin and humiliation, Washington vetoed an attack and Iran went its merry way; the credibility of Israel’s capacity to terrorize slipped another notch. It was time to find another target, and Gaza fit the bill. It was largely defenseless while Hamas had resisted Israeli diktat, crowing first, in 2005, that it had forced Israel to “withdraw” and then, in 2008, that it had forced Israel to accept a cease-fire. If Gaza was where Israel would restore its deterrence capacity, one theater of the 2006 Lebanon war had already hinted at how it might successfully be done. 

…

Israel’s evolving modus operandi for restoring its deterrence capacity describes a curve steadily regressing into barbarism. Israel gained its victory in 1967 primarily on the battlefield-albeit in a “turkey shoot”46-while in subsequent hostilities, mostly in Lebanon, it sought both to achieve a battlefield victory and to bombard the civilian population into submission. But Israel targeted Gaza to restore its deterrence capacity because it eschewed any of the risks of a conventional war; it targeted Gaza because it was largely defenseless. Israel’s resort to unalloyed terror in turn revealed its relative decline as a military power, while the glorification of its military prowess during and after Cast Lead by the likes of Benny Morris registered the growing detachment of Israeli intellectuals, and a good share of the public as well, from reality.

…

Beyond restoring its deterrence capacity, Israel’s principal goal in the Gaza invasion was to fend off the latest threat posed by Palestinian pragmatism. Except for Israel backed by the United States, the international community has consistently supported a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict that calls for two states based on a full Israeli withdrawal to its prewar 1967 borders, and a “just” resolution of the refugee question based on the right of return and compensation. 

17）^The Blunders That Made Israel a Screwed-up State（https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-10-17/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-blunders-that-made-israel-a-screwed-up-state/0000018b-39f7-dd09-a1bf-3bffa9680001?gift=55f547e4fd2b4e28a0566044a8baa1e1）

And that’s just one minyan of mistakes; there are more. Lots more. But only three of the rest hold the only chance of a return to sanity:

• • We erred when we didn’t withdraw in time from all the territories we accidentally conquered in 1967. The time has come to do so; to pull out of all of these territories, with or without an agreement. Simply to get out. We’ll tell the settlers: If you want, leave; if you don’t want, stay. And Jerusalem? It might finally get the vital, wonderful internationalization that the United Nations had planned for it, in the resolution calling for the establishment of the state.
  • We erred when we forgot to separate religion and state. The time has come to do so. A few wise voting decisions in the Knesset and we can eliminate the arrangement by which there are religious, Haredi and Haredi Zionist parties. And also the cultivation of ignorance and idleness with taxpayers’ money.
  • We erred when we failed to establish a constitution. The time has come to do so. To start, it’s enough to define the state as a substantive democracy, together with the inclusion of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

18) ^This is Apartheid: https://www.btselem.org/apartheid

原文：

The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it contols (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip) an apartheid regime. One organizing principle lies at the base of a wide array of Israeli policies: advancing and perpetuating the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians.

B’Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it). B’Tselem reached the conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its control over Palestinians.

The key tool Israel uses to implement the principle of Jewish supremacy is engineering space geographically, demographically and politically. Jews go about their lives in a single, contiguous space where they enjoy full rights and self-determination. In contrast, Palestinians live in a space that is fragmented into several units, each with a different set of rights – given or denied by Israel, but always inferior to the rights accorded to Jews.

The Israeli regime pursues this organizing principle in four major areas:

• • Land – Israel works to Judaize the entire area, treating land as a resource chiefly meant to benefit the Jewish population. Since 1948, Israel has taken over 90% of the land within the Green Line and built hundreds of communities for the Jewish population. Since 1967, Israel has also enacted this policy in the West Bank, building more than 280 settlements for some 600,000 Jewish Israeli citizens. Israel has not built a single community for the Palestinian population in the entire area stretching from the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River (with the exception of several communities built to concentrate the Bedouin population after dispossessing them of most of their property rights).
     
  • Citizenship – Jews living anywhere in the world, their children and grandchildren – and their spouses – are entitled to Israeli citizenship. In contrast, Palestinians cannot immigrate to Israeli-controlled areas, even if they, their parents or their grandparents were born and lived there. Israel makes it difficult for Palestinians who live in one of the units it controls to obtain status in another, and has enacted legislation that prohibits granting Palestinians who marry Israelis status within the Green Line.
     
