評論
打印
Leaders
社論精粹
Ariel Sharon
阿里埃勒·沙龍
He may be missed
也許會有人懷念他
Israel needed—and still needs—a man like Ariel Sharon to bludgeon a path to peace
以色列曾經需要—現在依舊需要—像阿里埃勒·沙龍那樣的人去為和平開路
HOW strange that a man widely reviled for most of his adult life as a warmonger, even by many of his fellow Israelis, might have been the one to bring about a lasting peace between Jews and Arabs—and a proper state for Palestine—had he survived in fair health for another five years or so as prime minister.
一個人被視為好戰分子，廣受批評，甚至許多批評來自他的以色列同胞，但如果他能健康地作為總理多撐5年，就最有可能為猶太人和阿拉伯人帶來持久和平，這是多不可思議啊。
Ariel Sharon, who died on January 11th after lying in a coma for eight years following a stroke that struck him down at the height of his political powers, was a man of moral as well as physical courage.
阿里埃勒·沙龍正處于政治權利巔峰時，中風突然來襲，陷入昏迷8年之后，他于1月11日去世。
He was a man of vision, too—an example to the current prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.
沙龍道德高尚，無所畏懼，他還富有遠見卓識，是現任總理本雅明·內塔尼亞胡之榜樣。
For many years Mr Sharon saw Israelas a fortress to be defended so ferociously that no Arab could hope to destroy it.
在許多年里，沙龍都視以色列為堡壘，要堅決捍衛，不給阿拉伯人任何摧毀堡壘的希望。
When, as prime minister, he dramatically changed tack by deciding to evacuate the Gaza Strip, evicting thousands of Jewish settlers for whom he had previously been the doughtiest champion, he faced down Israel's hard right.
在總理任上，沙龍的路線大幅改變，壓住了以色列的強硬右翼勢力，決定疏散加沙地帶，讓幾千猶太定居者從加沙撤出，這些猶太定居者之前曾視沙龍為最堅定的領袖。
It was an act of courage as well as pragmatism.
這一舉動既需要勇氣，又要有務實精神。
At the time he sought to persuade the outraged settlers and their influential lobby that he would not then proceed to wrest the West Bankfrom their grip, handing it back to the Palestinians as the basis of their state.
沙龍當時試圖說服憤怒的定居者及其勢力強大的說客團，稱他不會將約旦河西岸從他們手中拿走，讓巴勒斯坦人作為建國的基礎。
But he might well have changed his mind on this score, too.
但沙龍在這一事上可能也改變了主意。
The dilemma Mr Sharon had the courage to confront in 2005 is the same one that Mr Netanyahu keep on running away from.
2005年沙龍有勇氣去直面困境，但內塔尼亞胡卻一直在逃避這種困境。
If Israelis to remain a democracy, it cannot indefinitely occupy theWest Bankwhile also denying the Palestinians full political rights in a Greater Israel.
如果以色列依然要以民主國家的形式存在，它就不能一直占著約旦河西岸，同時又否認巴勒斯坦人在大以色列中具有完全政治權利。
Yet a Palestinian majority—and the demography is heading that way—would mean the end ofIsraelas a predominantly Jewish state.
然而，如果巴勒斯坦人成為多數—在人口分布上也正逐漸如此—就意味著以色列不再是一個猶太人為主的國家。
If Israel wants to remain both Jewish and a democracy, the only workable alternative is to give the Palestinians a state of their own, thereby accepting that Israel must vacate most of that hallowed land on the West Bank. Giving upGazawas the first step.
如果以色列既要保持猶太性質，又要實行民主，唯一可行的方案是給巴勒斯坦人一個自己的國家，因此也就需要以色列清空多數約旦河西岸被視為神圣的土地。放棄加沙是第一步。
What Mr Sharon would have done, nobody knows for certain.
沒人能確切知道，如果沙龍仍在，他會怎么做。
Ehud Olmert, who succeeded Mr Sharon at the head of the party he founded, came tantalisingly close to clinching a deal on theWest Bank.
接替沙龍成為其所創黨派首腦的埃胡德·奧爾默特幾乎就促成了關于約旦河西岸的協議。
Looking at other comparably bloodstained conflicts, the most durable peace deals tend to be reached by seasoned warriors rather than doe-eyed pacifists.
參照其它流血沖突，最持久的和平協議多由經驗豐富的戰士促成，而不是由天真的和平主義者。
Can Bibi match Arik?
內塔尼亞胡能及沙龍否？
Mr Netanyahu, an artful populist serving his third stint as prime minister, is neither warrior nor pacifist.
內塔尼亞胡是精明的民粹派，現在是其第三任總理任期，他既非戰士，也不是和平主義者。
In theory, he has accepted that only a proper Palestinian state will secureIsrael's future, but he has failed to show the enthusiasm and flexibility needed to achieve it.
理論上，他接受只有建立正常的巴勒斯坦國才能保證以色列的未來安全這樣的觀點，但是他沒有實現這一目標所需的熱情和靈活性。
The settlements keep expanding.
定居點的范圍還在擴大。
Even now, withAmerica's secretary of state, John Kerry, as mediator, the Likud party led by Mr Netanyahu has yet officially to accept the idea of a two-state solution.
即使是現在，在美國國務卿約翰·克里的斡旋下，內塔尼亞胡領導的利庫德集團也沒有正式結束雙國家方案。
And he has other excuses.
內塔尼亞胡還有其他理由。
Like Mr Sharon, he is boxed in by powerful extremists in his ruling coalition; the head of one of his main partner-parties is dead against it.
跟沙龍一樣，他在執政聯盟內有來自強勢的極端主義者的壓力，他其中一個主要合作政黨的首腦就堅決反對兩國方案。
The Palestinians are weak and divided.
巴勒斯坦人處弱勢，而且四分五裂。
Israel, in comparison with its turbulent Arab neighbours, is prosperous, stable and—in the short run, anyway—secure.
以色列，與其動亂不息的阿拉伯鄰居相比，則顯得繁榮穩定，而且，至少是在短期，安全。
So why should Mr Netanyahu bother to give in to those tiresome Palestinians—and risk being tossed out of office by an angry alliance driven by the West Bank settlers?
所以，為什么內塔尼亞胡得向那些煩人的巴勒斯坦人讓步？約旦河西岸定居者推波助瀾之下，自己則有被怒氣沖沖的盟友們趕下臺的風險。
The answer is that doing anything else is merely playing for time.
答案就是，做其他任何事都只是拖延時間。
The moment to strike a deal is when you possess most of the cards.
促成協議的最佳時機是你手上牌最多的時候。
Mr Sharon understood that. He forced his way down a path towards peace, even if it meant losing old comrades and picking up new ones on the way.
沙龍就懂這一點。他強勢推進通往和平的道路，即使這意味著這失去同志的支持，以及要在途中爭取新同志。
If Mr Netanyahu wants to be mourned in the same way, he should dwell on that.
如果內塔尼亞胡想被以同樣的方式銘記，他就應該以此為鑒。
