【英语国际】军事胜利换不来和平

Israel will never turn armed might into strategic security. If need be, it could win a war against all its enemies combined. But if it wants peace it must face the decision it has avoided for 40 years: withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories. Military victories and land grabs are futile. Security will come only with political resolution.As it happens, these are not my sentiments, though I certainly share them. They were among some valedictory reflections offered by Ehud Olmert, Israel's outgoing prime minister, when he announced his resignation last September.

Israel, Mr Olmert volunteered during an interview with the Yedioth Ahronoth* newspaper, had long looked to its military for answers. But, through all the country's many wars had the generals learnt “a single thing”? Tanks, controlling territory, holding this or that hill – “these things are worthless”. Security lay in peace with its neighbours.

The moment had come for someone to break the spell. Save for negotiated land swaps, Israel had to hand back the West Bank to the Palestinians and to share control of Jerusalem. Peace with Syria was possible only with the return of the Golan Heights. “What I am saying here has never been said by a leader of Israel. But the time has come to say these things.”

He was right. Now, fast forward three months and the same Mr Olmert, serving out the last few weeks of his premiership, has sent Israel's military to war against Hamas. The humanitarian tragedy in Gaza, we must conclude, is mirrored by a political tragedy in Israel. Even the authors of the latest invasion understand in their hearts its hopelessness.

The force of the assault on Hamas may well secure for Israel a ceasefire that shields for a time its southern cities. The Islamist extremists have doubtless suffered a severe blow. But anything claimed as a victory will be hollow – another military success and another strategic failure. All at terrible cost in innocent lives.

The war, Israeli officials say, has been fought in the name of “deterrence”. Hamas must learn that it cannot continue to terrorise Israeli civilians with missiles launched from Gaza. And this time, you can hear the officials whispering, Israel will not repeat the mistakes made during the 2006 war against Hizbollah.

Some Israeli politicians speak of another objective: to show ordinary Palestinians that Hamas is the obstacle to peace and prosperity. If only they were to swing back behind the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas, prospects for a just settlement would rise immeasurably. I am not sure whether anyone in Israel actually believes that the scenes of carnage in Gaza will induce such a response; no one else does.

To condemn Israel for the war is not to side with its enemies. The ideology promoted by Hamas is repulsive. Indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli towns are inexcusable. Israel does indeed have the right to defend itself. But acts of defence must be proportionate. They should also be mindful of the consequences: for Palestinians and, ultimately, for Israel.

For all the provocations, the Israeli leadership's willingness to see so many Palestinians killed speaks to fearfulness above strength. To assert the right to retaliate against Hamas is not to say that it is just, or wise, to shell large swathes of Gaza.

Mr Olmert might have recalled his own words: “A prime minister must ask himself where best to direct his own efforts. Are [they] directed toward making peace or are they directed constantly towards making the country stronger and stronger in order to win a war?”

As for the rockets: “Who seriously thinks that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred metres, this will make a difference for Israel's basic security?” No, the lasting answer, Mr Olmert offered then, was to designate final, internationally endorsed borders between Israel and “the state of Palestine”.

Much of Israel's political establishment thinks as Mr Olmert has acted rather than spoken. Seeking peace carries too many perils. There is no certainty that an agreement can be struck, much less sold to voters who have so long listened to the generals. It is much easier for politicians to claim the satisfaction that comes with another demonstration of military might.

The threats to Israel should not be discounted. The proliferation of short-range missiles – in the hands of Iran's ally Hizbollah in the north as well as Hamas in the south – has transformed the strategic landscape. There is no technological defence against such weapons. The aforementioned generals grew up fighting on the territory of Israel's neighbours. The rockets of Hizbollah and Hamas have brought these wars to Israel's cities.

Then there is Iran, the abiding preoccupation, not to say obsession, of almost every Israeli policymaker. Here Israel sees an existential threat – the reason it will not surrender the option of launching its own military strikes if the international community fails to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Left to its own devices, Tehran may cross the nuclear threshold during the next year or so – acquiring enough fissile material to produce a bomb. Hizbollah, funded and directed by the Iranians, has rebuilt its stocks of missiles. The rockets fired from Lebanon this week were a reminder, if one were needed, that the 2006 war ended in a truce not a peace.

What all this demands of Israel, officials will tell you, is iron determination and the capacity to strike faster and harder than its enemies. The Palestinians, the same officials can be heard saying, are too divided and too resentful to make peace; the Syrians too wedded to their alliances with Iran and Hizbollah.

This is the self-defeating counsel of despair that Mr Olmert seemed to rebel against only a few months ago. What happens when Israel wins? Missing is any sense that, beyond winning wars, Israel has the capacity to shape a different reality.

Yet at different moments, plenty of Israeli politicians and officials will agree that the parameters of peace are clear. Israel cannot survive as a Jewish state unless Palestinians are given statehood. Syria will never make peace without the return of territory now occupied by Israel. What is required, as Mr Olmert might have said last September, is the imagination to see a future beyond military victories. Let us hope it is still not too late to say these things.

