我们应该关注巴勒斯坦的人权而非巴勒斯坦国.docx

光谱资本SPECTRUM CAPITAL A SPECTRUM INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTFocus on Palestinian rights, not Palestinian state我们应该关注巴勒斯坦的人权而非巴勒斯坦国文 Michael N. Barnett 译 马力The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has worn everyone out, not just among the parties but also among those who want to help the parties find a solution. The briefs byKhaled Elgindy andNatan Sachs illustrate that sense of exhaustion and hopelessness that so many feel. So why not wave the white flag and let the parties do what they will? There is a fear that surrendering means resigning to something that will be far worse than the current situation, and so everyone keeps pedaling. It doesnt matter where the bicycle goes, it just needs to stay upright. The continuous act of pedaling is not necessarily a bad thing unless, of coursedoing so masks the fact that the parties are drifting into a far worse situation. The question is: what is the alternative to the continued focus on finding a two-state solution? If not the two-state solution, then what? Is there something else that might be a more productive use of the considerable energy, time, and resources that are being wasted on trying to find something that so many believe is unobtainable? 巴以冲突已经把大家搞的焦头烂额，不仅仅是派系冲突中的人，也包括想要帮助各个派系寻找解决途径的人。Khaled Elgindy和Natan Sachs两人的观点阐释了很多人焦躁与无助感。所以为什么不挥舞白旗，放弃调解，让派系做他们想要做的事情呢。有种恐惧感认为投降意味着屈从一些比现在情况更差的情况，因此每个人都不停下踩脚踏车的脚步。脚踏车骑到哪里并不重要，只要它没倒下就好。继续骑脚踏车不是一件坏事，除非这么做掩盖了走向困境的现实。问题是，有什么事能替代找到一个两国共存的解决方式呢？如果不是一个两国共存的解决方式，那是什么？有没有更高效方式来节省花在很多人认为的不能达到的目标上的时间、精力和资源呢？I suggest that we shift our focus from trying to create a two-state solution to trying to secure the basic rights and improve the welfare of the Palestinians. Before making the case for this shift, I want to emphasize what this proposal is not. It is not another way of extinguishing the goal of Palestinian self-determination and statehood; trying to improve their rights and circumstances does not have to come at the expense of these goals. It does mean, however, slightly reordering the priorities. Nor am I proposing a stealth method to legitimate Israels hold over the territories; improving the rights of the Palestinians does not necessarily translate into making the occupation more justifiable or sustainable. Indeed, as I will suggest below, the improvement of Palestinian rights has a better chance of improving the lives of the Palestinians, providing them more options for protecting themselves against state oppression, and halting Israels creeping annexation of the territories.我建议我们将我们从建立两国的思维变为保障巴勒斯坦人民的基本权利和福利。在让这种转变有意义之前，我想要强调的事这个提议是不关于什么的。这不是来区分巴勒斯坦民族自决和国家地位的另一种方式；提高他们人权和生存环境的努力与这些目标并不相悖。虽然小换了下顺序，但并无大碍。我既不是提议让以色列合法拥有领土的隐蔽手段；提高巴勒斯坦的权利并不意味着使得占领更公正和可持续。正如我下面建议的那样，提升巴勒斯坦的人权有助于保障他们的生命，为他们提供更多的选择来抗争国家压迫，还有阻止以色列对国土的蚕食。There are two chief reasons why the continued occupation and the search for a non-existent two-state solution has silenced a serious discussion of Palestinian rights. First, too much of the discussion of Palestinian rights is focused on the right to national self-determination. The right to self-determination is an important right. But it is not the only right. We should be as concerned with the panoply of other basic human rightsincluding political, civil, social, and economic rights. Indeed, one of the reasons why the right of self-determination has become such a focus of attention for over a century is because of the understanding that it will help achieve these other basic human (as opposed to group) rights. Rather than talking about self-determination, we should be discussing the economic rights of the Palestinians, including property rights, access to water, and so on. Rather than talking about self-determination, we should be discussing how Palestinians can achieve their political rights, and whether that means making the Palestinian authorities more accountable through elections (which have been delayed for over a decade), allowing Palestinians to vote in Israeli elections, or creating some mechanism that gives the Palestinians greater say over Israeli policy in the territories. The point is simple: the focus on rights will necessitate a conversation on how to improve the welfare and dignity of the Palestinian population.有两个主要观点阐释了为什么现有的占领以及寻找两国并存的方案使得关于巴勒斯坦人权的讨论息声。首先，关于巴勒斯坦太多的讨论是关于国家民族自决的。民族自决是是很重要的权利。但它不是唯一的权利。我们应该更多的考虑其他人权包括政治、公民、社会以及经济权利。确实，民族自决作为关注的焦点已经持续一个世纪的原因是考虑到它能帮助人民取得其他人权。现在不讨论民族自决，我们应该讨论巴勒斯坦人的经济权利包括居住权和饮水权等等。不讨论民族自决，我们应该讨论的是巴勒斯坦人怎么来争取政治权利，巴勒斯坦当权者是否通过选举取得更强的公信力（选举已经延期了十多年），允许巴勒斯坦人参与以色列的选举，或者创造一些机制给巴勒斯坦人在领土问题上对以色列政策有更大的影响力。重点很简单：重视人权将会提升巴勒斯坦的福利以及人民的自尊心。