  • Freedom of movement – Israeli citizens enjoy freedom of movement in the entire area controlled by Israel (with the exception of the Gaza Strip) and may enter and leave the country freely. Palestinian subjects, on the other hand, require a special Israeli-issued permit to travel between the units (and sometimes inside them), and exit abroad also requires Israeli approval.
     
  • Political participation – Palestinian citizens of Israel may vote and run for office, but leading politicians consistently undermine the legitimacy of Palestinian political representatives. The roughly five million Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, cannot participate in the political system that governs their lives and determines their future. They are denied other political rights as well, including freedom of speech and association.

In the entire area, control over these aspects of life lies entirely in Israel’s hands – the sole power determining the population registry; land allocation; voter rolls; and the right (or denial thereof) to travel within, enter or exit any part of the area. The Israeli regime has grown increasingly explicit regarding its Jewish supremacist ideology, a process that has seen two major unmasking milestones in recent years. One was the enactment of Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People, which declares the distinction between Jews and non-Jews fundamental and legitimate, and permits institutional discrimination in land management and development, housing, citizenship, language and culture. The second came in the form of official statements regarding formal annexation of more parts of the West Bank, attesting to Israel’s long-term intentions and debunking claims of “temporary occupation.”

B’Tselem stresses that the military occupation has not ended: Palestinians in the West Bank remain its direct subjects, while in the Gaza Strip they live under its effective control, exerted from the outside. At the same time, casting Israel as a “democracy” on one side of the Green Line, while it is “temporarily” occupying millions of people on the other side, is divorced from reality. This depiction ignores the fact that this state of affairs has been in place for over fifty years. It fails to take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers living east of the Green Line. It glosses over the de-jure annexation of East Jerusalem and the de-facto annexation of the rest of the West Bank. These facts lead to the conclusion that these are not two parallel regimes, but a single one, governing the entire area and all the people living in it.

B’Tselem’s Executive Director, Hagai El-Ad: “The fundamental tenets of Israel’s regime, although already implemented for many years, have recently grown more explicit. This happened both with the discussion of de jure annexation after decades of de facto annexation, and with the enactment of the Nation State Basic Law, which took the existing discrimination against Palestinians and turned it into an open constitutional principle. Israel is not a democracy that has a temporary occupation attached to it: it is one regime between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and we must look at the full picture and see it for what it is: apartheid. This sobering look at reality need not lead to despair, but quite the opposite. It is a call for change. After all, people created this regime, and people can change it.”

19) ^This is Apartheid, B’Tselem Position paper: https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid

原文摘选：

Divide, separate, rule

In the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians. A key method in pursuing this goal is engineering space differently for each group.

Jewish citizens live as though the entire area were a single space (excluding the Gaza Strip). The Green Line means next to nothing for them: whether they live west of it, within Israel’s sovereign territory, or east of it, in settlements not formally annexed to Israel, is irrelevant to their rights or status.

Where Palestinians live, on the other hand, is crucial. The Israeli regime has divided the area into several units that it defines and governs differently, according Palestinians different rights in each. This division is relevant to Palestinians only. The geographic space, which is contiguous for Jews, is a fragmented mosaic for Palestinians:

• • Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state’s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice – as detailed further in this paper.     
  • Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, which consists of some 70,000 dunams [1 dunam = 1,000 square meters] that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire.     
  • Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel’s consent.     
  • The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside.

Israel accords Palestinians a different package of rights in every one of these units – all of which are inferior compared to the rights afforded to Jewish citizens. The goal of Jewish supremacy is advanced differently in every unit, and the resulting forms of injustice differ: the lived experience of Palestinians in blockaded Gaza is unlike that of Palestinian subjects in the West Bank, permanent residents in East Jerusalem or Palestinian citizens within sovereign Israeli territory. Yet these are variations on the fact that all Palestinians living under Israeli rule are treated as inferior in rights and status to Jews who live in the very same area.

Detailed below are four major methods the Israeli regime uses to advance Jewish supremacy. Two are implemented similarly throughout the entire area: restricting migration by non-Jews and taking over Palestinian land to build Jewish-only communities, while relegating Palestinians to small enclaves. The other two are implemented primarily in the Occupied Territories: draconian restrictions on the movement of non-citizen Palestinians and denial of their political rights. Control over these aspects of life lies entirely in Israel’s hands: in the entire area, Israel has sole power over the population registry, land allocation, voter rolls and the right (or denial thereof) to travel within, enter or exit any part of the area.

