先撩者賤

很多香港人,不知中東局勢是啥,就走去抗議以色列攻擊加沙地帶。過往很多問題上,小弟都是支持巴勒斯坦一方。但這次加沙危機,很明顯以色列沒幹錯什麼,相反,哈馬斯就不理當地人民死活亂幹。

這次加沙危機緣起於,現時巴勒斯坦管治機構一分為二,經民主選舉後,約旦河西岸由較溫和的法塔赫派系控制,法塔赫派系現時領導人阿巴斯,是接受巴勒斯坦與以色列共存。但加沙地帶是由哈馬斯控制,哈馬斯是一個不折不扣的恐怖分子團伙,反對猶太人生活在巴勒斯坦土地上,而在半年前,哈馬斯與以色列簽署停火協議,雙方互不攻擊。而這次停火令一終結,哈馬斯便發射火箭到以色列南部襲擊平民,引發這次事件。

由拉賓將軍擔任以色列總理以來,以色列總體戰略是以土地換取和平,甚至不惜與不肯撤出的猶太殖民區居民硬碰,因為以色列長期以巴勒斯坦人硬碰絕不好玩。事實上,約旦河西岸的巴勒斯坦人,亦認識到猶太人在中東存在的客觀事實,所以約旦河西岸至今仍然和平。但哈馬斯這幫膠人,其目的就是建立伊斯蘭神權國家,這次支持哈馬斯,與支持恐怖分子,或者明光社根本沒啥分別。

基於先撩者賤原則,哈馬斯根本一點都不值得同情。以色列或許在戰術執行上可以顧及一下人道,但不剿滅哈馬斯就沒什麼可能。

22 thoughts on “先撩者賤

  1. martin: i was in palestine for almost one month recently, studying and witnessing the conflict (this is not to put myself in any authorative position; rather, it’s simply responding to your point in the first paragraph).

    several quick responses: first, if you study the map of israel closely from 1967 to now, you’d find that the purpose of israel has never been what you called “land for peace.” excuse my lack of elaboration: in a nutshell, their ultimate goal is to eventually claim all the land of the palestinians. second, the one who first initiated the conflict is not hamas, but israel. do you know the conditions of gaza and many west bank cities before this recent israeli massacre? as many palestinians–both in gaza and the west bank–described it, it’s a prison. everything is militarily tightly controlled by the israelis, who don’t even require any reason to kill any palestinians they want (just call them terrorists). is it still a truce if you imprison them, torture them, kill them at your own wish (remember, i’m talking about civilians–not terrorists–who have no gun, no rocket, etc.) third, if you want to blame the ambition to found a religiously extremist state, then you can’t find a better example than israel. fourth, if opposing jewish (or another racial group) to live on the land of palestine is a terroristic behavior (according to your logic), then the biggest terrorist on earth is the israeli jews, who defined their country as a JEWISH STATE and WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY NON-JEWISH (including you and me) to live in israel. of course, don’t forget, it’s the israeli who conquered palestine (because they want to build a JEWISH STATE).

    martin, i’ve been a keen reader of your blog, but this time i have trouble understand why your logic is so weak here, making mistakes that are so basic and obvious. send me an email if you want further communication. i might go back to palestine some time later this year; you’re welcome to join me if you want.

  2. Upstairs,

    We may call those darn Jews the worst terrorists on earth or whatsoever and there’s an element of truth in it…but there isn’t a way to solve the problem.

    Alright, as commented by a reader on The Guardian, the state of Israel shouldn’t be there at all in first place – the Jews had been uprooted from that place for more than a thousand years that there’s virtually no reason for them to “re-claim” the land. But Catholics/Christians never like them, Islams never like them, and you should be knowledgeable to know what “pogrom” means.

    So what the heck those Jews can do? Live on at the mercy of other “religio-ethnicities” for another while, and try to “integrate”? I suppose they “integrate” better than most Islams do at the very least, but you can see what happened with them till 1945. These people just had enough of that and barring living as a single nation state, they would be dead fish one way or another, sooner or later.