*Translated from Hebrew and published in the December 4 issue of the New York Review of Books

以色列永远不可能把武力转变为战略安全。假如需要的话，以色列可以战胜所有敌人。但如果以色列想要和平，则必须面对回避了40年的决定：从占领的巴勒斯坦领土撤出。军事胜利和侵占领土是徒劳的。只有政治决议才能带来安全。这些恰好都不是我的感想，但肯定的是，我会分享这些感想。这些是以色列即将离职的总理埃胡德•奥尔默特(Ehud Olmert)去年9月宣布辞职时说的一些临别反思。

奥尔默特先生在接受《新消息报》(Yedioth Ahronoth)*的一次采访中自愿表示，长久以来，以色列都是通过军事行动来寻求答案。但是，以色列经过了这么多战争后，将军们学到“一件事情”了吗？坦克、控制领土、占领这座或那座山——“这些东西毫无价值可言”。安全在于与邻国和平共处。

是有人来打破这个魔咒的时候了。除去谈判的土地交换，以色列还必须将西岸交还给巴勒斯坦人，并共同控制耶路撒冷。只有返还戈兰高地，才可能实现与叙利亚的和平。“我在这里说的话，还从来没有以色列领导人说过，但讨论这些事情的时候已经到了。”

他说得没错。现在，时间快进三个月，同样是奥尔默特先生，在担任总理生涯的最后几个星期里，却派出了以色列军队同哈马斯开战。我们必须断定，加沙的人道主义悲剧正是以色列政治战略的反映。就连制定最近侵略行动的人，心里也知道以色列的无助。

袭击哈马斯的力度可能会让以色列得到停火，保护其南方城市一段时间。伊斯兰极端分子无疑遭受了一次严重的打击，然而任何所谓的胜利都是空洞的——又一次军事胜利，又一次战略失败。这一切都以无辜的生命作为惨重代价。

以色列官员称，战争是以“威慑”的名义打响的。哈马斯必须知道，它不能再继续用从加沙发射的导弹来恐吓以色列平民。这一次，你可以听到官员们窃窃私语说，以色列不会重犯2006年同真主党交战时的错误。

有些以色列政客说到了另一个目标：向普通巴勒斯坦人证明哈马斯是和平与繁荣的障碍。要是他们能改变对马哈茂德•阿巴斯(Mahmoud Abbas)领导的巴勒斯坦权力机构的支持，公正解决的希望就大大增加了。我不能确信，以色列是否有人真的相信加沙的屠杀场景会引起这样的反应；没有人能相信。

谴责以色列开战并非是站到以色列敌人的一边。哈马斯提倡的思想也让人反感。用火箭对以色列城镇狂轰滥炸是不可宽恕的。以色列确实有权自卫，但防御行动不能过火。他们也应该考虑到后果：既是为了巴勒斯坦人，最终也是为了以色列。

尽管多次挑衅，但以色列领导人愿意见到这么多巴勒斯坦人死去，说明胆怯胜过实力。主张有报复哈马斯的权利，并不是说轰炸加沙的大片地区就是正义的，或是明智的。

奥尔默特先生或许想起了自己说过的话：“总理必须扪心自问，劲往哪里使才是最好的，是朝着和解的方向使劲，还是不断朝着让国家越来越强以赢得战争的方向使劲？”

至于火箭弹：“有谁真的以为，假如我们坐在另一座山顶上，再隔几百米，就会让以色列的基本安全有所改观吗？”不会，奥尔默特先生当时提供的持久答案，是标出最终的、获国际认可的以色列和“巴勒斯坦国”的边界。

以色列的大多数政治机构的想法，和奥尔默特先生的所做而非所说一致。寻求和平有着太多的危险。无法肯定可以达成协议，更不必说让那些长久以来都听将军话的选民接受了。再次展示军事力量更容易让政客们获得满足。

对以色列的威胁也不应该漠视。近程导弹的迅速扩散——在伊朗北方盟友真主党和南方哈马斯的手里——已经改变了战略格局。没有对付这些武器的技术防御手段。上述将军们就是在以色列邻国的领土上作战成熟起来的。真主党和哈马斯的火箭将这些战争带到了以色列的城市。

然后还有伊朗，它几乎是每个以色列决策者的长期关注对象，甚至可以说是痴迷对象。这里以色列看到的是现实威胁——也是它不愿放弃发动军事打击的原因，它害怕国际社会无法说服伊朗放弃核计划。

如果听任伊朗自行其是，明年这时，德黑兰可能会跨过原子能门槛，到时就能获得足够的裂变原料制造炸弹了。由伊朗人资助并指挥的真主党，建立了自己的导弹库存。本周从黎巴嫩发射的火箭就是个提醒，假如需要提醒的话，提醒我们2006年的战争结束不过是休战，而非和平。

官员们会告诉你，这就要求以色列有比敌人更快更狠出击的钢铁般决心和能力。你会听到这些官员说，巴勒斯坦人内部意见分歧过大，太心怀怨恨，无法和解；叙利亚人也与伊朗和真主党结成了联盟。

这样的绝望忠告是自毁长城，仅仅数月前，奥尔默特先生似乎还在反对。以色列赢了又怎么样呢？除了赢得战争，以色列根本没有能力改变现状，一点意义也没有。

然而在不同时刻，许多以色列政客和官员都会同意，实现和平的因素很清楚。除非巴勒斯坦人得到国家地位，否则以色列就无法作为犹太人国家生存。假如以色列不归还现在占领的领土，叙利亚绝对不会和解。正如奥尔默特先生去年9月可能会说的那样，现在所需要的，是能够看到军事胜利之后未来的想象力。我们希望，现在说这些还为时未晚。

*译自希伯来语，发表在《纽约书评》12月4日号上。

译者/红岭