Second, there is continued ambiguity over the ruling legal regime. To enter into a discussion among international legal experts about which laws do and do not apply to the territories is to dive into the proverbial rabbits hole. Does Ottoman law apply here, and for what? What about British mandatory law? What about Jordanian law, and the Jordanian law from the pre-1967 or post-1967 period? What are the laws of occupation? The debate over the law is, in many ways, a ridiculous conversation that serves the status quo. It masks the insanity of debating whether laws of two dead empires are relevant to the lives of millions of Palestinians. It hides how Israeli authorities choose whatever legal rules serve their immediate interests and the Palestinian authorities operate inside the law as they define it or choose to enforce it. It pretends as if the “occupation” is temporary when in fact it is nearly permanent; after all, the occupation is now approaching its half-century mark. Laws of occupation were not intended for these quasi-permanent arrangements.第二点，对于法律有模糊性。讨论国际法来那些应该用那些不用现在还模棱两可。奥特曼法是否应该应用于此，应该在哪些事情上？英国强制执行法是否应该应用于此？那约旦的法律呢，是1967年前的约旦法还是1967年后的约旦法？占领法呢？关于法律的讨论在很大程度上是为当下服务的无稽之谈。它掩饰了一场疯狂的辩论，这个辩题是关于两个死去的王国是否还和上百万的巴勒斯坦的民众相关。它掩盖了以色列当权者选择法律是否为他们直接利益服务，还有巴勒斯坦当权者在法律中暗箱操作他们制定并且有选择地执行它。它假装占领是暂时的，但实际上占领是接近永远的。总之，占领已经半个世纪。占领区地法律并不是为准永久占领制定的。Any discussion of human rights must address who is violating which human rights and who should be responsible for enforcing these rights. For the Palestinians, there are two authorities that threaten their lives, dignities, and welfare: Israel, and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. In international political circles, the focus on the occupation has the unintended result of directing all the attention to the conduct of the Israeli authorities toward the Palestinians and neglecting the everyday human rights violations committed by the Palestinian authorities. No one has ever argued that the Palestinian leadership has clean hands, but its crimes are hardly ever addressed, much to the detriment of the Palestinian population.关于人权地讨论必须强调是谁在违背某种人权还有是谁应该对推行这种人权负责。对于巴勒斯坦人来说，有两个政权在威胁着他们的生命、尊严以及福利那就是以色列和巴勒斯坦地当权者以及哈马斯。在国际政治圈，关注占领区实际上就是将所有注意力集中在以色列当权者是怎么来对待巴勒斯坦人的，以及忽视巴勒斯坦政权对人权的扰乱。没有人声称过巴拉斯然的领导人有双干净的手，但是他的罪行很少被强调，很少涉及他对巴勒斯坦大众的伤害。There also is the question of enforcement, which is probably the trickiest issue of all. We have to begin with the assumption that the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government, who are often the chief violators of Palestinian rights, cannot be trusted to enforce basic rights. If local authorities cannot be trusted, then the international community must have a role.关于施行也有问题，这可能是最棘手的问题。我们已经假设巴勒斯坦领导人以及以色列政府他们是巴勒斯坦民众人权的罪魁祸首，所以他们在推行基本人权的时候不能被信任。如果当地政权不能被信任，那么就有国际社会扮演角色的余地。Although the Israelis will obviously resist this internationalization, it is worth noting that this is exactly what Jewish leaders proposed after World War I, when they were a beleaguered minority attempting to survive in the new ethno-national states of Eastern Europe. Specifically, because they could not rely on the new Eastern European governments to recognize and protect the basic rights of the Jews, Jewish organizations helped to create the first international minority rights treaties and looked to the League of Nations to provide minority protection. Although widely viewed as something of a radical innovation in world affairs, the minority treaties failed at their protection mission for reasons that Jewish delegations understood at the time: without credible enforcement mechanisms these guarantees would be nearly worthless. Because of this failed experiment, after World War II many Jewish leaders looked first and foremost to creating a Jewish state, while others directed their attention to the need for the United Nations to make human rights part of its core mission and have an effective enforcement machinery. Human rights governance has evolved considerably over the decades, and now there are many states and international bodies, public and private, that seek to enforce regimes designed to protect minorities. As a result of the combination of the heightened international focus on Israel and the new kinds of sanctions that are in place regarding human rights, Israeli and Palestinian authorities can expect to suffer considerable costs for their failure to protect the basic rights of the Palestinians.尽管以色列人明显抵制这种国际化，这正是犹太领导人在第一次世界大战之后主张的观点，尽管一点意义也没有，他们是东欧新民族主义国家的幸存者的少数。特别地，因为他们不能倚赖新的东欧政权来获得犹太人基本权利的认同和保护，犹太人组织帮助成立第一个国际少数民族人权保护条约，并且向国联寻求少数民族的保护。尽管广泛地被认为是国际事务激进的创新，少数民族条约在保护权利的意义上失败了，因为犹太代表明白在当时没有一个健全的实行机制，这些保护条款会变得一文不值。因为这次试验失败，在第二次世界大战以后很多犹太领导人着眼于成立一个犹太国，另外一些人将注意力转向联合国，来使人权成为联合国的核心使命，并有一个更有效的执行机制。人权政治在过去几十年里已经有了长足的进步，现在有很多国家和国际组织，不论是公开还是非公开都旨在推行保护少数人群的统治。鉴于进一步对以色列的国际关注以及各种对于人权的约束，以色列和巴勒斯坦的当权者如果不能保证巴勒斯坦人权的花将会面临巨大的代价。Shifting the focus from a two-state solution to Palestinian rights will not magically improve the lives, circumstances, and welfare of the Palestinians. There are, in many respects, nearly as many loose ends with this proposal as with the lingering desire to work for a two-state solution. But expanding the narrow focus on the right to national self-determination to include the need to observe the other basic human rights might have various positive effects. It might have a