    Thus we had this problem: the Jews found that they couldn’t survive in other states, and coincidentally their land of origin was under Europeans’ colonial rule (after the demise of the Ottoman Empire). So the chance came: the Europeans could finally get rid of the darn Jews while the Jews were happy to have their own country – at the expense of what we call “Palestinians”. Pity them; but then? Throw the darn Jews into the sea?

    Now there’s a way out, but I can assure you few besides the Islamic world will be happy with it (except some of the Israeli Jews themselves): tell Euro to send Israel an ultimatum to dissolve the country and threaten it with a 500,000-strong army plus nukes; in return, Euro has to compensate every Jewish Israelite with a good deal of money and Euro citizenship. The US may do it the same way, if it wants to help out a bit.

    Sounds crazy? Hey, Ahmedinijad suggests something similar every once a while: “If there should be a Jewish state, go take an Austrian province or stuff like that to make it!”

    Unless the Europeans can own up to the mess (before telling the Jews to pack off and dissolve their country), no way out. But will this happen? You bet it.

  3. Martin 君:

    請恕余不能認同您的見解。

    除去歷史問題不談﹝Perennial Loser 君針對以色列於現時屬地立國所提出有關合理性的觀點﹞,單純討論以色列出兵一事,余是難以認同以色列政府的手法的。

    在此余必須強調一點,『反對以色列攻擊加沙地帶』並不等同於『支持哈馬斯組織』:哈馬斯組織以恐怖手段攻擊以巴雙方的平民,應當要被世人所啐棄的。但是,以色列政府在理解出兵將引致大量平民死亡的前提下,仍然一意孤行,這是無法令人接受的。

    事實上,在連續不斷的抗爭中,以巴雙方已經就多方的問題達成共識:以色列政府與巴勒斯坦自治政府互相承認對方的存在﹝請比較中國與台灣現時的僵局﹞,以色列政府願意撤走猶太人於加沙與西岸的殖民區,巴自政府也放棄以耶路撒冷作為首都的建國目標,甚至願意接受國土被一分為二的事實。可以說,以巴問題中最為棘手的部份已經被解決了。

    可惜的是,在『對抗哈馬斯組織』問題上,以色列政府犯下嚴重的錯誤:與弱小的巴自政府相比,以色列政府無疑在經濟、外交、軍事上也佔有優勢,『權力越大,責任越大』,余是期望以色列政府支援巴自政府在經濟與國家秩序方面的發展,以扶持巴自政府取得巴勒斯坦全國人民的支持。可是,在這問題上,以色列政府不負責任地拒絕支援巴自政府的發展,奢望巴自政府可以自行解決哈馬斯組織,自己卻袖手旁觀。

    更甚者,對於哈馬斯組織連番的恐怖襲擊,以色列政府往往以切斷軍火運輸路徑為由,封鎖加沙等地的運輸渠道,並頻繁地進行反恐攻擊。余在此必須要指出,就是以色列政府也承認,封鎖巴勒斯坦對外交通對防止軍火運輸是毫無幫助的,但此舉卻會嚴重打擊當地的經濟;而對加沙地區的軍事行動,只會令當地的巴勒斯坦居民生活在恐慌之中。貧窮與恐懼,幫助哈馬斯組織勢力不斷的坐大,同時也打擊巴勒斯坦人民對巴自政府的認同感。

    可以說,以色列政府的行為,是引起以巴流血衝突不絕的原因之一。﹝這也令人懷疑以色列政府是否真心希望解決以巴問題的。﹞

    最後,余再一次的強調:『反對以色列攻擊加沙地帶』並不等同於『支持哈馬斯組織』。無疑消滅哈馬斯組織能掃除以巴問題的一大障礙,但是寄望以軍事行動解決問題是不切實際的。除非以色列政府願意在這問題上擔當更積極而正面的角色,協助巴勒斯坦國民建立擁有良好經濟的法治社會,否則一個哈馬斯組織倒下,還有千萬個哈馬斯組織起來的。