…

1. 1. Immigration – for Jews only
   2. Taking over land for Jews while crowding Palestinians in enclaves
   3. Restriction of Palestinians’ freedom of movement
   4. Denial of Palestinians’ right to political participation  

…

The Israeli regime, which controls all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, seeks to advance and cement Jewish supremacy throughout the entire area. To that end, it has divided the area into several units, each with a different set of rights for Palestinians – always inferior to the rights of Jews. As part of this policy, Palestinians are denied many rights, including the right to self-determination.

This policy is advanced in several ways. Israel demographically engineers the space through laws and orders that allow any Jew in the world or their relatives to obtain Israeli citizenship, but almost completely deny Palestinians this possibility. It has physically engineered the entire area by taking over of millions of dunams of land and establishing Jewish-only communities, while driving Palestinians into small enclaves. Movement is engineered through restrictions on Palestinian subjects, and political engineering excludes millions of Palestinians from participating in the processes that determine their lives and futures while holding them under military occupation.

A regime that uses laws, practices and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is an apartheid regime. Israeli apartheid, which promotes the supremacy of Jews over Palestinians, was not born in one day or of a single speech. It is a process that has gradually grown more institutionalized and explicit, with mechanisms introduced over time in law and practice to promote Jewish supremacy. These accumulated measures, their pervasiveness in legislation and political practice, and the public and judicial support they receive – all form the basis for our conclusion that the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met.

If this regime has developed over many years, why release this paper in 2021? What has changed? Recent years have seen a rise in the motivation and willingness of Israeli officials and institutions to enshrine Jewish supremacy in law and openly state their intentions. The enactment of Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People and the declared plan to formally annex parts of the West Bank have shattered the façade Israel worked for years to maintain.

The Nation State basic law, enacted in 2018, enshrines the Jewish people’s right to self-determination to the exclusion of all others. It establishes that distinguishing Jews in Israel (and throughout the world) from non-Jews is fundamental and legitimate. Based on this distinction, the law permits institutionalized discrimination in favor of Jews in settlement, housing, land development, citizenship, language and culture. It is true that the Israeli regime largely followed these principles before. Yet Jewish supremacy has now been enshrined in basic law, making it a binding constitutional principle – unlike ordinary law or practices by authorities, which can be challenged. This signals to all state institutions that they not only can, but must, promote Jewish supremacy in the entire area under Israeli control.

20) ^Ten Israeli human rights organizations to ICC Prosecutor: “We are all committed to assisting your office in advancing the ongoing investigation of the Situation in Palestine”

https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20221228_10_ngos_to_icc_prosecutor_we_are_all_committed_to_assisting_your_officein_advancing_the_ongoing_investigation_of_the_situation_in_palestine

21）^Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes by Robert Goldstone (https://web.archive.org/web/20120607065437/http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html)

22) ^Human Rights In Palestine And Other Occupied Arab Territories Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict （the Goldstone Report, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/09/15/UNFFMGCReport.pdf)

原文摘录：

1. 43. The Mission investigated eleven incidents in which Israeli forces launched direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome (Chapter XI). The cases examined in this part of the report are, with one exception, all cases in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack. The first two incidents are attacks against houses in the Samouni neighbourhood south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house in which Palestinian civilians had been forced to assemble by the Israeli forces. The following group of seven incidents concern the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so. The facts gathered by the Mission indicate that all the attacks occurred under circumstances in which the Israeli forces were in control of the area and had previously entered into contact with or at least observed the persons they subsequently attacked, so that they must have been aware of their civilian status. In the majority of these incidents, the consequences of the Israeli attacks against civilians were aggravated by their subsequent refusal to allow the evacuation of the wounded or to permit access to ambulances.

1. 46. From the facts ascertained in all the above cases, the Mission finds that the conduct of the Israeli armed forces constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons and as such give rise to individual criminal responsibility. It also finds that the direct targeting and arbitrary killing of Palestinian civilians is a violation of the right to life.

23) ^Goldstone report: Statement issued by members of UN mission on Gaza war This article is more than 12 years old Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers

原文摘录：

We concur in our view that there is no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in any way change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict. Indeed, there is no UN procedure or precedent to that effect.

…

Many of those calling for the nullification of our report imply that the final report by the follow-up committee’s two members, Judge Mary McGowan Davis and Judge Lennart Aspergren, presented to the human rights council in March 2011, somehow contradicts the fact-finding mission’s report or invalidates it.

In the light of the observations of this committee such claims are completely misplaced, and a clear distortion of their findings. The committee’s report states that, according to available information, Israel has conducted some 400 command investigations into allegations by the fact-finding mission and other organisations. Command investigations are operational, not legal, inquiries and are conducted by personnel from the same command structure as those under investigation. Out of these, the committee reports that 52 criminal investigations into allegations of wrongdoings have been opened. Of these, three have been submitted for prosecution, with two of them resulting in convictions (one for theft of a credit card, resulting in a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment, and another for using a Palestinian child as a human shield, which resulted in a suspended sentence of three months). The third case, related to allegations of deliberate targeting of an individual waving a white flag, is still ongoing.

…

We consider that calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts at misrepresenting its nature and purpose, disregard the right of victims, Palestinian and Israeli, to truth and justice. They also ignore the responsibility of the relevant parties under international law to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and independent investigations. We regret the personal attacks and the extraordinary pressure placed on members of the fact-finding mission since we began our work in May 2009. This campaign has been clearly aimed at undermining the integrity of the report and its authors. Had we given in to pressures from any quarter to sanitise our conclusions, we would be doing a serious injustice to the hundreds of innocent civilians killed during the Gaza conflict, the thousands injured, and the hundreds of thousands whose lives continue to be deeply affected by the conflict and the blockade.

24）^EU Poll Names Israel Greatest Threat to World Peace （https://www.dw.com/en/eu-poll-names-israel-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/a-1022127）

25) ^Professor Not Reprimanded; Said Settlers Similar to Nazis (https://www.jta.org/archive/professor-not-reprimanded-said-settlers-similar-to-nazis)

In an recent interview in the weekly newspaper Yerushalayim, Zimmerman said he saw strong similarities between the two groups. “There is a whole sector of Israeli society, that without hesitation I would call a copy of the Nazis,” he said.

“Look at the children of Hebron: They are exactly like Hitler Youth. They are brainwashed from age zero that Arabs are bad and about anti-Semitism, making them paranoid and racist — just like the Hitler Youth.”

26) ^Email Sent By Ucsb Professor Of Sociology William Robinson To The Students In His “Sociology Of Globalization Classon” January 19, 2009

https://www.amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/William-Robinson-Email-Chain_sm.pdf

William Robinson 教授公开信电邮原文：

I am a Jew. 

I was a participant in the Rally for the Right of Return to Palestine. It was the right thing to do.

I’ve heard about the European holocaust against the Jews since I was a small child. I’ve visited the memorials in Washington, DC and Jerusalem dedicated to Jewish lives lost and I’ve cried at the recognition to what level of atrocity mankind is capable of sinking.

Where are the Jews of conscience? No righteous malice can be held against the survivors of Hitler’s holocaust. These fragments of humanity were in no position to make choices beyond that of personal survival. We must not forget that being a survivor or a co-religionist of the victims of the European Holocaust does not grant dispensation from abiding by the rules of humanity.

“Never again” as a motto, rings hollow when it means “never again to us alone.” My generation was raised being led to believe that the biblical land was a vast desert inhabited by a handful of impoverished Palestinians living with their camels and eking out a living in the sand. The arrival of the Jews was touted as a tremendous benefit to these desert dwellers. Golda Meir even assured us that there “is no Palestinian problem”.

We know now this picture wasn’t as it was painted. Palestine was a land filled with people who called it home. There were thriving towns and villages, schools and hospitals. There were Jews, Christians and Muslims.

In fact, prior to the occupation, Jews represented a mere seven per cent of the population and owned three per cent of the land.

Taking the blinders off for a moment, I see a second atrocity perpetuated by the very people who should be exquisitely sensitive to the suffering of others. These people knew what it felt like to be ordered out of your home at gun point and forced to march into the night to unknown destinations or face execution on the spot. The people who displaced the Palestinians knew first hand what it means to watch your home in flames, to surrender everything dear to your heart at a moment’s notice. Bulldozers levelled hundreds of villages, along with the remains of the village inhabitants, the old and the young. This was nothing new to the world.

Poland is a vast graveyard of the Jews of Europe. Israel is the final resting place of the massacred Palestinian people. A short distance from the memorial to the Jewish children lost to the holocaust in Europe there is a levelled parking lot. Under this parking lot is what’s left of a once flourishing village and the bodies of men, women and children whose only crime was taking up needed space and not leaving graciously. This particularburial marker reads: “Public Parking”.

I’ve talked with Palestinians. I have yet to meet a Palestinian who hasn’t lost a member of their family to the Israeli Shoah, nor a Palestinian who cannot name a relative or friend languishing under inhumane conditions in an Israeli prison. Time and time again, Israel is cited for human rights violations to no avail. On a recent trip to Israel, I visited the refugee camps inhabited by a people who have waited 52 years in these ‘temporary’ camps to go home. Every Palestinian grandparent can tell you the name of their village, their street, and where the olive trees were planted.

Their grandchildren may never have been home, but they can tell you where

their great-grandfather lies buried and where the village well stood. The press has fostered the portrait of the Palestinian terrorist. But the victims who rose up against human indignity in the Warsaw Ghetto are called heroes. Those who lost their lives are called martyrs. The Palestinian who tosses a rock in desperation is a terrorist.

Two years ago I drove through Palestine and watched intricate sprinkler systems watering lush green lawns of Zionist settlers in their new condominium complexes, surrounded by armed guards and barbed wire in the midst of a Palestinian community where there was not adequate water to drink and the surrounding fields were sandy and dry. University professor Moshe Zimmerman reported in the Jerusalem Post (30 April,1995), “The [Jewish] children of Hebron are just like Hitler’s youth.”

We Jews are suing for restitution, lost wages, compensation for homes, land, slave labour and back wages in Europe. Am I a traitor of a Jew for supporting the right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their birthplace and compensation for what was taken that cannot be returned?

The Jewish dead cannot be brought back to life and neither can the Palestinian massacred be resurrected. David Ben Gurion said, “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves…politically, we are the aggressors and they defend themselves…The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country…”.

Palestine is a land that has been occupied and emptied of its people. Its cultural and physical landmarks have been obliterated and replaced by tidy Hebrew signs. The history of a people was the first thing eradicated by the occupiers. The history of the indigenous people has been all but eradicated as though they never existed. And all this has been hailed by the world as a miraculous act of God. We must recognise that Israel’s existence is not even a question of legality so much as it is an illegal fait accompli

realised through the use of force while supported by the Western powers. The UN missions directed at Israel in attempting to correct its violations of have thus far been futile.

In Hertzl’s ‘The Jewish State’ the father of Zionism said: “We must investigate and take possession of the new Jewish country by means of every modern expedient.” I guess I agree with Ehud Barak (3 June 1998) when he said, “If I were a Palestinian, I’d also join a terror group.” I’d go a step further perhaps. Rather than throwing little stones in desperation, I’d hurtle a boulder.

Hopefully, somewhere deep inside, every Jew of conscience knows that this was no war; that this was not G-d’s restitution of the holy land to it’s rightful owners. We know that a human atrocity was and continues to be perpetuated against an innocent people who couldn’t come up with the arms and money to defend themselves against the western powers bent upon their demise as a people.

We cannot continue to say, “But what were we to do?” Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism. I wholly support the rally of the right of return of the Palestinian people.

27) ^Robinson Cleared by UCSB Academic Senatehttps://www.independent.com/2009/06/26/robinson-cleared-by-ucsb-academic-senate/

28）^It’s Official: Gaza Is Now a Ghetto （https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2021-12-14/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/its-official-gaza-is-now-a-ghetto/0000017f-e3c9-d9aa-afff-fbd955d20000?gift=1b1fcdfbce794fafad6f2a6a7c1f535f）

原文：

And now it’s official: This is a ghetto. Not a prison. A ghetto. What’s the difference between a prison and a ghetto? In a prison they incarcerate people for their crimes. In a ghetto they incarcerate people for their genes. Over 2 million human beings are crowded into this ghetto, 99 percent of them innocent of any crime. But that doesn’t bother the ghettos and their builders. After all, ghettos have always been designated for the innocent. Who knows that as well as we do?