  4. To 愛:

    對著哈馬斯這挺爛仔,你認為一面之仁有用乎,你這種主張正是戰略上臭名昭著的綏靖主義。二次大戰前英國首相張伯倫用這種主張,任由希特拉入侵捷克蘇台德區,結果大家有眼見。

    所以「反對以軍出兵哈馬斯以武止武」=「支持哈馬斯」,這件事在戰略上是非常清楚。以色列現時要做,是打到哈馬斯承認土地換取和平這事實為止,這就是以色列的戰略目的。沒人相信可以消滅哈馬斯,搞出個恐怖平衡就是防止進一步人命傷亡的方法,否則哈馬斯只會繼續發癲亂射火箭。

    To Batur:

    自拉賓將軍上台以來,以色列政策改了很多是世人有眼見。Perennial Loser講的問題,亦都很清楚。

  5. 樓上:

    不過又要咁睇:其實以色列同巴勒斯坦孰是孰非,問題嘅本源都係視乎以色列呢個國家應唔應該存在。哈馬斯又好,巴解/法塔赫又好,其實宗旨都係要消滅以色列,恢復主權,冇咩嘢係 negotiable。話知佢班猶太人撤出呢度嗰度,再每年送十萬銀美金畀每個巴勒斯坦人都好,一樣無用。「主權神聖,不可侵犯」,阿爺已經成日講;再加埋個阿拉真神上去,仲點會有得搞?宜家係主權生死鬥,唔係講錢講生計咁簡單。

    所以講到尾,都係要睇大家認為應唔應該有以色列呢個國家;如果唔應該,諗諗點安置棚猶太人。如果應該,先可以諗下要咩人食死貓畀個地方佢哋立國,或者點樣叫班巴勒斯坦人同阿拉伯弟兄「屈就」,同埋以色列應該做啲乜。唔拆掂呢瓣,宜家打爛仔交點打之類嘅嘢,講到爛咀都只係旁枝末節,於事無補。

  6. 黃兄,我個新留言係同阿愛講嘅;時間夾唔啱,個「樓上」變咗係你,唔好意思!

  7. 謹補充數點:

    ‧余提出以巴雙方達成的共識,是希望指出以巴和平進程事實上是不斷﹝緩慢地﹞向前的,因此余認為以色列政府在這問題上並不是完全絕望,以致需要依賴軍事來解決問題的。

    ‧在解決哈馬斯組織的問題上,余認為這必須要由巴自政府主導:只有這樣才可以重新凝聚巴勒斯坦人民的共識,以免加沙等地再次落入恐怖份子的手上。

    ‧由於以色列人民普遍支持軍事解決哈馬斯組織,余是理解以色列政府的苦衷的。但為了迎合選民而魯莽地作出破壞以色列長遠利益的行動,余是難以認同的。

  8. 邊有得打到對方唔射火箭咁神威?殺人滅族就是殺人滅族了,大半個以色列都是戰場,戰場上已經無乜道德可以言,用土地換和平之說,以巴雙方都唔信。

    現在的衝突要比南北越的衝突更加極端,只是我們多數在和平裏長大,沒有殺紅眼坐在老遠風涼水冷勸架,無非是滿足自己有限的正義觀念。

    多餘,誰肯做第一收容港?講就巴閉,做就閉翳。

  9. Martin 君:

    余對於您如此迅速的回覆感到十分意外!

    回正題,您或許是誤解了余的主張。余認為在以巴和平問題上,哈馬斯組織不應也沒有資格佔一席位:哈馬斯組織最終必須被消滅。這與綏靖主義的分別十分明顯。

    余所強調的是,以色列政府無視巴自政府的單方面軍事行動,除了打擊巴自政府的管冶威信及提升哈馬斯組織的國際地位外,對解決衝突毫無幫助。

    您提及『‧‧‧,是打到哈馬斯承認土地換取和平這事實為止,‧‧‧』這一點,余必須反問一句:『為什麼哈馬斯組織能騎刧巴勒斯坦人民的聲音?』。余認為哈馬斯組織過去正是利用與以色列政府的衝突,來取得巴勒斯坦部份人民的支持的。那為什麼以色列政府還要為他們製造良機?

    因此,依余之見,以色列政府應當扶持巴自政府行使對巴勒斯坦地區的主權。只有在巴自政府能穩定巴勒斯坦社會的前提下,才可以根絕哈馬斯組織在當地的勢力,也才可以保障以色列人民的安全。

  10. 李學斌君:

    余認為,『和平』並不是雙方的『希望』,而是雙方無可奈何下的『妥協』罷了!由於雙方消滅對方的成本過高,雙方只好協商和平的事宜。﹝事實上,相較開國初年的手段,以色列政府近年來已經對巴勒斯坦十分『友善』的了!﹞

  11. 雙方總體消滅對方或者很高,但雙方持續衝突不單成本有限,而且對於權力單位而言,進益甚大。

    當你放遠眼光,看看東非,看看緬甸,非正常死亡的人口,竟然不比以巴衝突要高!再看看北邊某強國,鎮止藏獨疆獨雖然用不上天天血祭,但維持治安、緩和情緒的開支何其大?

    拉賓的死,就是體現意識形態充突下,勉強維持和平也是以生命為代價的。當然,一個人的命若能換取兩族百萬人的平安,怕且不少人都會覺得值得,但拉賓之死並不是個人的不幸,而是位子容不下他。阿拉法特實則也是個英國訓練出來的貴族,他強硬,卻仍無法保持領袖魅力而達成和平,同樣含屈而終。

    領袖們都是一將功成萬骨枯,兩個領袖的生命無法換取的和平,正正表示死一兩萬人都未必能打到和平。

    何況更大的問題源於美國。現在盼望以巴和平或許很簡單,就是盼望美國一蹶不振而已。英治時代,中東在鑽石油了?不其然。復國主義沒跡象?亦不其然。教徒們比較開放乎?更不其然。當時中東的人能較和平地相處,實則和英國提拔土酋,把上流層級之間的爭逐「外地化」而已。現在給你個沒油鑽的中東領袖,真是一點好玩的也沒有,能維持地位就唯有靠古典威權認受性來源:武力。

    美國若玩完,我敢押注於中東文明復興。那就是上流轉營帶動下流轉營。

  12. PL: totally agree with you; i simply want to reiterate that my responses were simply made to respond to some logically flawed comments in the blog entry–at least as i saw them. no disagreement with you, and thanks.

    MO: yitzhak rabin is surely a respectable figure and the israeli policy after him has surely changed a lot. however, we still have people like ehud barak, whose hands are full of blood. one thing we often overlook (myself included, i confess): we tend to assume that leadership, be they the israeli government or the palestinian authority, is strong. yet, indeed, the reason why this problem is so complicated is because leadership is simply so weak in this region. we simply need to go to west bank to see the settlements; just several months ago, a new and illegal settlement is literally authorized by the israeli state to be built. there is not even a single trace of stopping this settlement project. again, study the map of west bank closely, try to follow the locations of settlements and the super freeways that link them, and you will understand what i am saying. also, how about the two-state solution? the most recent west-bank survey says that most palestinians are ready to accept a two-state solution with the 1967 boundaries. this is also the position of abumazen (mehmud abbas) and his p.a. so how is the israeli state responding? more settlements, more super-freeways, more tanks, more bullets, and more blood (i am simply talking about west bank, which, acccording to many, is governed by the “good palestinians.”)

    speaking of “good palestinians,” just go to any west bank cities–hebron, bethlehem, etc.–and talk to average palestinians, many would tell you that abumazen, and the p.a. under him, is simply a dog of israel and g.w. bush. again, how can we assume that palestinians, even in west bank (i am already not talking about hamas), would listen to abumazen? return the authority of gaza to the p.a. and abumazen? this is more like a joke. many gazans do not want hamas, it is true; but they also hate abumazen. (a similarly flawed logic: because the political position of DAB in hong kong is mild and they can talk with the chinese communists, so that we should give DAB the power to govern hong kong and demolish the democrats).

    i am no supporter of hamas; they are hopeless stubborn; they are, after all, terrorists. but my feeling our conventional strategical analysis is not giving the justice to the many palestinians who are suffering from israeli state terrorism every night and day.

    finally, for those of you who are interested to know more about the relationship between the israeli state, american politics, macao, and the communist chinese government, new yorker has a fascinating long article earlier last year.
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=all

  13. 斌兄:

    照你個 rationale 嘅話 –

    美國打柴 -> 冇人照以色列 -> (a) 亡國 or (b) 改遵阿拉伯回教統治 -> 中東天下太平,文明復興

    唔係冇可能,但會唔會太樂觀? 猶太人同庫爾德人等量齊觀,做其無主孤魂,不外一千幾百萬人,尚且算數;但中東文明,今非昔比,仲死過當年奧圖曼帝國嗰陣 – 除咗口呼阿拉、出 fatwa 搞 jihad、望天堂有七十二處女、要女人 burqa 由頭包落腳、玩 honor killing 之類,仲有幾多貨仔賣?即令可行,亦可取否?

    更何況,所謂中東文明,以回教做主流;回教也者,都不外係武力弘教。初起五百年推動文教,奧圖曼數百年規模可觀,咪又係武力霸權 by-product,而且已經 served their purpose (因此而起嘅霸權都已經打咗柴)。如果話靠石油「大」人,一眾「白皮豬」亦未嘗唔可以 (1) 節衣縮食唔益你 or (2) 索性打大仗殺人掠地搶石油一了百了。咁玩法,我寧願雞仔注照跟美帝好過。

  14. 老實講,李兄,以閣下高見,點解猶太人只有區區幾八萬人口,亡國二千多年,分散顛沛流離各國,被人排斥殺害(我知道華人少讀排猶血腥歷史,血淚斑斑),卻並沒有被人同化(連住在宋代中國開封的後裔也重新認祖歸宗),仍然在這世界上生存下去呢?甚至重回老家呢?為甚麼歷年反猶太運動,反以色列國的國家會連遭厄運呢?遠的不說,納粹德國殺死了全世界1/3的猶太人,換來亡國,國家被四個外國佔領一個世代(還要是被瓜分成兩個被佔領國)。

    為什麼大部分的歷史哲學(The philosophy of history)的概論一分析到猶太人的時候,無法吻合呢?Arnold Toynbee只能推說猶太人是"歷史上的活化石"云云。

  15. PL 不防多看回教文明史,再留意一下近些年回教區出多少文藝大師才說。我說「上流轉營帶動下流轉營」,乃是指中東的文教復興,而後文明復興。

    美國打柴長遠會促進以巴合作,但短期則是大爛局,這並不是以色列無人照,而係軍火商油水下降。

    要知,中東佬跟歐洲佬根本唔係咁大仇口,北歐玩先知笑話的同時,油王子弟繼續在該地股市不斷貢獻。實則歐洲佬無必要大搞反恐,只要讓中東人賺回他們可以賺的錢,情況很快有變。

    愛君提出的成本論,就只是差在中東人民命賤,中東資源競爭大、基層產品重疊,合作機會少。這不是必然的,中東比非洲開化,五十年代起的問題多緣於冷戰,兩大極燒錢去買中東人命做炮灰。美國唔掂,油價又唔升番起,咁要靠人材增值,又會讓中東政治生態轉彎。

    以色列最錯不是佔土地,而是無法協調出水源分配,使其鄰國有田不可耕。美國若不振,以色列人靠在美國賺錢補貼赤字,美國唔掂以色列經濟必然受影響,到時反而要多考慮怎制造中東內陸需求市場。這一旦走到重開水源規劃談判,新的機遇就會來到。

    查實中東無幾何和平過,最威的時候只因波斯一族獨大。家陣有幾個附美附俄國家的頭頭開始無以為繼,國度分裂或再無必要,冷不防伊朗可以拉開更深層次的中東合作,讓這些國家自行建設中東通道,吸引東歐和印度的產業 out source ,咁真係有機會重拾歐亞交通中心的光輝。

  16. Joel ,難聽講句,猶太人好自閉好猜忌,但好聽講句,佢地精到一般歐洲蠻牛唔夠格一起玩,甚類以文化自矜的十七八世紀海外華人。

    你咪以為以色列立國五十代,是先有復國主義而後才有大回流。那是錯的,猶太人根本沒有被回教諸國趕絕於其本土,回教的包容性遠遠在十字軍之上。

    復國主義的假象,仍是出於近五世紀以來歐洲普遍發生的排猶活動。假使今天星馬泰印緬英美澳加發生大規模排華運動,以致四海華人神推鬼使湧返去推倒共產中國,大家充血上腦恢復漢唐風範服飾繁體文字,咁果堆簡體字馬列無神論土著咪變成中國的巴勒斯坦人囉。

    漢人或者無猶太人盤猜忌多疑,但論自閉性或有過之。我地好應該明白猶太人點解呢樣果樣先似樣喎。

  17. 斌兄:

    近年中東一帶文教大興,伊朗、巴林、卡塔爾等國大把搞作,都略有聽聞;不過即使有大師出現,都要真係變到文化、政治先得。如果用一貫嘅西方中心 orientalism 睇,聖戰來聖戰去依然係最大聲;但唔係咁睇,又實在未見有咩革新/創見落實,帶到人身體力行,變到政治、文化 – 係變到,就唔一定繼續係班打打殺殺嘅復古聖戰朋友最雷氣 (當然,我哋都可以話係萬惡美帝報假案)。

    小弟讀書少又中美帝毒太深,咁講都係想當然耳,理據真係無乜;不過即使中東回教文明真係再發育,都唔可以忽視回教教義本源中 repressive 嘅部分 (ok,咁講又係 orientalism),同埋近幾十年尚武+復古嗰一派嘅力量。美帝消亡,向好諗固然係冇咗聖戰誘因,但掉轉頭諗又何嘗唔可以用嚟 justify/prove 尚武+復古派嘅正當性,確認佢哋個版本嘅阿拉係「真理道路生命」,然後學老美咁屈人接收 (姑且唔估武力弘教呢瓣)?呢鋪大細,宜家似乎未買得落手。

  18. PL 那是因為你太不暴力,太不嗜血了。得閒看多點暴力格鬥,血花電影,你會發覺廣泛升華了的力量美,會影響到個人以至集體對行使暴力的要求。

    再看看伏爾泰如何讚頌波旁王朝把法蘭克蠻人變成法國貴族。那是一個過程來的。由 Repressive 過渡到 Restitutive 義,必須透過竹竹

  19. … 無端按了 enter -_-

    承上。

    必須透過充實生活物資和文教藝術。今天的中東,幾類大復收後的伊比利亞。一開始是恐怖的,慢慢才會回復過來。

  20. 斌兄:

    玩到「蒼天當死,黃天當立」呢味嘅話,阿爺條水都諗得過0架噃…至少暴力得嚟都仲有豬肉食。當然,跟阿拉真神可以有四個老婆…

    Anyway,就加注十蚊立阿拉真神,睇埋佢呢鋪牌。
    XD

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *