首页  >>  来自播客: User Upload Audio 更新   反馈

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy - YouTube

发布时间 2013-01-16 11:15:18    来源

中英文字稿  

Good evening everybody. I'm Tim Pranks. I'm chairing the debate. Wonderful to see the auditorium packed. I have to say that when I was sent through the final wording for this debate, I thought how appropriate it was. Not just because it was interestingly worded, but because it was all in capitals. Israel is destroying itself with its sediment policy. If sediment expansion continues, Israel will have no future.
大家晚上好。我是蒂姆·普兰克斯。我将主持这次辩论。很高兴看到礼堂座无虚席。我必须说，当我收到这次辩论的最终措辞时，我觉得它多么贴切。不仅因为措辞有趣，还因为全文都是大写。以沉积政策自毁的以色列。如果沉积扩张持续下去，以色列将没有未来。

I know from my three and a half years reporting from the region and the abuse I'm still getting from my broadcasting that there are few subjects which lend themselves to such shouty certainty and loudly dogmatic diametric opposition as Israel and the Palestinians.
我从我在该地区报道三年半以及广播中遭受的虐待中知道，很少有主题可以像以色列和巴勒斯坦人问题一样，容易引起如此大声的确定和哗众取宠的对立。

And I dare say a few of you would have come here tonight already stirred by this provocatively titled motion. Yes, you'll say Israel's sediment policy is fabulously self-defeating given that a Palestinian state is in Israel's best self interest. It undermines Israel's own institutions, its sacred institutions, its army, its respect for the judiciary, its budget drainingly expensive and it increases international isolation and tests friends beyond patience.
我敢说，你们中的一些人可能已经被这个挑衅性的提案所激动，才来到今晚的场合。是的，你们会说，以色列的定居政策绝对是自我拆台，因为一个巴勒斯坦国家符合以色列的最大利益。它破坏了以色列自己的机构，包括那些神圣的机构，比如军队、对司法的尊重，它也无谓地耗费了预算，增加了国际孤立，考验了盟友的耐心。

Or perhaps you'll say Israel, the Jewish state, is actually only establishing Jewish homes in areas that are historically, traditionally Jewish. A Jewish sediment is actually the West's outpost against militant Islam. They're not facts on the ground, but they're questions to be answered in any future negotiations. And how about if the left was right with all their gleamingly obvious arguments, why are they doing so spectacularly badly in the opinion polls?
也许你会说，以色列作为犹太国家，实际上只是在历史上、传统上属于犹太人的地区建立犹太家园。犹太人的定居点实际上是西方世界对抗激进伊斯兰主义的前哨基地。这些不仅仅是实际情况，更是在任何未来谈判中需要回答的问题。而如果左派的明显观点都是正确的，那为什么他们在民意调查中表现如此糟糕呢？

All I ask is that as you listen to our top-notch panel tonight and you decide which way you're going to vote, I'm instructed to tell you how to vote. I'm probably going to get this wrong, but I think you each have a voting slip which says four or against. When it comes to the moment when you cast your vote, tear the voting slip in half if you know that you're going to vote four or against and put the relevant bit in the box. If you don't know, if you still don't know, just have the entire voting slip put in the box.
我只要求你在今晚听完我们顶级的专家小组之后，决定你将如何投票时，我被指示告诉你如何投票。我可能会理解错误，但我认为每个人都会拿到一张投票纸，上面写着"赞成"或者"反对"。当你投票的时候，如果你确定自己要赞成或者反对，就把投票纸撕成两半，将相应的部分放入投票箱。如果你不确定，如果你还不确定，就把整张投票纸放入投票箱中。

But anyway, before you get to that moment, unclog your ears, challenge your preconceptions, dare yourself only to make up your minds when you've heard all of our speakers. So let's hear all of our speakers. First of all, speaking for the motion, is William Seacard. William is a founder and chairman of forward thinking, an NGO which works with the leadership of all parties on both sides of the divide and the Israel-Palestine conflict. In particular, forward thinking is built a close relationship with the right-wing parties in the Israeli government coalition and with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the West Bank, Damascus and the Diaspora. William.
无论如何，在达到那一刻之前，你先要畅通耳朵，挑战自己的先入之见，只有在听完所有演讲者的发言后才能做出决定。所以让我们聆听所有演讲者的发言。首先，支持这个提议的是威廉·西卡德。威廉是一家名为前瞻思维的非政府组织的创始人和主席，该组织与以色列和巴勒斯坦冲突双方的所有政党领导层合作。特别是，前瞻思维与以色列政府联盟中的右翼政党以及哈马斯和伊斯兰圣战组织在加沙、约旦河西岸、大马士革和远离家乡的地区建立了密切关系。威廉。

Thank you very much. Well, good evening everybody. I'm so glad Tim said what he said because I was going to say that at the beginning as well. Essentially, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provokes very, very strong opinions. And I suppose of all the issues facing the world, few will stimulate quite such a level of intensity in public debate as this one. So I'm going to ask you tonight to try for a moment to cast aside your pre-held opinions, whatever they may be, pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, pro-neither, pro-both. And just try for a moment to put that aside because I'm going to try and argue this motion as well as I can in a non-political way.
非常感谢你。嗯，晚上好大家。我非常高兴蒂姆说了他说的话，因为我一开始也打算这样说。基本上，以色列和巴勒斯坦的冲突引发了非常强烈的意见。而且我认为在面临世界上所有问题中，很少有问题会在公众辩论中激起如此强烈的争议。所以今晚我要请你们试着暂时放下你们的先入为主的观点，无论是亲以色列的、亲巴勒斯坦的、中立的还是两者皆支持的。请试着暂时抛开这些，因为我要尽力以非政治的方式来支持这个议题。

Partly because there are no Palestinians on the panel, partly because I'm not an Israeli and the other three people on the panel are, I'm just a Brit with a temerity to have a view. And also because my job in conflict resolution requires me not to take sides, but just to try and be pragmatic and to try and identify the genuine obstacles to peaceful progress.
部分原因是因为我们小组中没有巴勒斯坦人，部分原因是因为我不是以色列人，而其他三个小组成员都是，我只是一个大胆发表观点的英国人。还有，因为我在冲突解决工作中需要保持中立，只是努力实事求是地找到和平进展的真正障碍。

I'm going to argue tonight that Israel's settlement policy is deeply destructive to its own future for a number of reasons. First, by pursuing its policy of settling what is now over half a million Israeli citizens in the West Bank, on land deemed by the international community to belong to the Palestinians, Israel is making the world and even its own allies believe that it has no genuine interest in making peace with the Palestinians. Secondly, as a result of this settlement policy, Israel's support in the international community is weakening and it's leading to the expression delegitimization of Israel and isolation of Israel and I fear ultimately onto a path of its own destruction. Finally, I'm going to argue that even if Israel wanted to redress the situation at a future date as part of a peace agreement, the larger the number of settlements built and settlers settled beyond the so-called 1967 borders, the harder it will be for any Israeli government to persuade its citizens to withdraw from them.
今晚我将争辩说，以色列的定居政策出于多种原因对其自身的未来造成了深刻破坏。首先，通过推行在被国际社会认定为巴勒斯坦土地上的定居政策，以色列让世界，甚至自己的盟友都相信其对与巴勒斯坦人达成和平没有真正的兴趣。其次，由于该定居政策，以色列在国际社会中的支持正在减弱，这导致了以色列的非法性表达以及孤立，最终我担心它将走向自我毁灭的道路。最后，我将争论即使以色列将来想通过和平协议纠正这一局势，已经建立的定居点和居民超越所谓的1967年边界的数量越多，任何以色列政府就越难说服自己的公民从中撤离。

But let's start at the beginning with some maps. I always find it helpful to look at maps as a way of illustrating what's been going on. I'm sorry, it's hard for you to see up there and turn your back.
但是让我们从一些地图开始。我发现通过查看地图来说明正在发生的事情很有帮助。很抱歉，你们上面看得很困难，而且背过身来。

But the map on the left-hand side, the first map, represents Palestine as it was under the British mandate which covers the whole of what is now the modern Israel and the occupied territories. The second map is what the UN proposed as the partition plan lines that would form the Israeli and the proposed Arab state or Jewish and Arab state as they call them in those days. And the white bit was proposed for the state of Israel and the yellow bit or brown, whichever you like to call it, was proposed to be the Arab state.
但是左边的地图，也就是第一个地图，代表的是英国所管理的巴勒斯坦地区，这个地区现在涵盖了整个以色列以及占领的领土。第二个地图是联合国提出的分割计划，它规划了以色列和阿拉伯国家或犹太和阿拉伯国家（当时所称）之间的边界线。白色区域被建议用于以色列国家，而黄色或棕色区域则被建议作为阿拉伯国家。

The third map gives you an idea of what actually happened after the British withdrew and after the 1948 War of Independence and the one before would have given Israel I think about 54, 55% of the land and the Arabs about 45%. After the 1948 War of Independence that gave roughly 78% of the land to the Israelis and 22% to the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the West Bank you can see on the right-hand side of the two yellow bits, the left-hand side is the Gaza Strip.
第三幅地图向你展示了在英国撤军以及1948年独立战争之后实际发生的情况，而之前的地图显示以色列约占陆地的54%至55%，阿拉伯人约占45%。而在1948年独立战争之后，大约78%的陆地归以色列人所有，22%归巴勒斯坦人所有。西岸的巴勒斯坦人可以在两个黄色区域的右侧看到，左侧则是加沙地带。

And the idea would be in the event of an Arab state that you would have some kind of road or railway or something that would connect the two so that Palestinians could get from one part of the territory to the other. And the final map on the right-hand side is roughly where we are today in terms of the yellow bits or where the Palestinians live and the white bits are where the Israelis live. This is a map of the West Bank and the West Bank is where the settlements we're talking about tonight are. You can see Jerusalem sort of quite low down on the map. So to the left of these yellow bits is the state of Israel and the rest of what you're seeing is the West Bank. The brown bits on the West Bank are where Israelis have control and the blue bits are the settlements. The brown lines are the roads which connect them all up. And the white, so white is a sort of strange color, but it's a creamy color, are the bits where the Palestinians live. And as you can see because of these roads and so forth, they're sort of broken up into lots of little areas where they live.
这个想法是，如果有一个阿拉伯国家，就会有某种道路、铁路或者其他连接两个地区的交通方式，这样巴勒斯坦人就可以从一个地区到达另一个地区。右手边的最后一张地图大概反映了我们今天的情况，黄色部分是巴勒斯坦人居住的地方，白色部分是以色列人居住的地方。这是一张西岸地图，我们今晚讨论的定居点就位于西岸。你可以看到耶路撒冷在地图的下方。所以在黄色部分的左边是以色列，其余地区是西岸。西岸的棕色部分是以色列人控制的地方，蓝色部分是定居点。棕色的线是连接它们的道路。白色，虽然是一种奇怪的颜色，但是是奶油色，代表了巴勒斯坦人居住的地方。由于有这些道路等，他们的居住区域被分割成很多小区域。

This is another way of showing you the map. It's what some people describe as an archipelago or a succession of little bits which don't create the possibility or the easy possibility of what some people would describe as a contiguous Palestinian state. Just as importantly, if I go back a map, you can see that the whole brown bit on the right is what connects up to the border with Jordan, with the river Jordan, and that is all under Israeli control. So if that bit remains so and the Palestinians didn't have that, the Palestinians wouldn't have an independent border. So that gives you, I think, an idea of where we are today, how people live today.
这是另一种展示地图的方式。有些人把它描述为一个群岛或是一系列不连续的小块，这些小块无法创造出一个被称为连续的巴勒斯坦国家的可能性或轻松可能性。同样重要的是，如果我们回到地图上，你可以看到右边的整个棕色区域与约旦的边境相连，与约旦河相连，而这一切都在以色列的控制之下。所以如果那一块保持不变并且巴勒斯坦人没有控制权，他们将没有独立的边界。这让你了解今天我们处于何种状态，人们如何生活。

Now, over the last 25 years or so, there's been a peace process in progress, as you know. Led by successive United States administrations, the process has been attempting to secure a peace agreement between Israeli and Palestinian leaders leading to a creation of a Palestinian state. And that Palestinian state, as I said, would be the Gaza Strip and that whole West Bank area. But during the period of the peace process, successive Israeli governments have settled about 550 to 600,000. Danny will tell us the exact amount Israeli citizens on Palestinian land. That's in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Land that the international community have traditionally accepted as the basis for a future Palestinian state.
在过去的25年左右，正如你所知道的，有一个正在进行中的和平进程。由美国连续的政府领导，该进程一直试图在以色列和巴勒斯坦领导人之间达成和平协议，从而建立巴勒斯坦国家。正如我所说的，这个巴勒斯坦国将包括加沙地带和整个约旦河西岸地区。但在和平进程期间，以色列连续的政府已经在巴勒斯坦土地上安置了大约55万到60万以色列公民。Danny会告诉我们确切的数字，这些以色列公民分布在约旦河西岸和东耶路撒冷。这些土地被国际社会传统上接受为未来巴勒斯坦国的基础。

This is what begs the serious questions. If the state of Israel is genuinely pursuing peace, why is it intent on settling its citizens on land that it would have to return? Why is it spending tens of millions of dollars every year on building projects of housing and infrastructure, roads and so forth that would be unrecoverable? Synix would say that this is because Israel is not interested in making peace. It has no genuine intention of creating a Palestinian state, but instead intends to take over the whole of the West Bank, creating an Israel from the River Jordan all the way over to the Mediterranean Sea.
这是令人深思的问题所在。如果以色列国真诚追求和平，为什么坚持在必须归还的土地上让其公民定居？为什么每年要花费数千万美元建设住房、基础设施和道路等无法撤销的项目？Synix会说，这是因为以色列对和平不感兴趣。它没有真正意图建立一个巴勒斯坦国，而是打算占领整个约旦河到地中海之间的约旦河西岸地区，从而建立一个从约旦河到地中海的以色列国。

Given the nature of public debate and the current election campaign in Israel, this is not entirely far-fetched. There are plenty of members of the governing coalition who've publicly stated their opposition to a Palestinian state, let alone one that would be based as the international community desires on the pre-1967 borders. Leading Israeli politicians have in the last week advocated even the annexation of large tracts of the West Bank to secure them as permanent Israeli territory once and for all. And this may well, in fact, end up being a policy of the next Israeli government.
鉴于以色列公开辩论的本质和目前的选举活动，这并不完全是荒唐的想法。执政联盟中有很多成员公开表示反对建立巴勒斯坦国，更不用说国际社会期望以1967年停战线为基础的国家了。过去一周，以色列领导人甚至主张吞并约旦河西岸的大片土地，以确保将其永久纳入以色列领土。实际上，这很可能成为下一届以色列政府的政策。

So settlement building is continuing a pace, not just within the existing settlements, new outposts are being established every year in the West Bank. And despite international criticism, even from Israel's closest ally, the United States, the process continues, often funded by donations from the United States, supported by tax breaks for US citizens who make these kinds of donations.
土地开发工作正在继续进行，不仅仅限于已有的定居点，每年还在约旦河西岸新建设前哨基地。尽管受到国际批评，甚至包括以色列最亲近的盟友美国在内，但这一进程仍在继续，往往是由美国的捐款支持，同时享受美国公民为此类捐赠提供的税收减免。

So given the rate of this settlement development, it's hard to find any international political figure who genuinely believes in the Israeli government's intent to seek peace with the Palestinians based on the 1967 borders, maybe with some land swaps, with a capital in East Jerusalem. And the rhetoric of the current Israeli election campaign, combined with these maps, tell a story, and I think you'd have to be peculiarly credulous individual to believe a different story.
鉴于这一定居点的发展速度，很难找到任何国际政治人物真正相信以以色列政府根据1967年边界（或许通过土地置换）与东耶路撒冷作为首都来寻求与巴勒斯坦人和平的意图。当前以色列选举活动中的言辞结合这些地图，都在述说着一个故事，我认为你必须是一个特别轻信的人才会相信另一个故事。

Which brings me to my second point, Israel's waning support in the international community. In November, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, apparently frustrated with the lack of any progress with the peace process because as he puts it of Israel's continued settlement policies, went to the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to try and secure observer status for a Palestinian state. Now, in the vote, some 138 countries of the world voted in favor, 41 abstained, and only eight countries of the 187 in the voting process, apart from Israel, voted against. These countries were the Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, and Micronesia for tiny island states in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Panama, the Czech Republic, Canada, and the United States. This is what is left of the international support for the State of Israel when it really needs it.
这让我想到我的第二点，就是以色列在国际社会中的支持逐渐减弱。去年11月，巴勒斯坦总统马哈茂德·阿巴斯对和平进程的缺乏任何进展感到沮丧，因为他认为这是由于以色列继续的定居政策所导致的。他前往联合国大会，试图为巴勒斯坦争取观察员国地位。在投票中，全球有138个国家投赞成票，有41个弃权，除了以色列之外，仅有8个国家（共187个国家参与投票）投反对票。这些国家是马绍尔群岛、帕劳、瑙鲁和密克罗尼西亚，这些都是太平洋中的小岛国家，另外还有巴拿马、捷克共和国、加拿大和美国。这就是以色列在急需国际支持时所剩下的支持力量。

It's hard to think of a more isolated country in the world, apart from Iran and North Korea. And for Israel to be able to rely on the support of neither on the support of the UK, France, or Germany, or even the Netherlands on this issue, is a rather dismal sign. So when Netanyahu announced the building of further settlements as a punishment for the Palestinians, going to the UN for observer status, condemnation instantly appeared from not other than the US, Canadian, and Czech diplomats who felt that their support in the UN vote had been betrayed.
除了伊朗和朝鲜，很难想象世界上有一个更孤立的国家。而以色列无法依靠英国、法国、德国甚至荷兰在这个问题上的支持，这是一个相当令人沮丧的迹象。所以当内塔尼亚胡宣布为对巴勒斯坦的惩罚而建立更多定居点，并在联合国寻求观察员身份时，来自美国、加拿大和捷克的外交官立刻表达了谴责，他们感到自己在联合国投票中的支持遭受了背叛。

So where does this leave Israel? Well, if it continues its settlement policies and refuses to accept the international parameters of the peaceful two-state solution, then I believe the process of Israel's delegitimization, moral, political, legal, the thing it fears the most, will continue to develop a pace. What are the alternatives? Well, there's a plausible alternative to a two-state solution, and it's a one-state solution where everyone, Jews and Palestinians, live together and are equal citizens in the same country. But this leads to the Jews being in a minority, and now it come unlikely to be plausible to Jewish Israelis and advocates of a Jewish state.
那么，以色列将面临何种处境？如果其持续扩建定居点政策，并拒绝接受和平两国解决方案的国际标准，那么我相信以色列在道义、政治、法律等方面最为担心的非法化过程将继续发展。还有其他选择吗？有一个合理的替代方案是一国方案，即犹太人和巴勒斯坦人共同生活并成为同一国家中的平等公民。但这会导致犹太人成为少数民族，这对犹太人以色列人和犹太国家的支持者来说将变得不太可能实现。

Some Israelis are now advocating a one-state solution, but they would rather like to leave Gaza behind so they can ensure the Jewish majority, which is not likely to appeal to the outside world or obviously the Palestinians. So if it's not a two-state solution or a one-state solution, what do we call what's left? The current status quo. If Israel does not allow any prospect of statehood, freedom, genuine self-governance for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli citizens having markedly different rights and standards of living to their Palestinian counterparts, and with Israel running out of friends on the international stage, the situation I'm afraid will inevitably lead to accusations from some countries in the world that this situation is one of apartheid. And that means that those countries will call for Israel's increasing isolation. In time, it will mean no more World Cups, no more Olympics.
一些以色列人现在主张一个国家的解决方案，但他们宁愿将加沙地带置之不理，以确保犹太人占据多数，这不太可能得到外界或者明显来自巴勒斯坦的认同。如果既不是两国解决方案也不是一个国家的解决方案，那么我们如何称呼剩下的局面呢？那就是目前的现状。如果以色列不允许巴勒斯坦人有国家的前景、自由、真正的自治，并且以色列公民与巴勒斯坦人的权利和生活水平明显不同，而且以色列在国际舞台上的朋友越来越少，这种情况恐怕将不可避免地导致某些国家指责这种情况是一种种族隔离政策。这意味着这些国家将呼吁对以色列加大孤立。时间过去，这将意味着没有更多的世界杯、没有更多的奥运会。

And my final point should be just as worrying for Israel. There are now so many settlers in East Jerusalem in the West Bank that even in an Israeli government wanted to make peace and withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers back to Israel, it looks almost impossible to do. Every year more and more settlers are becoming army officers, policemen, judges, politicians, the very people who will, if the time comes, have to supervise, orchestrate and legitimize the withdrawal of settlers from their home and their lands. The more settlers there are, the harder it will be to do, and it'll be harder for an Israeli government to be elected who advocates a withdrawal. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, as they say, in Britain.
我的最后一点对以色列来说应该同样令人担忧。在东耶路撒冷和约旦河西岸，现在已经有那么多定居者，以至于即使以色列政府想要和平并将数十万定居者撤退回以色列，这似乎几乎不可能实现。越来越多的定居者每年都在成为军官、警察、法官、政治家，这些人在必要时将不得不监督、组织和合法化撤退定居者离开他们的家园和土地。定居者越多，这样做就越困难，以色列政府也越难选出一个主张撤退的政府。正如英国所说：“火鸡不会投票支持圣诞节”。

So that's my conclusion. It looks straightforward. I think it's pretty obvious when you look at the maps that the two-state solution is disappearing, the one-state solution is hardly going to be popular in Israel, and the support for Israel is going downwards, not upwards. I think in the long term this leads tragically that Israel is heading towards its own destruction, and that's why I support this motion. Thank you very much.
这就是我的结论。它看起来很直接。当你看地图时，很明显两国方案正在逐渐消失，一国方案在以色列几乎不可能获得广泛支持，而对以色列的支持正在减少，而非增加。我认为从长远来看，这可悲地导致以色列走向自身的毁灭，这就是我支持这个议案的原因。非常感谢。

Thank you very much, William. I should have explained that the reason I was tapping at my glasses is I'm under strict instruction. There's one thing I have to do tonight, apart from clean my teeth when I go to bed, is to limit our excellent speakers to 12 minutes, and they get a two-minute warning after 10 minutes, so that's the gentle tap on the glass, and then I get more vigorous after 12 minutes. Anyway, our next speaker is Danny Diane. He's chairman of the Yesher Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria. Previously, he served on the steering committee that reconstituted the Yesher Council after its failure to prevent the 2005 Gaza disengagement, and during his tenure as chairman, appropriately enough, a greater focus is being placed on what in Hebrew is called Hazbarah, public diplomacy, both in Israel, and overseas, which is why happily Danny is here. Thank you very much.
非常感谢你，威廉。我应该解释一下，我敲我的眼镜的原因是因为我有严格的指示。今晚除了睡觉前刷牙之外，我还有一件事要做，就是限制我们出色的演讲者在12分钟内发言，10分钟后给他们一个两分钟的警告，所以我会轻轻敲击玻璃，超过12分钟后我会更有力一些。总之，下一个演讲者是丹尼·戴安。他是犹太社区在犹太人居住的犹太地区主席。在此之前，他曾在重组犹太社区委员会的指导委员会任职，这是在2005年加沙撤离未能阻止之后进行的。在他担任主席期间，合适的焦点被放在了希伯来语中称为Hazbarah的公共外交上，包括在以色列国内和海外的活动，所以丹尼在这里也非常高兴。非常感谢。

First of all, I would like to apologize for my less than perfect English with the heavy Argentinian accent when I came to Hebrew yesterday, the guy at the immigration, told me what's the purpose of my visit, pleasure, or business. I taught him to give a lecture, so he told me you can't go in, but you have to promise you won't talk about the Falklands. I suspect I am going to speak about a much more inflammatory issue than the Falklands. I beg you to put aside all the stereotypes you may have, and all the demonization you have been exposed to in the media, and all the prejudices, and doubt everything.
首先，我想为昨天我到希伯来语时，以重重阿根廷口音来表达的不完美英语向大家道歉。海关的那个人问我来的目的是旅游还是商务。我告诉他我要做一次演讲，结果他告诉我不能进去，但是要我保证不谈福克兰群岛问题。我怀疑我要谈的话题比福克兰群岛更加引起争议。我请求大家抛开所有可能存在的刻板印象，以及媒体上的妖魔化，摒弃所有成见，对所有事情都持怀疑态度。

I could choose the easy way to prove that the motion is wrong. The easy way is that should it be right that Israel is destroying itself with its settlement's policy, I would expect an overwhelming support for settlements in Arab countries, but we don't, of course. But that is too easy. Look, if it were right, you can justify a motion like that on two grounds. On the moral ground, you could suggest that Israel is eroding, it's moral standing, and I hear that argument with its settlement policy, or on strategy grounds. Israel is making itself more vulnerable with its settlement's policy. But the fact is that neither of those two arguments is true.
我可以选择一种简单的方式来证明运动是错误的。这种简单的方式是，如果以色列用其定居政策自毁，我会预计阿拉伯国家会对定居点给予压倒性的支持，而事实上并没有。但这太容易了。看，如果是正确的话，你可以从两个方面来证明这样的提议。在道德上，你可以提出以色列正在侵蚀其道德立场，而我听到了关于其定居政策的争论，或者在战略上。以色列正因其定居政策而变得更加脆弱。但事实是，这两个论点都不正确。

I would like to start with the moral one, because in my opinion, is the more important. And that in which more disinformation and deformation is being spread. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Jewish-Palestinian conflict, all it whatever way you like, is a peculiar one. You cannot compare it, for instance, with Israeli Egyptian dispute. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a conflict like not no other one in the world, in the sense that there are two ethnic groups, Jews and Palestinians, that have their beliefs, their historical narratives. And I dare to say, even if I'm criticized by some of my colleagues, that both are sincere. I'm not saying that I don't want to judge if they are right or wrong. Both are sincere.
我想先从道义角度开始谈，因为在我看来，这更为重要。在这个问题中，有更多的虚假信息和曲解正在传播。以色列和巴勒斯坦的冲突，或者叫犹太人和巴勒斯坦人的冲突，以任何方式来说都是独特的。你无法将其与以色列与埃及之间的纷争进行比较。以色列和巴勒斯坦的冲突是世界上独一无二的冲突，因为有两个族群，犹太人和巴勒斯坦人，拥有他们自己的信仰和历史叙述。我敢说，即使受到一些同事的批评，两方都是真诚的。我并不是说我不想判断他们对错与否。两方都是真诚的。

I feel that Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. I am deeply touched by Hebron and Judea and by Safed in Galilee, in the first one in the post-67 Israel, the first one in the pre-67 Israel II. And Mahmoud Abbas is deeply touched by both, by Hebron and by Safed. He too is deeply touched by both. I see Zionism as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, and they see it sincerely as the 19th century colonialist and evil. Israel, not the settlements, because they consider themselves the natives, and ask the Africaners that came to usurp that their land.
我认为锡安主义是犹太人的民族解放运动。我深深被希伯伦、犹太和加利利的撒迦市所感动，无论是在1967年以后的以色列，还是在1967年以前的以色列II。而马哈茂德·阿巴斯也同样深受希伯伦和撒迦市的感动，他们也深受其中的情感。对我来说，锡安主义是犹太人的民族解放运动，而对他们来说，它是19世纪的殖民主义和邪恶。他们认为自己是土著，认为以色列而不是定居点侵占了他们的土地，就像问问那些前来霸占他们土地的南非布尔人。

Now, how do you resolve such a dispute? There is no other dispute like that in the world. You could suggest that partition, the so-called two states, is the just solution. Maybe. But what happens when one side accepts partition, and we saw the maps, the partition proposed in 1947 with improbable borders for the Jewish state and without Jerusalem. We, and we, I wasn't born at that time, but we, the Jews went out to the squares of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa to dance, to dance Hora in the squares. And they attacked us dead that very same night, not in order to get a better partition, in order to annihilate us.
现在，如何解决这种争端呢？在世界上没有其他类似的争端。你可以建议分割，所谓的两个国家的解决方案。也许吧。但是当一方接受分割时会发生什么呢？我们看到了地图，1947年提出的分割方案对犹太国家的边界描述不切实际，而且没有包括耶路撒冷。当时，我们，尽管我当时还没有出生，但我们，犹太人走到特拉维夫、耶路撒冷和海法的广场上跳起了霍拉舞。然而他们在当晚却发动了攻击，不是为了争取更好的分割，而是要消灭我们。

Until 1967, from 1947 to 1967, the Arabs, the Palestinians, had the opportunity to sign a peace treaty with Israel along the Green Line. But instead, in 1964, they established the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, to liberate Tel Aviv, not to liberate Hebron. And then they attacked, in order again to annihilate Israel.
直到1967年，从1947年到1967年，阿拉伯人、巴勒斯坦人有机会与以色列沿着绿线签署和平协议。但相反，在1964年，他们成立了巴勒斯坦解放组织（PLO）来解放特拉维夫，而不是解放希伯伦。然后，他们再次发动攻击，试图彻底消灭以色列。

Now, I want you to listen very attentively to what I'm going to say now, because in my subjective opinion, it's sheer logic and ethics. You cannot go to square one after such an act. When you deny, when you reject partition and attack the other side in order to take it all by force, you lost the moral ground to demand partition. By the way, it was done again in the year 2000.
现在，我想让你非常认真地听我将要说的话，因为在我主观的观点中，这是纯粹的逻辑和伦理。在这样一个行为之后，你不能重新回到过去。当你否认、拒绝分割并攻击对方以全部武力夺取一切时，你失去了要求分割的道德立场。顺便说一下，这在2000年再次发生了。

When our Prime Minister, Helle Barak, proposed partition in Camp David to Yasser Afat with President Bill Clinton in Camp David, Yasser Afat as the leader of the Palestinians, not only rejected it, but three months later, he launched the most vicious terrorist attack of the modern era, the so-called Second Intifada. So from a moral ground, we came back to our land, rightfully. We were ready to relinquish the most sacred parts, the most important parts of our patrimony, of our national patrimony. But the Palestinians rejected it. They could have a state, they could part divide the land. They decided that the rule of the game is by force. And they will prevail using the rules of the game. They decided upon it. From a moral point of view, our presence in Judean, Samaria, the so-called West Bank, erroneously called West Bank, is morally impeccable. Yes, in a 100-year war, we made mistakes, and we made injustices. Yes, of course, you cannot make, you cannot in a 100-year, so bloody conflict not make any injustice. We did our share of injustices. But in the moral balance between Jews and Palestinians, we have the upper hand by far. And we have an inalienable right to live in Judean, Samaria.
当我们的总理Helle Barak在戴维营与巴尔克接见时，向亚塞尔·亚法特提议划分领土，作为巴勒斯坦人的领导者，亚塞尔·亚法特不仅否决了这个提议，还在三个月后发动了现代历史上最恶劣的恐怖袭击，即所谓的第二次巴勒斯坦起义。因此，从道义上讲，我们重新回到了我们的土地，是正当的。我们准备让出我们的遗产中最神圣、最重要的部分，我们的国家遗产。但是巴勒斯坦人拒绝了。他们本可以拥有一个国家，可以划分土地。他们决定，游戏的规则是靠武力取胜。他们做出了决定。从道义观点来看，我们在犹太人居住的犹太、撒玛利亚，这个错误地称为西岸的地方是道义上无可指责的。是的，在一场长达100年的战争中，我们犯过错误，犯过不公正。当然，在一场如此血腥的冲突中，不可能不犯任何不公正。我们也犯了我们的不公正。但在犹太人和巴勒斯坦人之间的道义平衡中，我们远远占据上风。我们在犹太、撒玛利亚拥有不可剥夺的生存权利。

Now you could say, okay, it is just. You have a moral justification to believe and to build houses and gardens and wineries in Judean and Samaria, but it is not wise. It is a stupid policy. That will bring even if you will die, you will commit suicide with justice. But no, the contrary is the truth. I heard Mr. Zigart talking about the, what will happen if the two-state solution does not crystallize? And this is the second preconception I beg you to free yourself of. The two-state solution, the two-state formula does not solve the conflict in the Middle East. On the contrary, it will aggravate it.
现在你可能会说，好吧，这是公正的。你有道义上的理由去相信并在犹太和撒玛利亚建造房屋、花园和酿酒厂，但这并不明智。这是一个愚蠢的政策。即使你会死，你也会以公正的方式自杀。但不，相反的才是事实。我听到Zigart先生讲述了如果两国解决方案未能实现会发生什么。这是第二个我请求你摆脱的先入之见。两国解决方案，两国模式不能解决中东冲突。相反，它会加剧冲突。

I live in a small community in Western Samaria named Maleci Omoron. From my home in Maleci Omoron, every morning, I look at Tel Aviv, as if we were in the palm of my hands. The Israeli towers, I see that the Israeli towers, the icon, the new icon of Tel Aviv are in its place, in their place, and they not go to work knowing that everything is okay in Tel Aviv. The thought that if instead of my wife, my daughter, and myself, in Maleci Omoron, in that very same window, an independent Palestinian state will be. Looking and yearning for Jaffa, looking and yearning for the places that they consider their national patrimony from high above, because in the map you also don't see the topography. By the way, much closer than the distance from Heathrow to London, much higher than Heathrow of course to London, completely dominating the landscape.
我住在西撒马利亚一个叫做马莱西·奥莫隆的小社区里。从我在马莱西·奥莫隆的家中，每天早晨，我望着特拉维夫，就像我把它握在手心一样。以色列的高楼大厦，我看到，以色列的高楼大厦，特拉维夫的新代表，它们在原本的位置上，它们并不是去工作而知道特拉维夫一切都好。想象一下，如果不是我妻子、我的女儿和我，马莱西·奥莫隆的同一窗口上，会是一个独立的巴勒斯坦国。凝视着和渴望着雅法，凝视着和渴望着他们认为是他们民族遗产的地方，从高空俯瞰，因为在地图上你看不到地势。顺便说一下，这个距离比希思罗机场到伦敦更近，当然比希思罗到伦敦更高，完全主宰着这片风景。

The thought that that will bring the Palestinians to accept partition as a feta complete, it will not tempt them to launch a new aggression to wipe out Israel from the map, is in the best case, Naive. In the worst case, I prefer not to characterize it. Without Judean Samaria, without the high hills of Judean Samaria, an uninterrupted Islamic fundamentalist territory that starts in Kabul, Afghanistan, and ends in Tel Aviv, Israel without any natural barrier exists. Only a fence will separate Tel Aviv from the Islamic dominated territory that ends in Kabul, Afghanistan. That is suicide. That is suicide.
这种认为巴勒斯坦人会接受分割，不会诱使他们发动新的侵略以将以色列从地图上抹去的想法，充其量是天真的。在最糟糕的情况下，我宁愿不加以评价。没有犹太撒马利亚，没有撒马利亚高地，就没有任何自然屏障，会形成一个从阿富汗喀布尔开始，一直延伸到以色列特拉维夫的伊斯兰原教旨主义地区。只有一道围墙将特拉维夫与结束于阿富汗喀布尔的伊斯兰主导地区隔开。这等于自杀。这等于自杀。

Now, we did that experiment. Why should we guess? We did that experiment in the summer, in the infamous summer of 2005. I think it was Albert Einstein that once said that if you do the same experiment twice and expect different results, then you are no scientist. Maybe he used a more offensive word. The experiment was the withdrawal from Gaza. We ever quoted every single Jew from their civilian or military. At the fact that independent Palestinian state was established in Gaza, and we all know the consequence. The consequence is that every single penny, every single cent, every single euro and dollar pound that was contributed to the newly formed the fact that the Palestinian state in Gaza was used to amass armaments against Israel to form a new launching pad for an aggression against Israel, not for highways, not for schools, not for hospitals, not for universities.
现在，我们已经做了那个实验。为什么还要猜测呢？我们在那个臭名昭著的2005夏天做了那个实验。我想是阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦曾经说过，如果你两次做同样的实验却期望得到不同的结果，那么你不配称为科学家。也许他用的词更冲击人听。这个实验是从加沙地带撤离。我们把每一个犹太人从他们的家庭或军队中撤离出来。事实上，独立的巴勒斯坦国在加沙成立了，我们都知道结果是什么。结果是，每一分钱、每一美分、每一欧元和英镑都被用来积聚军备，对以色列发动新的侵略的发射台，而不是用于建设公路、学校、医院或者大学。

The difference, and this is my summing by concluding remark, the difference is that Israel can survive an Iranian proxy state in Gaza because the the limit, the surrounding areas are not very densely populated. Of course, it's not a good situation, but we can't somehow cope with it.
这就是我的总结结论，差异在于以色列能够在加沙地带忍受一个伊朗的代理国，因为周边地区人口并不是非常密集。当然，这并不是一个好的情况，但我们无论如何都要应对它。

The same thing in Judean Samaria, and it will be inevitably the same thing, inevitably, by coup d'etat, by gun or by ballot. The Hamas will take control of the new Palestinian state, will endanger the very physical existence of the state of Israel. Therefore, the settlements do not endanger Israel's existence, but guarantee it. Thank you.
在犹太撒玛利亚地区是一样的情况，而且它将不可避免地以政变、武装或选票的方式发生。哈马斯将控制新的巴勒斯坦国，危及以色列国的实际存在。因此，定居点不会威胁以色列的存在，而是保证了它。谢谢。

Thank you very much, Danny. Next speaker is Daniel Levy. Levy, I do beg his pardon. I was so impressed with my pronunciation of Hasbarah just before with Danny Diane, that I decided to give you the full Hiberate pronunciation. Daniel Levy, he's the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. He's also the senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He's a member of the board of the new Israel Fund, as well as a former advisor in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office and a member of the Israeli team that was at one point negotiating with the Palestinians. Daniel.
非常感谢，丹尼。下一个讲者是丹尼尔·莱维（Daniel Levy）。莱维先生，请原谅我刚刚对丹尼·戴安的哈斯巴拉发音感到非常自豪，所以我决定给你一个完整的海贝拉特发音。丹尼尔·莱维先生是欧洲外交关系委员会中东与北非项目主任，也是新美国基金会的高级研究员。他是新以色列基金会的董事会成员，曾担任以色列总理办公室的顾问，并曾是曾与巴勒斯坦人进行谈判的以色列团队的成员。丹尼尔，请发言。

Thank you. Thank you very much, Tim. I'd like to thank the organizers of Intelligent Square and everyone here for joining us tonight. Monty Python's Meaning of Life, a film, it contains a scene, there's an obese chap, really a caricature of obesity. Mr. Kriosote, he walks into a restaurant, apparently it's his regular local, he orders everything on the menu and a jerebohum of champagne. After all this, the waiter offers him just one wafer-a-thin mint to round off the meal. He momentarily hesitates. Then Mr. Kriosote consumes said mint, he promptly explodes. For me, that is the danger that settlement overreach poses to Israel. Eventually, it will explode in our faces, just one more wafer-a-thin outpost, just a little e-1.
谢谢。非常感谢你，蒂姆。我想要感谢智能广场的组织者以及今晚参加活动的所有人。《蒙提·派森的生活的意义》这部电影中有一场场景，有一个身材臃肿的人，是肥胖的夸张形象。克里奥索特先生走进一家餐厅，显然这是他经常来的地方，他点了菜单上的每道菜，还要了一瓶大香槟。在这一切之后，服务员给了他一片极薄的薄荷夹心饼干，来作为完餐。他犹豫了一下，然后克里奥索特先生吃下了这片小饼干，结果他立刻爆炸了。对我来说，这就是过度扩张对以色列构成的危险。最终，它会在我们面前爆炸，就像再多一个极薄的前哨站，只是一个小小的 E-1 点。

I will now devote my remaining remarks to those of you not familiar with Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
现在，我将把剩下的讲话时间奉献给那些不熟悉蒙提·派森《生命的意义》的人。

Look, there is a certain powerful logic to the idea that Israel, as we know it, simply cannot coexist with the relentless continuation and expansion of settlements, in contravention of international law. Let's look at it like this. Imagine there's a triangle made up of three sides of the basic choices that Israel faces. One is a state with a Jewish character, drawn amongst other things from a clear majority of its citizenry being Jewish. The second line is an Israel that is recognizably democratic, observing democratic norms, respecting democratic rights, adhering to the international conventions it signed. Investing that democracy with meaning. And the third is an Israel that has all the territory, the territory of the Biblical home, if you like. The territory now under its control, the territory across which settlements are spread as those previous maps showed.
看，关于以色列，有一个非常强有力的逻辑是，以我们所知的方式，它与无休止的扩张定居点违背国际法的行为无法共存。让我们这样来看待它。想象一下，有一个由以色列面临的三个基本选择组成的三角形。其一是一个具有犹太特色的国家，其中犹太人占绝对多数。第二条线是一个明显民主的以色列，遵守民主准则，尊重民主权利，遵守其签署的国际公约，赋予民主意义。第三个是一个拥有所有领土的以色列，一种类似于圣经家园的领土。即目前受其控制的领土，以及散布在此领土上的定居点。

But in fact, Israel can only have two sides of this triangle. It can be democratic and Jewish character, but not have all the territory. Or it can have all the territory and choose to give up either its democratic character or its Jewish character. For with the territory comes its inhabitants and they can either be accorded democratic rights or denied those rights. It's a relatively simple equation. I prefer to say it's irrefutable and send us all home early, but let's dig a little deeper.
但事实上，以色列只能拥有这一三角形的两个方面。它可以是民主的同时保持犹太特性，但不能拥有全部领土。或者它可以拥有所有领土，但选择放弃其民主特性或犹太特性之一。因为领土伴随着其居民，他们可以被给予民主权利，或是被剥夺这些权利。这是一个相对简单的公式。我更愿意说这是不可辩驳的，并且提前让我们大家回家，但让我们深入探讨一下。

There are those who accept this basic premise, who accept yes, two states. I'm not sure we'll hear that position tonight, but you hear it often. But they then say chill out about settlements, the chill out camp. They're just not a big deal. You exaggerate their significance. They can always be removed. They're a bigger problems. If you want to do two states, what about the historical narratives? What about rejectionism on both sides? Security. Really the settlements? I would argue the opposite.
有些人接受这个基本前提，即接受两个国家的存在。我不确定今晚我们会听到这种立场，但你经常会听到它。但是他们随后说，就定居点问题放松点，放松点吧。它们并不是什么大事。你夸大了它们的重要性。它们总是可以被移除的。它们是更大的问题吗？如果你想实现两个国家，那么历史叙事又如何呢？双方的拒绝主义呢？安全问题。真的是定居点问题吗？我会辩称相反的观点。

If you're arguing from a two state perspective, the single most prohibitive factor to achieving a two state outcome, I would say is the settlement enterprise, the single biggest practical on the ground driving force toward the indivisibility of this land, is the settlements. Even if the built up area of settlements takes up only a small area, the truth is it's about 1% of the West Bank, but the area under settlement jurisdiction, the municipal and regional settlement councils control the zoning and planning, that's 42.8% of the West Bank. Settlements help define Palestinian access or actually lack of access to land, to resources, even to quarries and Palestinian freedom of movement.
如果你从一个两国观点进行争论，我认为最具制约性的因素实现两国解决方案的是定居点计划，最大的推动力是在地面上实现这片土地不可分割性的定居点。即使定居点的建设面积只占了一小部分，事实上它只占了约1%的约旦河西岸，但是在定居点管辖范围内，包括市政和区域定居点委员会控制的区划和规划，却占了约42.8%的约旦河西岸。定居点定义了巴勒斯坦人对土地、资源甚至采石场的使用权以及巴勒斯坦人的行动自由。

And this picture becomes even more stark if one factors in patterns of settlement and land expropriation in Palestinian East Jerusalem, making the viability of a future Palestinian state all the more impossible. Settlements define a cognitive map in people's minds, encouraging the world and the Palestinians to give up on a two state outcome or at least consider it a vanishing prospect.
如果考虑到巴勒斯坦东耶路撒冷的定居点和土地征用的模式，这张图片将变得更加鲜明，这使得未来巴勒斯坦国家的可行性更加不可能。定居点在人们的心中构建了一幅认知地图，鼓励世界和巴勒斯坦人放弃实现两国方案，或者至少将其视为日益消失的前景。

There is a variation on the chill out crowd, which is this, that the two state model is okay with settlements because it can accommodate any amount of settlement growth the Palestinians can swallow any deal. Their territory can shrink to whatever in feebled is willing to be offered, whatever infringement on their resources and sovereignty. Let's not delude ourselves.
在冷漠群体中存在一种变种观点，即两国模式可以容忍定居点建设，因为它可以适应巴勒斯坦人能接受的任何定居点增长。他们的领土可以缩小到无论在资源和主权上受到多少侵害，他们都愿意接受的程度。让我们不要自欺欺人。

The Palestinian leadership accepted the idea of a mini-state on 22% of the land, not the 43% of the partition plan. If you want to go along with the idea of some element of victor's justice and rejectionist's remorse, I don't think there's much room for further retreat. There is a point at which the aspiration for Palestinian statehood, under such limited circumstances, becomes less attractive to Palestinians and the appeal of a one state democracy carries the day. This is true already for many Palestinians and settlements bring that day closer for many more.
巴勒斯坦领导层接受了在土地面积22%的迷你国家设立的想法，而不是43%的分割方案。如果你赞同某种胜利者正义和拒绝主义者的悔意的想法，我认为没有太多退缩的余地。在如此有限的情况下，巴勒斯坦国家的愿望变得对巴勒斯坦人不再那么有吸引力，而一个国家的民主制度的吸引力日益增长。对许多巴勒斯坦人来说，这已经成为事实，而定居点使更多人走向这一天。

Thanks very much Tim. What if, no, no, I'm finished. I'm going to use my 25 minutes now. Thanks a lot. But you could say, what if you look beyond a traditional two state paradigm? Is that the only solution you can come up with? Not one where there's no Israel, but one maybe there's a confederation, maybe something like Belgium, maybe something involving Jordan. I think it's clear that settlement policy reduces the prospects of all these alternatives.
非常感谢，Tim。如果……不，不，我说完了。我要用我的25分钟了，非常感谢。但是，你可以说，如果你超越传统的两国论，会怎样呢？难道只有这一种解决方案吗？并不是说没有以色列，而是可能建立一个联邦，或者像比利时那样，或者涉及到约旦。我认为，定居点政策明显减少了所有这些替代方案的前景。

Why would a Palestine that's part of a confederation or part of something to do with Jordan be any more willing to base itself on atomised islands of land without resources surrounded and with security arrangements dictated only by one side? There is a reason that two former Israeli prime ministers, Ehrud Barakan, Ehrud Olmett and Israel's, I guess, cultural icon Amosos have spoken of an approaching reality of South African style apartheid.
为什么一个成为联邦成员或与约旦有所关联的巴勒斯坦会更愿意以资源匮乏、被包围且安全安排只由一方决定的孤立土地为基础呢？以色列两位前总理埃胡德·巴拉克、埃胡德·奥尔米特以及该国文化偶像阿莫索斯都曾谈及南非式的种族隔离正在逼近这一现实，这不是没有原因的。

But I, as I said, I'm not sure these are going to be the main arguments we're going to hear tonight. So let's not make it easy on ourselves. Let's step out of this comfortable paradigm. What if I am getting it all wrong? What if, like the toy store, settlements are us. There's no difference between pre-67 and post-67, one side of the green line and another side of the green line. But far from destroying Israel, settlement policy simply encapsulates the very essence of what Israel is. After all, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv University is built on the ruins of the Palestinian village of Sheikh Munas. And there is the list can go on.
但是，正如我所说的，我不确定这些是否会是我们今晚听到的主要论点。所以让我们不要轻易放松自己。让我们跳出这个舒适的范式。如果我全都搞错了怎么办？如果像玩具店一样，定居点是我们自己。在绿线前后，一边和另一边并没有区别。但是不仅仅是破坏了以色列，定居政策实际上将以色列的本质完美地体现了出来。毕竟，拉马特·阿维夫，特拉维夫大学是建立在巴勒斯坦村庄谢赫穆纳斯的废墟上。还有更多的例子可以列举。

I can certainly understand that from a Palestinian's experience, such distinctions might well appear to be rather arbitrary and not very relevant. Green line, not green line. And a Palestinian might have rather less interest in whether Israel is destroying itself or not, as compared to say whether Palestinian rights and freedoms are able to be exercised. But we don't have Palestinian speakers with us here today. I can't be an advocate for Palestinians. William can't. Mrs. Diane and Glick may enjoy settling Palestinian land, but I don't know if that makes them advocates for the Palestinians. I hope a future debate will invite Palestinians. But, and there is of course such a perspective held in the Israeli Zionist discourse that Israel equals settlements, which could render our debate meaningless.
我能理解，对于一个巴勒斯坦人来说，这些区别可能看起来相当任意而无关紧要。绿线，无绿线。相较于以色列是否自行毁灭，一个巴勒斯坦人可能更关心自己的权利和自由是否得以行使。但是我们今天在场的人并没有巴勒斯坦人发言者。我无法成为巴勒斯坦人的倡导者，威廉也不行。迪安·格里克女士可能喜欢在巴勒斯坦土地上定居，但我不知道这是否使她成为巴勒斯坦人的倡导者。我希望未来的辩论能邀请巴勒斯坦人参与。然而，在以色列犹太复国主义的论述中，以色列等同于定居点的观点也存在，这可能使我们的辩论变得毫无意义。

And I admit that to some such a definition of Israel may sound more coherent, more compelling, even more honest. But there's a problem here. Because that is not how Israel has defined itself. Israel calls itself a democracy, a Jewish and democratic state. It enshrined these principles in its declaration of independence. It is a signatory to international charters that enshrines these principles. The Israel that has embedded itself in the community of nations and in the hearts and minds of Jews and others across the world is the democratic Israel. That carries the legitimacy. That is the Israel that is also on the 67 lines, been recognized by the PLO itself. So unless and until Israel redefines itself, let's say we call it the Jewish Empire of Greater Israel, until then, that is the standard against which one has to measure whether Israel is destroying itself with settlements or not.
我承认对于某些人来说，这样对以色列的定义可能听起来更加连贯、有说服力，甚至更加诚实。但是这里存在一个问题。因为这不是以色列自己对自己的定义。以色列称自己为一个民主国家，一个犹太人和民主的国家。它在独立宣言中将这些原则确立为法律。它是国际宪章的签署方，该宪章确立了这些原则。以色列已经融入了国际社会和犹太人及其他人的内心深处，成为一个民主的国家。这才是合法的。这也是以巴解决方案承认的基于1967年边界的以色列。因此，除非以色列重新定义自己，比如我们称之为“大以色列犹太帝国”，在那之前，这才是衡量以色列是否因定居点而毁灭自己的标准。

There is a democratic recession going on in Israel. I would argue that the settlements drive that democratic recession. It's impossible to sustain a democracy on one side of a green line if you're managing a knot in democracy on the other. There could be an opening. Maybe this can just be a bi-national democracy. It's the 21st century percentages of Jews, percentages of non-Jews. Really, this is what we have to bother ourselves with. But again, would that be called Israel? Does it not answer the definition of this debate?
在以色列正在发生民主倒退。我认为定居点是导致该民主倒退的原因。如果在绿线的一边维持一种民主制度，而在另一边却让民主陷入困境，那是不可能的。或许还有一种可能性，那就是建立一个双民族的民主制度。在21世纪，犹太人和非犹太人的比例很重要。这才是我们需要关注的问题。但再说一遍，那是否还能被称为以色列呢？这难道不回答了这场辩论的定义吗？

I want to finally say the following. And I want to be careful not to turn the oil-evay-dial up too high. But I think one can argue that settlement policy as a driving factor in Israel endangering itself. Not just in the sense of defining what Israel is, but also in a very real physical sense. That settlements constitute a high risk strategy for the security and well-being of Israelis and Israel. That settlements are the greatest barrier between Israel and pragmatic policies, between Israel and realistic policies, especially in the reality we face today.
我想最终表达以下内容。而且我想小心不要把话题过度升温。但我认为可以争论一下，以定居政策作为以色列自身所面临的危险因素。不仅仅是对以色列身份的定义而言，还包括在实际物质意义上。定居点对以色列人和以色列的安全和福祉构成了高风险策略。定居点是以色列与务实政策之间、与现实政策之间的最大障碍，特别是在我们现今所面临的现实中。

Let's just look at it. A new Arab reality in which democratic and franchisement has come to the fore. A reality in which technological gaps, including Israel's qualitative military edge, are narrowing over time. A reality in which Israel is so dependent on the U.S., sorry I'm the Pacific Island state, in which Palestinian non-violence civil disobedience gathers steam, but also in which armed uprisings against oppression have received regional and international support in Syria, Libya and elsewhere, and in which Israel is losing its legitimacy and experiencing a brain drain at home.
让我们来看看这个情况吧。一种全新的阿拉伯现实已经显现，民主和普选制在其中占据重要地位。这是一个技术差距逐渐缩小的现实，包括以色列的定性军事优势。这是一个以色列在很大程度上依赖美国的现实，抱歉我是一位太平洋岛国的代表。在这个现实中，巴勒斯坦非暴力的公民抗命运动正在蓬勃起势，同时在叙利亚、利比亚和其他地方，武装起义反抗压迫得到了地区和国际的支持。以色列正失去其合法性，并在国内普遍发生人才外流的现象。

In that reality, our settlements not the greatest manifestation of overreach, the reason why we have an Israel without borders, are settlements the way forward? Do they contribute to Israeli security or do they threaten to push Israel over the edge? And is this our only future? Is it really a viable future to live by the sword in perpetuity?
在那个现实环境中，我们的定居点并不是过度扩张的最大体现，也正因此我们有了一个没有边界的以色列。定居点是我们前进的方式吗？它们对以色列的安全有贡献吗，还是威胁着将以色列推上悬崖边缘？这是我们唯一的未来吗？永远靠剑为生真的是一个可行的未来吗？

I'll close by saying this, I can see them. There are some speech bubbles coming out of some people's heads. Naive, naive, naive. The man's a defeatist. If we ended the settlements with the Arabs, really accept us. They opposed us before 67, after 67, with them to live in peace, to me that's the defeatism, to believe that there is no better future. Are the Palestinians uniquely intolerant, uniquely impossible to make peace with? Are we uniquely destined to be enemies forever? I'd argue that that view is ahistorical, is a misreading of reality, and it's a more than a little bit prejudiced. Unique, permanent unreasonableness does not apply to Palestinians or Muslims, it does not apply to Jews or Israelis. If we remove the Qasas belly, the burning humiliation of today and tomorrow, will everything still be dictated by the humiliations of yesterday and history? Both peoples can be forward-looking, and to support this motion is to send a message that settlements are taking us to a point of no return, not a smart strategy for Israel's future. Thank you. Thank you very much, Daniel.
我来总结一下，我能看到他们。有些人的脑海里冒出来一些对话气泡。天真，天真，天真。这个人是一个失败主义者。如果我们结束与阿拉伯人的定居点之间的争端，真正接纳我们。他们在1967年之前反对我们，1967年之后也反对我们，与他们和平共处，对我来说这就是失败主义，相信没有更好的未来。巴勒斯坦人是唯一不宽容的吗？我们是唯一注定永远成为敌人的吗？我认为这种观点是歪曲历史的，对现实的错误解读，并且有些偏见。独特的、永久的不合理不仅适用于巴勒斯坦人或穆斯林，也不适用于犹太人或以色列人。如果我们去除屈辱，去除今天和明天的屈辱，是否一切仍然会受到昨天和历史的屈辱的支配？双方民族都可以着眼未来，支持这一提案意味着认识到定居点正在将我们带向无法回头的地步，这对以色列的未来并不明智。谢谢。非常感谢，Daniel。

Caroline Glick is our final speaker. She's a senior contributing editor at the Jerusalem Post newspaper. She's director of the Israel Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and she's the senior adjunct fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. She's the author of one book, Shackled Warrior, Israel, and the Global Jihad.
卡罗琳·格里克是我们的最后一位演讲者。她是《耶路撒冷邮报》报纸的高级特约编辑，也是戴维·霍洛维茨自由中心以色列安全项目的主任，同时还是安全政策中心中东事务高级兼职研究员。她是《束缚的战士：以色列和全球圣战》一书的作者。

She was also saying before we came in to this room this evening that she's taking a very precious day of writing her next book, which is due at the publishers in March, so I hope you will give her a sympathetic audience tonight. Caroline.
今晚进入这个房间之前，她还说过她正在利用非常宝贵的一天写她下一本书，这本书将于三月份交给出版商，因此我希望您今晚能给她一个支持性的听众。卡罗琳。

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. It's really a pleasure to be here in London. I think the last time I was here was in 95, and I think that Daniel might have been my soldier then I can't remember. But I find the whole resolution rather curious. I did just fly in here from Israel where I live with my children, and I think that I'm pretty pro-Israel. But this resolution essentially tells me that in order to be pro-Israel, I have to support the establishment of a Jew-free state for the Palestinians. I have to say that I support the establishment of a state that is going to be, that must be ethnically cleansed of all Jews before the people who are supposed to have that state will agree to independence. I find that crazy.
非常感谢。谢谢。谢谢你们。能够在伦敦出席真是太愉快了。我想我上次来这里应该是在95年，我想丹尼尔那时可能是我的士兵，我记不太清了。但我觉得整个决议相当奇怪。我刚从我和我的孩子们居住的以色列飞到了这里，我认为我是支持以色列的。但是这个决议告诉我，为了支持以色列，我必须支持建立一个对犹太人免疫的巴勒斯坦国。我必须说，我支持建立一个在该国被认可为独立之前必须被清洗掉所有犹太人的国家。我觉得这太疯狂了。

The presence of Jews in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank of the Jordan River, has nothing to do with prospects for peace or lack of prospects for peace. Israel has two peace agreements with two neighboring Arab states. It's that have been respected.
犹太人在约旦河西岸的犹太人和撒玛利亚地区的存在，与和平前景或缺乏和平前景无关。以色列已经与两个邻近的阿拉伯国家签署了两项和平协议，并得到了遵守。

The one with Egypt for nearly 30 years, the one with Jordan since it was signed in 1994. And we signed six agreements with the Palestinians with the PLO, all six of which they have been in material breach since the very beginning. But none of those agreements that we signed with the PLO, nor the agreements that we signed with the Jordanians or the Egyptians, were impacted one Iota by the presence of Jewish communities beyond Israel's 1949 armistice lines. Not one of them was contingent on the absence of those communities.
一个协定与埃及持续近30年，一个协定与约旦自1994年签署以来持续存在。我们与巴勒斯坦解放组织签署了六项协议，但自一开始他们就一直违反了这六项协议。然而，我们与巴勒斯坦解放组织、约旦和埃及签署的协议，没有一个受到以色列1949年停战线以外犹太社区的影响。没有一个协议以这些社区的缺席为条件。

And nobody made that a condition for negotiating with the Jewish state or for recognizing it. So if you think that throwing 500,000 Jews, 350,000 Jews, 650,000 Jews, 720,000 Jews out of their homes and their communities is the magic bullet through which we are going to achieve peace with the Palestinian Arabs. You're living in fantasy land. This has not been the case in the past. It has not been the case with our Arab neighbors. It has not been the case with our Palestinian neighbors. And there is no reason to accept the view that it is the case today.
没有人把这个作为与以色列进行谈判或承认其合法地位的条件。所以如果你认为通过将50万犹太人、35万犹太人、65万犹太人、72万犹太人从他们的家园和社区中驱逐出去，我们就能与巴勒斯坦阿拉伯人实现和平，那你是活在幻想世界中。过去并非如此，我们的阿拉伯邻国也没有如此，我们的巴勒斯坦邻居也没有如此。没有理由接受这是今天的情况。

The other argument that we've heard today is that if Jews keep living and building in Judean, Samaria, we're going to end up with a one state solution in which Jews are a minority. So let's think about this for a second. You're saying that by keeping Jews in Judean, Samaria, and in Jerusalem, that somehow or another, the Palestinians are going to, and the Israeli Arabs within the 1949's Armistice lines, are somehow going to magically bridge the 3 million person gap between the 6.1 million Jews and the 3 million Arabs inside of 1949 Armistice lines Israel and Judean, Samaria.
今天我们听到的另一个观点是，如果犹太人继续在犹太和撒玛利亚地区生活和建设，我们最终会得到一个犹太人成为少数民族的单一国家解决方案。那么让我们思考一下。你是在说，通过让犹太人留在犹太和撒玛利亚地区以及耶路撒冷，巴勒斯坦人和1949年防火线范围内的以色列阿拉伯人将以某种方式奇迹般地填补在以色列和犹太和撒玛利亚地区内部的610万犹太人和300万阿拉伯人之间300万人的差距。

You don't know how to count. You don't know how to count. Were Israel to absorb Judean, Samaria tomorrow and offer citizenship to all of its Arab residents, Israel would still have a two thirds Jewish majority.
你不知道如何计数。你不知道如何计数。如果以色列明天吸收犹太人和撒马利亚，并向所有阿拉伯居民提供公民身份，以色列仍将保持三分之二的犹太人人口占比。

So the very notion that there is a demographic time bomb on Israel's hands is simply untrue. The Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel came out yesterday with its latest data. They found that there is convergence between Jewish birth rates and Arab birth rates. And the Jewish birth rates are trending upwards and have been since 1995. And the Arab birth rates are trending downwards and have since 2000. In fact, this is not just among the Palestinians or among the Israeli Arabs. This is throughout the Arab world. There is a collapse in the Muslim world in fertility rates. And there is a massive increase in Jewish fertility rates.
因此，关于以色列将面临人口定时炸弹的说法完全不实。以色列中央统计局昨天公布了最新数据，发现犹太人的出生率和阿拉伯人的出生率正在趋于平衡。自1995年以来，犹太人的出生率一直呈上升趋势，而自2000年以来，阿拉伯人的出生率一直呈下降趋势。事实上，这不仅仅在巴勒斯坦人或以色列阿拉伯人中存在，而是贯穿整个阿拉伯世界。穆斯林世界的生育率正在崩溃，而犹太人的生育率却大幅增长。

Israel has three children per woman among Jews and it has 3.5 children per woman among Muslims inside a pre-1949 Armistice lines Israel and 3.2 children per woman in Judean, Samaria, among the Arab population in the areas. So that the whole trend of the demographic model is completely the opposite of what all of these experts on Israel's demographic dire circumstances would have us all believe.
以色列犹太人平均每位女性生育三个孩子，在1949年以前的停战线以色列穆斯林女性平均每位生育3.5个孩子，犹太人在犹太地区每位女性生育3.2个孩子。因此，整个人口模型的趋势完全与所有关于以色列人口悲观状况的专家们所说的相反。

It's simply a matter of not counting properly. Now, the truth of the matter is none of this is important because the whole issue of whether or not the settlements in Judean, Samaria, or somehow or another going to destroy Israel or not, is not about demography and it's not a bad piece. It's about civil rights. It's about Jewish civil rights.
这只是一个简单的计数问题。事实的真相是，这些都不重要，因为关于犹太人在犹太，撒玛利亚定居点是否会破坏以色列的问题，与人口统计无关，也不是一件坏事。这是关乎民权问题，关乎犹太人的民权。

What they are saying essentially is that Jews should not be allowed to live there just because they're Jews. Now, why should Jews be allowed to live in London, live in Germany, live in San Francisco, but not be allowed to live in Judea? Why? And in Jerusalem. Where does this come from?
他们实质上是在说犹太人不应该因为他们是犹太人而被允许住在那里。现在，为什么犹太人被允许住在伦敦、德国和旧金山，但不能住在犹太地区、耶路撒冷呢？为什么？这一切源自何处呢？

They want to talk so much about Palestinian rights. Let's talk about Jewish rights for a second. You're saying that you so support a Palestinian state that is going to be inherently bigoted and that Jews aren't allowed to even live there, that they have to all be ethnically cleansed first before these people can even deign to accept sovereignty. What kind of state do you want to establish?
他们非常想谈论巴勒斯坦人的权利。那我们也来谈谈犹太人的权利吧。你是在说你非常支持一个本质上偏执狭隘的巴勒斯坦国家，并且不允许犹太人住在那里，甚至要先进行种族清洗，然后这些人才可以接受主权。你到底想建立什么样的国家呢？

What kind of nonsense is this is a racket. This is a racket. Jews don't have civil rights. We're not allowed to live wherever we have property rights to build just because we're Jewish and this is a moral argument. This is a reasonable argument.
这是什么胡说八道啊，这真是个骗局。这就是一场骗局。犹太人没有民权。我们被禁止在我们拥有财产权利建造的地方居住，仅仅因为我们是犹太人，这是一个道德争议。这是一个合理的论点。

This is establishing what exactly? A state based upon ethnic purity. This is where we've come to in 2013 in the western world. Where are the liberal values that are being advanced by this cause of a Jew-free Palestine? Somebody can explain this one to me because I don't understand it. I don't understand it. I don't understand. I went to Columbia. I went to Harvard. I just can't get it.
这是在确立什么呢？一个以民族纯洁为基础的国家。这就是我们在2013年的西方世界所达到的地步。那些被这种无犹太人的巴勒斯坦事业所推动的自由价值在哪里？有人能解释给我听吗？因为我不理解。我真的不理解。我无法理解。我曾经在哥伦比亚大学就读，我还在哈佛大学学习过。但我就是无法理解。

And let me just say one more thing about that. I can talk from now. I've heard illegal Palestinian land all of this. I'm not going to have a discussion here about sovereignty. I talk about that in my book. It's going to be coming out hopefully at the end of the year, random house. Can I look for it and buy multiple copies? But if we want to, we can talk about Israel's national rights and our legal rights to these areas. They are very strong and in fact they're incontrovertible in under international law.
让我再说一件事。我从现在开始可以谈论。我听说非法的巴勒斯坦土地所有权问题。我不打算在这里讨论主权问题。这个问题我在书中有详细论述。希望年底能出版，出版社是兰登书屋。我可以看看并买多本吗？但如果我们愿意，我们可以谈论以色列的国家权利以及我们在这些地区的合法权益。事实上，根据国际法，这些权利非常坚固且无可争议。

But we're talking about civil rights. We're talking about civil rights. And it's not simply that it's morally repugnant to tell Jews that we're not allowed to live any where we want to and buy property anywhere that will be sold it. It's also true that this is a failed proposition. It's been tried twice and it's failed twice. The British tried it. You tried it in 1939 and in 1940 with the white paper and the subsequent acts of parliament that denied Jews the right to buy land in the vast majority of the Palestinian mandate that the British government was legally bound by the mandate of the League of Nations to allow close Jewish settlement of throughout.
但是我们正在讨论的是公民权利。我们正在讨论的是公民权利。这不仅仅是因为告诉犹太人他们不被允许选择居住地和购买任何出售的财产是道德上令人厌恶的，还因为这是一个失败的主张。这已经尝试过两次，两次失败。英国人试过。你们在1939年和1940年试过，白皮书和接下来的议会法案剥夺了犹太人在英国政府依法应允犹太人在巴勒斯坦托管地的绝大部分地区购买土地的权利，而英国政府根据国际联盟的托管责任应该允许犹太人在整个地区建立定居点。

You abrogated that right in material breach of the mandate of the League of Nations in 1939 and 1940 and how did that work out? It was done at the time in May 1939 in order to appease the Palestinian Arabs who at that point were allied with the Nazis and were conducting a terrorist war not only against the Jews of the Palestine mandate but against the British mandatory authorities. And in an attempt to appease Hajimin al-Husaini who by that time was in Baghdad stirring up a pro-Nazi coup d'état that took place in 1941.
你在1939年和1940年违反国际联盟的任务，废除了那个权利，结果如何？那是在1939年5月的时候为了安抚当时与纳粹合作并对巴勒斯坦托管地的犹太人以及英国当局进行恐怖战争的巴勒斯坦阿拉伯人。同时，也是为了迎合那时正在巴格达煽动亲纳粹政变的哈吉(侯赛因)，该政变发生于1941年。

The British said that the Jews have no national rights and we actually didn't mean that we supported the establishment of a Jewish state when we said we did in 1917 in the Balfour Declaration. Whoops. And you know what happened? You know what happened? There was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and Britain that was pinned down in Libya. I had to go and invade Iraq in order to take it down. And then they had to invade Iran because in Iran you had preachers in the mosque saying hey Hitler is the second coming of Muhammad. And that's what they did. And this is what they got for appeasement.
英国人说犹太人没有国家权利，实际上我们当初在1917年签署巴尔福宣言时，并不是真的支持建立犹太国家。糟糕的是，你知道发生了什么吗？伊拉克发生了亲纳粹政变，而英国则被困在利比亚。为了解决这个问题，我不得不入侵伊拉克。然后他们又不得不入侵伊朗，因为伊朗的清真寺里的传教士说希特勒是穆罕默德的再临。这就是他们为绥靖政策所付出的代价。

They got King Farouk in Egypt supporting the Nazis. They got the Iraqis supporting the Nazis. They got a Nazi party in Syria. It didn't work. And by the way they did it at the time that what? They abrogated Jewish civil rights in the middle of the Holocaust. Morally repugnant and strategically ridiculous. It didn't work.
他们在埃及让法鲁克国王支持纳粹主义。他们让伊拉克人支持纳粹主义。他们在叙利亚建立了一个纳粹党。但这一切都没有成功。而且，顺便提一句，他们在大屠杀期间还废除了犹太人的公民权。这种做法在道义上令人厌恶，在战略上也毫无意义。但这一切都没有成功。

We tried it again as Danny said in 2005 and what did we get? 8,000 Jews thrown out of their homes, 24 communities in Gaza raised to the ground and transferred to the Palestinians. What did we get? We got Hamas in charge. It wasn't just an abrogation of Jewish civil rights. It ended up becoming an abrogation of Palestinian civil rights just as the Christians in Gaza. Just last month they went to Bethlehem for the Christmas celebrations and they came to Israel and they said don't make us go home. Can we please have a asylum here? Can we save us? Pretty soon just weeks from now there's not going to be any more ancient Christian community in Gaza. But whose civil rights are being impacted here? Not just ours, not just the Jews, but the Arabs as well. The women in Gaza who are now being increasingly intimidated say you have to run around wearing a big hat over your head. Or how about those summer camps that are being firebombed by Hamas because they have girls and boys together? Whose civil rights are advanced by the expropriation illegally of land from Jews in the transfer of the Palestinians? Nobody. Nobody.
我们在2005年按照丹尼的说法再次尝试了一次，结果如何呢？8000名犹太人被赶出家园，加沙地带的24个社区被夷为平地并移交给巴勒斯坦人。我们得到了什么？我们得到了哈马斯的执政。这不仅仅是对犹太人公民权利的废除，最终也成为对巴勒斯坦公民权利的废除，就像加沙地带的基督徒一样。就在上个月，他们去了伯利恒参加圣诞庆典，然后来到以色列，他们说不要让我们回家，我们能在这里寻求庇护吗？能救救我们吗？很快的，几周后，在加沙地带将不再有古老的基督教社区了。但是，这里被影响到的是谁的公民权利呢？不仅仅是我们，不仅仅是犹太人，还有阿拉伯人。现在，加沙地带的妇女们越来越受到恐吓，被迫戴上大帽子。还有哈马斯针对夏令营的纵火活动，因为他们有男孩和女孩在一起。谁的公民权益会因为非法侵占犹太人土地并将其移交给巴勒斯坦人而得到提升？没有人。没有人。

I tell you what, this is what we're talking about here. You want to know what we're really talking about here when we talk about throwing all these Jews off the lands that we bought that belonged to us? We are talking about trying to find common ground with terrorist organizations that are mandated to enact a genocide of the Jewish people. Just read the Hamas covenant. Just see what they say. They call not for only the annihilation, the obliteration in their words of the Jewish state, but they call for the genocide of world Jewry and to try to find common ground with these murderers or with Holocaust deniers like PLO Chief Mahmoud Abbas. We have people like Danny Levy and Mr. Seaghart saying what? We can agree that there's a subset of Jews that we also dislike. Let's call them the settlers and say that they're destroying all prospects for peace. Not Hamas, not Fatah, that are throwing missiles at the homes of now 3.5 million Jews are in their range from Gaza?
我告诉你，这就是我们正在谈论的内容。你想知道我们真正在谈论什么，当我们谈论把我们购买的土地上的犹太人都赶走？我们正在谈论试图与被授权实施对犹太人种族灭绝的恐怖组织寻找共同立场。只要读读哈马斯契约就知道。看看他们说了些什么。他们不仅要求消灭犹太国家，还呼吁对全球犹太人进行种族灭绝。试图与这些杀人犯或者像巴勒斯坦解放组织领袖马哈茂德·阿巴斯这样否认大屠杀的人寻找共同立场。我们有像丹尼·利维和西加特先生这样的人说什么呢？我们可以同意我们也不喜欢的一部分犹太人。我们称他们为定居者，说他们破坏了和平的前景。难道不是哈马斯，不是法塔赫，他们向住在加沙地带的350万犹太人家园发射导弹吗？

No, no, no, no, no. It's because Jews have the temerity to build on land that they own. That's the problem. We can sit down and talk to Hamas because we like them hate Jews. Now we don't hate all Jews, but a subset. And we're going to blame everything, all the pathologies of the Arab world, all the pathologies of the Palestinians on them. It's their fault. They're going to block peace. Not true.
不，不，不，不，不，这是因为犹太人有胆量在他们拥有的土地上建设。这就是问题所在。我们可以坐下来和哈马斯谈判，因为我们和他们一样憎恨犹太人。我们并不仇视所有的犹太人，只是其中的一部分。我们将把阿拉伯世界的所有弊病、巴勒斯坦人的所有弊病都归咎于他们。这是他们的错。他们会阻碍和平的实现。但这并不正确。

Again, to return to the beginning at the end of my remarks. Israel has two peace treaties, one with Jordan, one with Egypt that are just fine. Thank you very much for asking. And they were signed, sealed and delivered and maintained while Israel was expanding the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and Gaza. We signed six agreements with the PLO, again, none of which they've maintained or adhered to, but they were all signed. While we were building in Judea and Samaria, how is it that suddenly this is the obstacle to peace? Because you can now find common ground when you all want to delegitimize Israel. Oh, we can all agree that we hate these specific Jews and they should all be thrown out of their houses. This is a moral atrocity. It is morally reprehensible. It is strategically idiotic. And this resolution should be opposed by all of you unanimously. Thank you very much.
再次回到我的讲话开头。以色列与约旦和埃及分别签署了两个完全正常的和平条约。非常感谢你的提问。这些条约签字盖章被认可并得到维护，而以色列在犹太人在犹太人在犹太和撒玛利亚以及加沙的存在扩大的时候，这些条约也一直有效。我们与巴勒斯坦解放组织签署了六项协议，但他们没有确保其履行或遵守，尽管都有签字。当我们在犹太和撒玛利亚建设时，为什么突然这成为了和平的障碍？因为当你们都想将以色列非法化时，你们现在可以找到共同立场了。哦，我们可以都同意我们憎恶那些特定的犹太人，他们都应被赶出自己的房屋。这是道义上的暴行。这在道义上是应受谴责的。这在战略上是愚蠢至极的。这个决议应该得到你们所有人的一致反对。非常感谢。

Thank you very much, Caroline. And thank you to all of you for listening to the speakers in silence and, for the most part, and except when you laughed when you were supposed to. And also, I got a sense that you were all concentrating, as I was concentrating, very, very closely on what they had to say. It is my task now, before I throw this open to the floor, to tell you what the result of the pre-debate poll was, I am told that there is always a lot of don't know in these debates. I said I was rather skeptical that in this debate there were going to be a lot of don't know, but they were a fair number. Anyway, the number, this was before the speakers began talking, was 343 for the motion, 97 against, 192 don't know.
非常感谢你，卡罗琳。同时也感谢所有的听众，你们静静地倾听演讲者的发言，大部分时间除了在应该笑的时候。我能感觉到你们都在认真专注地聆听，而我也是如此。现在，我要告诉大家在辩论前的一次投票结果，我听说在这类辩论中通常会有很多人选择“不知道”。我曾怀疑在这次辩论中是否会有很多人选择“不知道”，但事实上这样的选择还是相当多的。无论如何，在演讲开始之前，支持该提案的选票有343张，反对的有97张，不知道的有192张。

So, in order to try and further our exploration of the issues, we are going to have a question and answer session. For those of you who have seen me do this sort of gig before, you will know that the tired joke that is about a roll over the horizon, and I apologise, but especially when it comes to discussing Israel, it tends to be an answer and answer session, rather than a question and answer session, just for the sake of brevity and sanity, and to allow as many people as possible to get their questions in, please try and restrain yourself and have a question, at least a question mark at the end. Upwards intonation helps. If you put up your hands, I will try and get around as many as possible, please wait for the microphone and what we will do is we will take them in clumps of 2 or 3 and then ask the panel for their thoughts.
所以，为了进一步探讨这些问题，我们将进行问答环节。对于那些之前见过我的人来说，你们应该知道我翻越地平线的那个疲惫笑话，我表示歉意，但尤其是在讨论以色列问题时，通常会变成回答和回答的环节，而不是问题和回答的环节，为了简洁和理智起见，以便让尽可能多的人提问，请控制自己并提出一个问题，至少在句末加上一个问号。上扬的语调有帮助。如果你举手，我会尽量回答你们所有人的问题，请等待麦克风，我们将以2或3个问题一起进行，并请小组成员发表他们的看法。

So, first of all, there is a very well illuminated hand actually behind you, the lady in the glasses. Thank you very much for the presentations. I think that every site has got valid points. What bothers me is I am not for the settlements. I feel that I don't understand with modern sentence statistics, there are more Arabs living in the Galilee than Jews. The negative is very sparsely populated. Why don't the settlers live there and strengthen Israel? And from the moral point of view, I am a bit baffled that Israel wants the UN to do justice, but there seems to be one moral law for Israel and one for other people, because when it doesn't suit Israel, it does other things. So, it's a bit of a pity. Thank you.
首先，就在你身后，戴眼镜的女士的手非常明亮。非常感谢你的演讲。我认为每个观点都有其合理性。令我烦恼的是，我不赞成定居点建设。我觉得不明白的是，根据现代人口统计，加利利地区居住的阿拉伯人比犹太人多。负面影响并不是人口稠密的区域。为什么定居者不选择住在那里并支撑以色列呢？从道德角度来看，我有些困惑，以色列希望联合国实施正义，但似乎对以色列有一套道德规范，对其他人有另一套规范，因为当这并不符合以色列利益时，它会采取其他行动。所以，有点可惜。谢谢。

Where's the other microphone? Excellent. There it is. Thank you.
另一个话筒在哪里？太好了，就在那里。谢谢。

Can I ask for clarification? The term is always used that the Israelis are expropriating land in the West Bank for settlements. The last speaker spoke about land that was owned by the settlers that the settlers had bought. I think that's quite an important point, and I'll be grateful for clarification of whether the land is always purchased from the Palestinians as opposed to expropriated.
我可以请您解释一下吗？通常使用这个术语来说以色列人在西岸征用土地用于建设定居点。上一个发言者提到了定居者所拥有和购买的土地。我认为这是一个相当重要的观点，希望能够澄清一下这些土地是不是总是从巴勒斯坦人手中购买，而不是征用的。

Excellent. Let's see if the microphone is now working. Jews live in England and thereby by English laws. Jews living in the occupied territories by which law? I'll repeat the questions. I'll ask one of you from both sides. You can decide among yourselves.
太好了。让我们看看麦克风是否正常工作。犹太人居住在英国，受英国法律约束。那么居住在占领区的犹太人受哪一套法律约束呢？我将重复这些问题。我会从双方中的一方里选择一个人来回答。你们可以自行决定。

The questions were why don't settlers go to the inside of the green lines and strengthen Israel, the state of Israel within the green lines. What is it with this land that's been bought by the settlers, appropriated by the settlers, what's the status of settlement land, and why don't Jews in the settlements abide by Israeli law?
问题是为什么定居者不去绿线内部加强以色列，以色列国内的绿线范围内。定居者购买了这片土地，占据了这片土地，那么这些定居点土地的地位是什么，为什么定居点的犹太人不遵守以色列法律？

No, no, no, that's not the question. The question is, what law should they abide by? That was the question. If I'm doing you justice, I'll go and get my code. No, no, it's fine. He's never forgiven me for mispronouncing his surname. Caroline and Jenny.
不，不，不，那不是问题。问题是，他们应该遵守什么法律？这才是问题所在。如果我理解正确的话，我会去拿我的法典。不，没关系。他从未原谅我错读他的姓氏。卡罗琳和珍妮。

Those were quite factual questions. They have three very short factual answers. The first one regarding the Galilee and the Negev is that we do. Second and third generation so-called settlers from Judea and Samaria now establish communities both in the Negev and in the Galilee with our support and encouragement. So, you know, I for a long time have got to the conclusion that persons that take upon themselves Zionist causes and what in Hebrew we call it Yashvut to populate distant areas of the country. They do it everywhere and those that prefer the easy life in Tel Aviv do not, not, don't migali and not in the Negev and not into the and Samaria.
这些问题相当具体。它们有三个非常简短的具体回答。关于加利利和内盖夫的第一个问题，我们确实去过。犹太和撒玛利亚的第二和第三代所谓的定居者现在在我们的支持和鼓励下在内盖夫和加利利建立社区。所以，你知道，我很久以来就得出结论，那些为犹太复国主义事业和希伯来语中称之为雅什武特的东西负责在国家的偏远地区定居的人，他们无所不在。而那些更喜欢在特拉维夫过舒适生活的人不会去内盖夫、加利利和撒玛利亚。

The second factual question from above I think was about the status of the land. Well, someone I think, I think it was Daniel that recalled us of the fact that Tel Aviv University in Ramatavir is built on the ruins of an Arab village of Shechemunis. So, please rest assured that no settlement is on the ruins of any Arab village. More than that, no Arab was evacuated from his home in order to build a settlement. Well, that is the fact you can laugh as long as you can. I know now Daniel will say it, Hebron and Hebron is the exception that proves the rule. You can laugh as long as you know, but I challenge you to show me one case in which an Arab, a Palestinian, was evicted from his home in Judea and Samaria in order to establish there, in order to establish there. They will be a chance for people to intervene in the floor again.
上面的第二个事实问题我想是关于土地的状况。嗯，我想是有人，我想是丹尼尔，提醒我们特拉维夫大学在Ramatavir建在了一个阿拉伯村庄Shechemunis的废墟上。所以，请放心，没有任何定居点建在任何阿拉伯村庄的废墟上。更重要的是，没有一个阿拉伯人被撤离他的家园为了建立一个定居点。这是一个你可以尽情嘲笑的事实。我知道丹尼尔现在会说它，希伯伦是例外，证明了规则。你可以尽情大笑，但我挑战你给我展示一个阿拉伯人、一个巴勒斯坦人被驱逐出犹太和撒马利亚为了在那里建立定居点的例子。这将是一个人们再次干预的机会。

Look, Daniel, you move on to the, because we want to get other questions, you move on to the last. This is a fact. Move on to the last question, which is what is more. And more over since 1979, the ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice of Israel, even no expropriation with monetary compensation is allowed on, in a non-inhabited land in order to establish a settlement. Now, if you do not accept the facts, then it's very difficult to make an intelligent discussion here. The third one was which law we abide. Of course, we abide the law of Israel. Thank you very much.
看，Daniel，你继续往后说，因为我们想得到其他问题的答案，你继续回答最后一个问题。这是一个事实。继续回答最后一个问题，就是什么是更重要的。此外，自1979年以来，以色列最高法院的裁决规定，即使在非居民土地上建立定居点，也不允许没收并提供金钱补偿。现在，如果你不接受这些事实，那么在这里进行有建设性的讨论将会非常困难。第三个问题是我们遵守哪个法律。当然，我们遵守以色列的法律。非常感谢。

Is it going to be you? Yeah, yeah. No, really. I don't think supporting this motion is about poking Israel in the eye, or how terrible Israel is, or even about demonizing settlers. I'm going to interrupt you, because it sounds almost like a, something else, can you answer those three specific questions? You can have your own arguments, but you can't have your own facts, and the entire basis. But literally, we could open the equivalent of a swear box on the exit from this hall. And I just think from the combined people in this audience, we could collect a hundred factually accurate rebuttals of what we've heard today, and sadly tens of examples of Palestinian private land and Palestinian dispossession.
这会是你吗？是的，是的。真的吗？我觉得支持这个提案并不是要戳到以色列，或是抨击以色列有多糟糕，甚至并非是要妖魔化定居者。我要打断你，因为你说的听起来有点像，还有办法回答这三个具体的问题吗？你可以持有自己的观点，但你不能有自己的事实和整个基础。但是，说真的，我们简直可以在这个大厅的出口处放一个等值的骂人盒子。我只是觉得在这个观众人群中，我们可以收集到一百个事实准确的反驳今天所说的，以及数十个巴勒斯坦私人土地和巴勒斯坦人被剥夺的例子，这真是令人遗憾。

But, you know, I've said, I've said, you know, many, many examples, Danny. I have said from the beginning, I've said from the beginning, no one on this panel is a Palestinian. You know, you know, the Supreme Court rulings, we can vote on your law. Danny, Caroline, he's calling Danny a liar. I would like him to give one example of a lie. I think it's fair. Okay, but we'll try and take it in turns to speak. There is not one Palestinian on this panel. There's also no one on this panel who was born in Israel. Sorry? So no one on this panel. There are three people on this panel who have veiled themselves of the opportunity that the law of return provides to every Jew around the world to move to Israel. I really hope that in the future there will be a debate where a variety of Palestinian perspectives can be heard. But I'm not the person to provide a Palestinian perspective.
但是，你知道，我说过，我说过很多例子，丹尼。我从一开始就说过，从一开始就说过，这个小组中没有一个是巴勒斯坦人。你知道，你知道，最高法院的裁决，我们可以就你的法律投票。丹尼，卡洛琳，他称丹尼为骗子。我希望他能举一个谎言的例子。我认为这是公平的。好吧，但我们会轮流发言。这个小组中没有一个巴勒斯坦人。这个小组中也没有一个人是在以色列出生的。抱歉？所以这个小组中没有一个人。这个小组中有三个人利用回归法为世界各地的犹太人提供的机会来移居以色列。我真心希望将来会有一个辩论，能够听到各种巴勒斯坦的观点。但我不是能提供巴勒斯坦观点的人。

I can correct some of your mistakes. I can explain that, and then you know this well, that when negotiations have been serious, the Palestinians have been willing to look at land swaps, to look at land. I just answered the questions. You are running away to a completely different topic, blaming me or not telling the truth. Is there any expropriation? Okay, let me. No, but it's just there's so much factual inaccuracy that has been shared. But let me. The name of one that was evicted from the zone and today. The name of one.
我可以纠正你的一些错误。我可以解释一下，然后你就会很清楚，当谈判变得严肃时，巴勒斯坦人愿意考虑土地交换，考虑土地问题。我只是回答问题。你正在离题，责怪我或者不说真话。有任何征收吗？好的，让我来说。不，但是有这么多错误信息被分享出去了。但是让我来说说一个被驱逐出该地区并今天的名字。一个人的名字。

Now if I don't carry around the name, I don't carry around the name. I just want to ask. Let me just put one question to you, Daniel. The one about which law is being respected here. Israel. It's a very interesting question. It's a very interesting question because. The point put by Danny is that this is Israeli law which is being respected. Well, it's not of course because Israeli law has not been extended to the occupied territories because the occupied territories have not been annexed to Israel. What you have is that Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel, something not recognised anywhere else in the world. The West Bank is administered de facto as an occupied territory by Israel. Israel has not taken upon itself that de jure, but in practice what you have is a hodgepodge of legislations there where the Israeli military is sometimes making up the rules, sometimes it's drawn from Jordanian law, sometimes Ottoman law, sometimes Israeli law, and almost always whatever most suits Israel and sadly, increasingly the case of the settlers, but not always because that's where the Supreme Court in Israel sometimes intervenes and says, wait a minute. This land has been expropriated from private Palestinian ownership. This land you can't build on, but then the government has refused to implement the Supreme Court rulings, which is why one of the things to look at and worry about next week in the Israeli election. It's something of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not the one about it. The Supreme Court was not. How long did it take? Is it still at the home there? The home there? The home there? The home there? The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court. Look, I talk earlier about rules of the game. I expect. I expect. No, no, I'm sorry. I expect British rules of the game. British rules of the game are not the holy organic rules of the game. I mean, I expect to honour the truth. You are spreading life here. Okay, well, you'll be able to. Sorry, 90. Sorry. No, no, no, Daniel, really, because we'll be able to. We'll be able to deal with some of this in the summing up speeches, but I did say that this was a question and answer session. Is the microphone over there now working? It is, Hooray, the very patient man who has been trying to speak to us all evening.
现在如果我不背着这个名字，我就不背着这个名字。我只是想问一个问题。让我向你提一个问题，Daniel。一个关于哪个法律在这里被尊重的问题。以色列。这是一个非常有趣的问题。这是一个非常有趣的问题，因为Danny提出的观点是这里是尊重以色列法律的地方。当然不是这样的，因为以色列法律没有延伸到被占领的领土，因为被占领的领土没有被并入以色列。你所看到的是耶路撒冷已经并入了以色列，这在世界任何地方都没有得到承认。约旦河西岸地区在事实上被以色列作为被占领的领土来管理。以色列并没有将其视为正当行为，但在实践中，你所看到的是一个政策的混乱，以色列军队有时制定规则，有时借鉴约旦法律，有时借鉴奥斯曼法律，有时借鉴以色列法律，几乎总是适合以色列的情况，可悲的是，愈来愈多地是定居者的情况，但并不总是这样，因为以色列最高法院有时会介入并说，等一下。这块土地已经从巴勒斯坦私人所有权处征用。你不能在这块土地上建造，但政府却拒绝执行最高法院的裁决，这也是我们下周要关注和担心的事情之一，关于以色列选举。这是最高法院的一个问题。最高法院并不是这样的。需要多久？它现在还在那里吗？那里的家？那里的家？那里的家？最高法院和最高法院。看吧，我之前说过关于游戏规则的事情。我期望。我期望。不，不，对不起，我期望英国的游戏规则。英国的游戏规则不是至高无上的有机规则。我的意思是，我希望遵守真理。你在这里传播谎言。好吧，你会有机会的。对不起，90号。不，不，不，Daniel，真的，因为我们将在总结陈述中处理其中一些问题，但我说过这是一个问答环节。麦克风那边现在工作了吗？太好了，非常有耐心的男士一直在试图和我们交谈整个晚上。

I propose to you that Israel is not a democracy. It is an ethnocracy because only one race has rights in Israel. And the law of return only grants the rights to people with Jewish blood going back to Israel. We've never been there and building on Palestinian land. And it doesn't right any rights to the Palestinians to even have extensions to their homes or it denies unbelievable things. Is there a question which deals with the military? Well, basically, it is an ethnocracy, not a democracy. Okay, thank you. We have somebody up on the gallery. The most interesting point of her this evening is the argument about Israel being a democracy, which in principle I think we most agree with, and the comparison with South Africa during apartheid.
我向您提议，以色列并不是一个民主国家，而是一个种族专制国家，因为只有一个种族在以色列拥有权利。而回归法只授予具有犹太人血统的人回到以色列的权利。我们从未去过那里，却在巴勒斯坦土地上建造。它不给巴勒斯坦人任何权利，甚至连他们的住房扩建都被否决，这是不可思议的。有关军事问题的问题吗？嗯，基本上，它是一个种族专制国家，而不是民主国家。好的，谢谢。我们的讲台上有一个人。今晚她最有趣的观点是关于以色列是一个民主国家的争论，原则上我认为我们大多数人都同意，并与南非种族隔离时期进行了比较。

Now, if I may make another comparison, it's a question for the panelists against the motion. I was wondering if you see any comparisons with what Israel is currently doing to the Palestinians with what the Nazis did to the Jews. And specifically. And one more down here. We've got a question at the back. Excuse me, I haven't finished. Excuse me, I wanted to qualify my question. It wasn't a statement, it was a question. Understood. But we've heard it. No, no, no, I wanted to, sorry, I wanted to qualify it. I just wanted to say it wasn't to be polemic about the Holocaust. It took two aspects of my comparison. One is the fact that the Nazis also got voted in, democratically, just as much as the Israeli right-wing governments get voted in. Second, all the Nazi ideology was founded on fear of the Jews, just as much as the arguments have hurt tonight about the survival of Israel based on fear of the Arabs attacking. Okay, thank you. We will, no, we thank you very much. We've got the tenor of your point. Thank you. You, sir.
现在，如果我可以再作一个比较，这是一个对辩论者的问题，反对这个提案。我想知道您是否认为以色列对巴勒斯坦人所做的事情和纳粹对犹太人所做的事情有任何比较。具体地说。还有一个问题在这里。对不起，我还没说完。对不起，我想要补充一下我的问题。明白了。但是我们听过了。不，不，不，我想要，对不起，我想要补充一下。我只是想说这并不是针对大屠杀进行争论。我的比较有两个方面。首先，纳粹也是通过民主选举上台的，就像以色列右翼政府一样。其次，所有纳粹的意识形态都是建立在对犹太人的恐惧之上的，就像今晚关于以色列存亡基于对阿拉伯人攻击的恐惧的论点一样。好的，谢谢。我们将会，不，不，非常感谢您。这位先生。

I find in these difficult issues that historical context is often very helpful. A question for each of the panelists, which of you has read Edward Said's book, The Question of Palestine? Right. Let's, I'm glad that it was the panelists rather than the chairman there, so I don't have to display migrants. Let's hear from perhaps William and Caroline this time briefly. Is Israel a democracy or not? Are there any useful comparisons to be drawn? Not just with South Africa, but with the Nazis, and have any of you read Edward Said?
在这些棘手的问题中，我发现历史背景通常非常有帮助。我有一个问题要问每位小组成员，你们中谁读过爱德华·赛义德的《巴勒斯坦问题》一书？好的，我很高兴是小组成员而不是主席读过，这样我就不必展示移民信息了。现在让我们简短听听威廉和卡罗琳的观点。以色列是一个民主国家吗？是否可以进行一些有用的比较？不仅仅是与南非，还有纳粹德国？你们有谁读过爱德华·赛义德的书吗？

Well, the answer to the last question is yes. The answer to the first question is more complex. Is Israel a democracy? I suppose a simple answer to that question from my perspective is, which israel? An israel on 1967 borders, or an israel that as we saw on the map, covers the whole of the west bank and control of Gaza. If Israel is the latter, it's hard to see it as a democracy because Palestinians don't get to have the vote in Israeli elections. Now, you might argue and say, well, Israelis don't get to vote in Palestinian elections, but as we know, Palestinians, when they have elections, their governments don't tend to be recognized.
嗯，对于最后一个问题的答案是肯定的。而对于第一个问题的答案则更为复杂。以色列是一个民主国家吗？从我个人的角度来看，对于这个问题一个简单的回答是，是哪个以色列呢？是以1967年的边界为基础的以色列，还是在地图上看到的覆盖整个约旦河西岸和加沙地带的以色列？如果以色列是后者，很难将其视为一个民主国家，因为巴勒斯坦人没有资格在以色列选举中投票。现在，你可能会反驳说，以色列人也没有资格在巴勒斯坦选举中投票，但正如我们所知，巴勒斯坦人在进行选举时，他们的政府往往不被承认。

The second question was the parallel with the Nazis. And I think the parallel you were using, I hope, was nothing to do with the Holocaust. It was to do with fear and all those kinds of things. I'm always very, very uncomfortable with anyone making any analogies to the Holocaust and the Nazis. I think it's deeply inappropriate, and I don't like to make these kinds of historical connections. I hope I've answered your questions. You have with Admiral Brevity, Carolyn.
第二个问题是与纳粹相提并论。我希望你所使用的比喻与大屠杀无关，而是与恐惧以及诸如此类的事情有关。对于任何人将大屠杀和纳粹进行类比，我总是感到非常非常不舒服。我认为这是非常不合适的，我不喜欢进行这种历史上的联系。我希望我已经回答了你的问题。你已经通过布莱弗提装备 (Admiral Brevity) 得到回答了，卡罗琳。

So, regarding Edward Said, I didn't read his book, but I did heckle him in 1990. As for the issue of, what is it, Israel and Nazis? Oh, shame on you. Shame on you, shame on you. Let me just give you a little historical background, which you may or may not know, and actually I don't really care what you think. But just so people know, there was the founder of the Palestinian nation, was a guy named Hajimeen al-Husaini, who was the Mufti of Jerusalem, that the British appointed in 1920. And he was a Nazi agent, and among other things that he did, he established in 1940, the Hans-Harr SS Division of Bosnian Muslims. And among other things that the Hans-Harr Division did, was they liquidated the Bosnian Jewish community, or 90% of it. They killed 12,600 Jews out of 14,000 Jews in Bosnia. This was a man as well who intervened with Himmler and with Eichmann to prevent a prisoner swap of 4,000 Jewish children. In, in, in, yeah, so basically Hajimeen al-Husaini was a Nazi war criminal, not that you care about this, but it's interesting that just last week, Mahmoud Abbas, who is the moderate PLO chief and Palestinian authority leader, hailed Hajimeen al-Husaini as the hero of the Palestinian people in a speech in Ramallah. So that, you know, I think that when you're making, when you're making a comparison, excuse me, when you're making a comparison between the people, the people, the victims of the Nazis and their Palestinian agents, and their Palestinian apologists, including Mahmoud Abbas, who wrote a PhD thesis for the Oriental University in Moscow, denying the Holocaust, and claiming that it was a joint plot of the Zionist and the Germans. And you compare us to them, the perpetrators, the people who now they want to commit genocide against, just read Hamas's charter, you have some serious moral issues that you need to deal with yourselves. Okay, Caroline, thank you very much indeed. Can we just get one final brief group of questions, and then we'll take the final vote? The gentleman in the glasses just here in the middle.
所以，关于爱德华·赛义德，我没有读过他的书，但是在1990年我确实对他进行过嘲讽。至于以色列和纳粹问题，啊，你真是可耻。可耻，可耻。让我给你一些历史背景，你可能知道也可能不知道，而且实际上我并不在乎你的想法。但是只是让人们知道一下，在1920年，巴勒斯坦民族的奠基人是一个名叫哈吉Mean al-Husaini的家伙，他是大英帝国1920年任命的耶路撒冷大穆夫蒂。他是一个纳粹特工，除了其他事情，他在1940年成立了波斯尼亚穆斯林汉斯-哈尔SS师。而汉斯-哈尔师还做的其他事情包括清洗了波斯尼亚犹太社区，消灭了其中90%的犹太人。他们屠杀了波斯尼亚1,4000名犹太人中的12,600人。此外，他还干预了海姆勒和艾希曼的行动，阻止了一个关于4000名犹太儿童的换囚协议。所以，哈吉Mean al-Husaini也是一个纳粹战争罪犯，虽然你可能不关心这个，但是有趣的是，就在上周，作为温和派巴勒斯坦解放组织主席和巴勒斯坦自治政府领导人的马哈茂德·阿巴斯在拉马拉称哈吉Mean al-Husaini为巴勒斯坦人民的英雄。我认为当你在对比纳粹的受害者以及他们的巴勒斯坦代理人和道歉者，包括马哈茂德·阿巴斯在内，他还在莫斯科东方大学写了一篇论文否认大屠杀，并声称这是犹太复国主义者和德国人的共同阴谋时，你们有一些严重的道德问题需要处理。好的，卡罗琳，非常感谢。我们只再选取一组简短的问题，然后进行最后的投票，这位中间戴眼镜的先生。

William and Daniel are very disingenuous in that they choose selectively to show maps of Israel as it currently is. It currently occupies 16% of the mandate for Palestine. 77% of which was given away by the British, totally in contravention of the agreement. The agreement still stands because under Article 80 of the UN, all agreements adopted by the League of Nations are still extant. So you're actually completely wrong. Why is it that, as Caroline alluded to, it's okay for Jews to be shipped out wholesale from wherever they happen to be, from Iraq, from Egypt, from Syria, from Lebanon. How many Jews are there now? And yet, transfer, and from Judea and Samaria, it's okay to transfer wholesale half a million people, but God forbid there should be ever any movement of any other peoples.
威廉和丹尼尔非常不真诚，因为他们选择性地展示目前以色列的地图。目前，以色列占据了原定巴勒斯坦领土的16%，其中77%的土地是英国违反协议擅自划给了以色列。该协议仍然有效，因为根据《联合国宪章》第80条，所有由国际联盟通过的协议仍然存在。所以，你实际上完全错了。卡罗琳所暗示的是，为什么从伊拉克、埃及、叙利亚和黎巴嫩将犹太人全部驱逐出境是可以接受的？现在有多少犹太人呢？然而，从犹太人在犹太和撒玛利亚地区迁走500,000人却可以接受，但千万不要让其他民族有任何移动。

Okay. You know, at the end of the Second World War, the end of the Second World War, Germany lost. We have a whole-style transfer of the point of question. So that's the question. Why is it okay for Jews to be moved under nobody else? Thank you very much indeed. We've got somebody with a sort of blue sleeve here. Green. I'm a little shocked by some of the comments from Caroline in particular. I will ask a question. I haven't had anyone suggesting that all Jews need to be removed. There is a difference between Jewish people living in a place and what settlements represent in terms of the control of the land, the control of movement, in terms of the expropriation of resources. I've stood on a hilltop and watched Palestinian water systems being destroyed.
好的。你知道，在第二次世界大战结束时，德国失败了。我们对问题的核心进行了全面的转变。所以这是个问题。为什么只有犹太人可以迁移，其他人却不可以呢？非常感谢。这里有个穿着蓝袖子的人。绿色的。我对卡罗琳特别的评论感到有些震惊。我将提一个问题。我并没有听到有人建议要移除所有犹太人。住在某个地方的犹太人与定居点在土地控制、移动控制以及资源征用方面所代表的意义之间是有区别的。我站在山顶上目睹过巴勒斯坦的水系统被摧毁。

Okay. Do you have a question there? Yes, I do have a question. My question is, if it's alright for settlements in their current form, I don't mean for Jewish people to live in the West Bank, but if in their current form, you think that it's alright for settlements to remain and expand and develop. What is your proposal for the Palestinian people who are living in area C and areas A and B? We haven't talked about Oslo. Whole other debate. But in the whole of the West Bank, what are you proposing actually happens to them in the future?
好的，你有问题吗？是的，我有一个问题。我的问题是，如果目前的定居点现状得以继续，我不是指犹太人在约旦河西岸定居，而是目前的形式下，你认为定居点得以继续、扩张和发展是否合适？你对居住在C区、A区和B区的巴勒斯坦人民提出了什么建议？我们还没有讨论奥斯陆协议，那是一个完全不同的辩论。但在整个约旦河西岸，你对他们的未来实际上提出了什么改变？

Okay, thank you very much. And let's have our final question from the balcony. I'm going to try and be brief. At the beginning of the debate, I was asked to empty my mind of any preconceptions. I tried to do that. And as someone who is not Jewish or Palestinian and may have some idea about the conflicts and the problems that go on there, what am I supposed to take away from this debate? Because I have to say, frankly, I'm a bit confused. And I'm actually, I feel like I've been bludgeoned over the head because I'm not intelligent enough to understand some of the points here. And I just, I actually came here to learn, but what do you want me to take away from here?
好的，非常感谢。现在我们来听台下的最后一个问题。我会尽量简短。在辩论开始时，我被要求摒除自己对这个问题的任何偏见。我试着去做到了。作为一个非犹太人或巴勒斯坦人，对于那里的冲突和问题可能有一些了解，我应该从这场辩论中得到什么启示呢？因为坦率地说，我有点困惑。事实上，我感觉自己被猛烈抨击了，好像自己不够聪明，无法理解这里提出的一些观点。我真的是为了学习才来的，但你们希望我从这里得到什么启示？

That's an excellent question. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to plead for a decision and also for us not to raise our voices. But the three questions were, why is it not okay for Jews apparently to live in certain places? What will be the long-term future for Palestinians if settlements stay in place? And why is it, if I can just paraphrase your very heartfelt question, why is it so often that when it comes to discussing Israel, the blood boils?
这是个非常好的问题。谢谢。好的。我想要提出一个决定的请求，同时也希望我们不要大声争吵。但是，这三个问题是，为什么显然犹太人在某些地方不能居住？如果定居点继续存在，巴勒斯坦人的长期未来将会如何？如果我可以简述一下你非常发自内心的问题，为什么在讨论以色列问题时，情绪总是如此激动？

Well, it's a very interesting array of questions, and I can't answer the last one, Tim. But I think that the ladies' question from the balcony is perhaps the most salient and the most important. And I speak, as I say, as a Brit and as a non-Jew, and therefore to some extent, I come from her state of mind, or I did 10 years ago when I first got involved in this conflict. And I can tell you that I have the most extraordinary privilege of anybody in this room, which is I get to meet the leadership of everybody on all sides, and there are not many people who are allowed to do that. And the one thing I can tell you is that if the Palestinian leadership were offered a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, probably with some land swaps, they would bite your arm off. It's as simple as that. That I am lucky and privileged enough to have discovered for myself. It is very hard, in a very shouty, noisy, both debate here but internationally, to get people quite to understand that. So that, I hope, is a point of information, but to the lady up there who wanted to know what to take out of this. And I think that those blue points on the map I showed you earlier along are getting in the way of that.
嗯，这是一系列非常有趣的问题，我无法回答最后一个问题，蒂姆。但我认为女士从包厢提出的问题可能是最重要和最关键的。我作为一个英国人和一个非犹太人来说，要在某种程度上，我了解她的心态，至少在10年前我第一次参与这场冲突时是这样的。我可以告诉你，在这个房间里，我有非常特殊的特权，那就是我能够见到所有各方的领导人，而能够这样做的人并不多。我可以告诉你的一件事是，如果巴勒斯坦领导层被提出以1967年边界为基础的两国解决方案，可能会有一些土地互换的机会，他们会毫不犹豫地接受。就是这么简单。我有幸和特权能亲自发现这一点。在这里，无论是在国内还是国际上，非常喧闹和嘈杂，人们很难理解这一点。所以，我希望这是一个信息点，针对那位女士，她想知道从中得到什么启示。我认为之前我给你展示的地图上的那些蓝色点正在妨碍实现这一点。

Thank you very much, and to you, William. Danny, I want to ask you, what is the long-term future for Palestinians if settlements not just continue to expand?
非常感谢，威廉，同样感谢你。丹尼，我想问问你，如果定居点继续扩张，巴勒斯坦人的长期未来会怎样？

Okay. First of all, I apologize if in some instances I lost my temper and broke the rules of the debate. I think that what makes me, my blood boil is not the issue of Israel, but in accuracies or fallacies, but I should have shown more restraint.
首先，如果在某些情况下我发脾气并违反辩论规则，我先向大家道歉。我认为让我愤怒的并不是以色列问题本身，而是不准确或逻辑错误的观点，但我应该更加克制一些。

Now, and of course, again, I must say the outrageous comparison to the Nazis, that I am quite surprised to see it come. Please. By the way, Prime Minister David Cameron was also elected in democratic elections, and sometimes he spread fears of the EU. Does it make him a Nazi? I doubt it.
现在，当然，我必须再次说，我对将纳粹与他们相提并论感到非常吃惊。请停止这样做。顺便提一下，英国前首相戴维·卡梅伦也是通过民主选举产生的，并且有时他对欧盟散布恐惧情绪。这是否意味着他是纳粹？我对此表示怀疑。

Danny, what is the long-term future for Palestinians? Now, I will answer that. Look, you can be happy or frustrated by it, but it is still a fact. There is no point that reconciles the minimal requirements of Israel and the minimal requirements of the Palestinians. How do I know it? Because Prime Minister Ulmert gave the most far-reaching offer that any Israeli Prime Minister can give to Mr. Mahmoud Abbas.
Danny，巴勒斯坦人的长远未来是什么？现在，我来回答这个问题。看着吧，你可能会感到快乐或沮丧，但这还是一个事实。没有任何一点可以调和以色列的最低要求和巴勒斯坦人的最低要求。我怎么知道呢？因为前总理尤尔梅特向阿巴斯先生提出了以色列总理能够提出的最具远见的提议。

By the way, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza writes in her memoirs that she couldn't believe her eyes when she saw the offer, and Abbas rejected it. So, for the. Don't get backwards. No, no, no, I go forward. So, we have to understand that for the time being, we have to improve the situation on the ground vis-a-vis human rights, vis-a-vis freedom of movement, vis-a-vis the fact that my daughter shouldn't have to go to school in a bullet-proof bus, and no Palestinian child should be threatened the same way.
顺便提一句，美国国务卿康多莉扎在她的回忆录中写道，当她看到这个提议时，她简直不敢相信自己的眼睛，但阿巴斯却拒绝了。所以，我们不能后退，不，不，不，我要继续前进。因此，我们必须明白目前我们必须改善地面的情况，包括人权、自由流动，我的女儿不应该坐着防弹车去上学，没有一个巴勒斯坦的孩子应该面临相同的威胁。

On the long term, and now I go into speculation. My. I suppose that the solution of the conflict will be peculiar, as the conflict itself. I suppose that it will be original one. I suppose that someday it may be tomorrow, or maybe in 50 years, there is going to be an inevitable change of regime in Jordan, because monarchies, monarchies not like your monarchy, monarchy in which the monarchs actually rules are a primitive way of government.
从长远来看，现在我开始猜测一下。我想解决这场冲突的方式将是独特的，就像这场冲突本身一样。我猜想它将是一种原创的解决方法。我认为在某一天，也许是明天，或者可能是50年后，约旦的政权将不可避免地发生改变，因为君主制，不像你们国家的君主制那样，那种君主实际上是统治者的君主制是一种原始的政府形式。

There are going to be two nation states, a Jewish-Israel, and the Palestinian east of the Jordan, with joint responsibility and joint control of Judean Samaria. Okay, we'll leave it. Jews will be ruled by Israel and have Israeli citizenship. Palestinians will be ruled by the Palestinian state.
将会有两个国家，一个是犹太-以色列，另一个是约旦河东的巴勒斯坦，两者将共同负责和控制犹太撒马利亚地区。好的，我们接受。犹太人将由以色列统治并拥有以色列国籍，巴勒斯坦人将由巴勒斯坦国家统治。

I suppose the last last remark, this may be a pattern of government that doesn't have yet a name in international relations in political science, but if you confine yourself to conventional forms of solving conflicts and governing people, you will never solve this conflict. Thank you very much indeed.
我认为最后的这个评论可能是政治科学中尚未命名的国际关系模式，但如果您限制在传统的解决冲突和治理人民的方式上，将永远无法解决这个冲突。非常感谢。

Daniel wants to say something very, very, very brief. I mean, my takeaway, and it was predicted by important Israeli leaders at the time in 67, is that occupying another people for 40-plus years has a terribly, morally corrosive effect on the occupier. Of course, it's not a picnic for the occupied, but I do think that that has come out this evening.
丹尼尔想要说一些非常、非常、非常简短的话。我的意思是，我的理解是，在1967年的时候，以色列的重要领导者们就预测到，占领他人的行为会对占领者造成可怕而深重的道德侵蚀影响，这已经有40多年了。当然，对于被占领的人来说也绝非一帆风顺，但我认为这晚上已经有所体现了。

The need to justify the unjustifiable, the need to do those somersaults in the air when one doesn't have a grounding in being able to justify something, it has an effect, and it's a tragedy of Israeli society today that I hope we can still turn around, and that I hope this isn't the direction we're going in.
需要为不可原谅的事情辩护，需要在没有合理理由的情况下做出空中翻转动作，这会产生影响。这是今天以色列社会的一个悲剧，我希望我们仍然能够扭转局面，希望这不是我们正在走向的方向。

One sentence. One sentence. I actually, like I mentioned, I'm writing a book now, and it's called the Israeli Solution, and my solution is simply to allow the Palestinians to apply for Israeli citizenship. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't just be the long-term future, that this will be a one state, and the Palestinians will have the right to be Israelis, just like everybody else. Thank you.
一句话一句话来说，实际上，就如我之前提到的，我正在撰写一本书，书名叫《以色列解决方案》，而我的解决方案就是允许巴勒斯坦人申请以色列公民身份，我看不出为什么这不应该是未来的长期解决方案，让这成为一个单一国家，并且巴勒斯坦人会像其他人一样拥有成为以色列人的权利。谢谢。

Listen, we're now going to ask you to, we're now going to ask you, we're now going to ask you, I'm sorry, but we're running out of time, we will be kicked out of here. We're now going to ask you to cast your votes.
听着，现在我们要求你，现在我们要求你，现在我们要求你，很抱歉，但我们时间不多了，我们将被赶出这里。现在我们要求你投票。

While you are casting your votes, we're also going to have very brief summing up speeches. Really, rigidly, two minutes from each of you, and we're going to be taking it in the reverse order. I'll be very grateful if you could just be quiet for the summing up speeches, which we will take in reverse order, so we will begin for two minutes. And when I start sort of hammering on my glass, the two minutes will be up with Caroline.
当您投票时，我们也将进行非常简短的总结讲话。事实上，每位候选人都将有两分钟的发言时间，我们将按相反的顺序进行。如果您能在总结讲话期间保持安静，我将非常感激。我们将从两分钟的时间开始，当我开始敲打玻璃时，卡罗琳的发言时间就到了。

Caroline Glick, please. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, and just keep going ahead with your voting. I just want to say one thing. You know, Danny mentioned that Zionism is a Jewish national liberation movement, and it is. And it is based upon the proposition that the Jewish people have rights. We have right to determine our own lives. We have a right to sovereignty in our land. This right was recognized under international law. That recognition has never been abrogated as the young man said in one of the later questions this evening.
卡罗琳·格里克，请。非常感谢你。 非常感谢您，并继续投票。 我只想说一件事。 你知道，丹尼提到犹太复国主义是一个犹太民族解放运动，确实是如此。 它是基于这样的命题：犹太人民拥有权利。 我们有权决定自己的生活。 我们有权在我们的土地上拥有主权。 这个权利已经在国际法下得到承认。 正如这位年轻人在今晚的后期问题中所说，这种承认从未被废除。

And really what we're talking about here, I think, in this whole idea of whether Israel has a right to assert its rights or not, is whether or not Jewish rights are conditional on other people's approval of them. And so I'm here to tell you that they're not conditional on anybody else giving us approval for our right to determine our own existence as Jews in our land.
我认为，在讨论以色列是否有权主张自己的权利时，我们实际上是在讨论犹太人的权利是否取决于他人的认可。因此，我在这里告诉你，我们作为犹太人在自己的国土上决定自己的存在权利，并不取决于任何其他人是否认可我们。

And Israel is a democracy. It's the only democracy in the Middle East. And our people will continue to determine our future as a people in our land. And we hope very much that you will support that. But if you don't support that, that's okay. That's all right. That's just fine with us because the whole point of having a Jewish national home and of having a Jewish state in Israel is for us to be able to determine our faith, regardless of what others think. Because for 2,000 years as an exile community and dispersed throughout the world, we didn't have that. We didn't have that, and we lived at the mercy of others and at their pleasure. And that's over. It's done. It's done. Thank you very much.
以色列是一个民主国家。它是中东唯一的民主国家。我们的人民将继续决定我们作为一个民族在我们的土地上的未来。我们非常希望你们能支持我们。但如果你们不支持，那也没关系。对我们来说，没问题。因为建立一个犹太国家和在以色列拥有犹太人的国家的目的，就是让我们有能力决定自己的信仰，不论其他人怎么想。因为作为一个被流放的社区和分散在全世界的人民，我们在过去的2000年里是没有这个权利的。我们没有那个权利，我们的生存取决于他人的恩赐和怜悯。但这一切已经过去了。它已经结束了。非常感谢。

Caroline, thank you. Daniel, two minutes.
卡罗琳，谢谢你。丹尼尔，两分钟。

To singularly say we have rights. Others don't. It's at the expense of others. Only we have national self-determination, not the Palestinians. But the idea that we can dwell alone as a nation in the modern world, the idea that all of us can live unconditionally, we enter into social contracts every second of the day. When I cross a road because it's green, I'm in a social contract with a driver who's not going to run me over. To think that Israel can exist outside of the real world, ignoring the fact that all this great independence that we've just heard asserted is only made possible by the support of the United States, which is going to turn on us with those kinds of opinions. Look, you could say we had nothing, we got Balfour, we got half of it in the partition plan a bit more than we got 78%. And now we've got 100%. We can keep it all. I think it's a misreading of Israeli and regional and global realities. What worries me is that rather than the people with those opinions winning an election and implementing those ideas and discovering rather quickly that they can't work and allowing us to move on, that we're going to continue to play a game where drip, drip, drip, we move in that direction without ever stepping back and asking ourselves, how does this end well? What is the strategic objective? Where are we going? That's why I've spoken in favor of this motion tonight. Thank you very much.
简单来说，我们单方面地说我们有权利，而其他人没有。这是以牺牲他人为代价的。只有我们有国家自决权，而巴勒斯坦人没有。但是，认为我们可以独自作为一个民族在现代世界中生存，认为我们所有人都可以无条件地生活，这样的想法是错误的。我们每一秒都在进入社会契约。当我过马路时，因为灯是绿色的，我与不会撞到我身上的司机有着一种社会契约。以为以色列可以存在于现实世界之外，忽视了我们所拥有的这种独立实际上是依靠美国的支持才可能实现的事实，而美国将会因为那些观点而转变对待我们。看，你可以说我们什么都没有，我们得到了巴尔福宣言，我们在分割计划中得到了一半以上，达到了78%。现在我们已经得到了100%。我们可以保持一切。我认为这是对以色列、地区和全球现实的误读。让我担心的是，与其让持有这些观点的人赢得选举并实施这些想法，然后很快发现它们行不通，让我们继续前进，我们将继续玩一种游戏，滴答滴答地朝着那个方向前进，而不曾回头问自己，这样会有好的结局吗？我们的战略目标是什么？我们要去哪里？这就是为什么今晚我支持这个动议的原因。非常感谢。

Danny? Okay. Well, the difference between Daniel's words right now and mine is only one. That he presents us with a new topic, with a new topic, a portrait of reality, and I'm looking at reality as it is. The fact is that the Palestinian state does not exist even today because of the moral and the political decisions made by the Palestinians themselves. It's not history. It's a close of 2008. It's a close of 2010. I was in Washington in 2010 when Prime Minister Netanyahu, Chairman Abbas and President Obama started the negotiations. A month later, Chairman Abbas found a pretext to leave the negotiating table. Now, how can you do an agreement under those circumstances? I beg you to see the situation as it is. Do you know who was the American president that made the most damage in the Middle East? The American president with the best intentions, Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton assumed power in 1993 with the stable Middle East. He thought it was a kind of romantic vision of what can be achieved in the Middle East, when together, when the candidate, the summit, proposed the Palestinian state, raised expectations, and the result was that yes or a fact made the end of his administration. The most chaotic Middle East that ever existed. That is an example of how misunderstanding the situation in the Middle East with very liberal views and very. Am I liberal too? By the way, I refuse to visit South Africa until the apartheid regime was toppled. Yes, that's a fact you've done. We'll have to leave it there in order to be fair.
Danny？好的。那么，丹尼尔现在所说的和我所说的唯一的区别就是他给我们呈现了一个新话题，一个现实的画像，而我则是看待现实的本来面目。事实是，巴勒斯坦国至今不存在，这是因为巴勒斯坦人自己做出的道德和政治决策。这不是历史，这是指的是2008年和2010年的情况。2010年我在华盛顿的时候，内塔尼亚胡总理、阿巴斯主席和奥巴马总统开始了谈判。一个月后，阿巴斯主席找到借口离开了谈判桌。那么，在这种情况下如何达成协议呢？我请求你们以事实面前的态度看待这个情况。你们知道谁是给中东造成最大伤害的美国总统吗？那就是怀着最好意图的美国总统，比尔·克林顿。克林顿在1993年就职时，中东局势是稳定的。他认为可以在中东实现一种浪漫的愿景，当时的候选人提出建立巴勒斯坦国的建议，给人们带来了期望。结果是他任期结束时，中东变得更加混乱。这就是一个误解中东情况的例子，和过于自由的观点相关。顺便说一下，我也是自由派吗？顺便说一下，在南非种族隔离政权被推翻之前，我拒绝前往南非。是的，这是你所做的。为了公平起见，我们必须结束对话。

William, two minutes. Thank you very much. More and more Israelis are against making peace because it's no longer in their economic or political interest to do so. Already the leader of Jewish home, Naftali Bennett, likely to be the second or third largest party after the election, has said that there could never be a Palestinian state and he wouldn't ever countenance forcing a settler out of his home.
威廉，请给我两分钟，非常感谢。越来越多的以色列人反对实现和平，因为现在对他们来说，这既不符合他们的经济利益，也不符合他们的政治利益。现在犹太家园领导者纳夫塔利·贝内特有可能在选举后成为第二或第三大政党，他已经表示，巴勒斯坦永远不可能建立一个国家，他也决不会同意强迫定居者离开他的家园。

Where's he taking Israel? Well, you've heard. You can sense it. And the truth is that if the two-state solution, a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel, does not appear or can no longer practically appear because of the facts on the ground, there will be irresistible pressure from the international community for Israel to accept as the South Africans had to, that the state of Israel will have to become a bi-national state that includes all the Palestinians with equal rights. And in a democracy that puts the Jewish population into a minority, that means the end of the Zionist dream. And even if a future Israeli government decided to surprise the world and make a dash for a Palestinian state on borders that the Palestinians could accept, could that government organize the necessary concessions from an Israeli public and system of governance that increasingly is made up of senior settlers? Each announcement of further settlement approvals by an Israeli government removes any remaining doubts amongst the international community about Israel's genuine intentions towards peace. Or of their intentions to the Palestinians, some trapped in Gaza and others in that archipelago of islands I showed you on the map in the West Bank. That will have enormous ramifications for Israel's future. That is the conclusion of none other than Shimon Perez, the President of Israel, only a few days ago. It's also mine. Thank you very much.
他把以色列带到哪里去了？嗯，你也听说了。你可以感觉到。事实上，如果两国解决方案，即巴勒斯坦国与以色列国并存的解决方案，因为现实情况无法出现或不再实际出现，那么国际社会将对以色列施加不可抗拒的压力，要求其如同南非必须接受，即以色列国将不得不成为一个包括所有巴勒斯坦人并赋予他们平等权利的双民族国家。而在一个把犹太人口置于少数民族地位的民主国家中，这意味着犹太复国主义梦想的终结。 即使未来的以色列政府决定出人意料地寻求巴勒斯坦国在巴勒斯坦人能够接受的边界上的建立，该政府能够组织来自日益由高级定居者组成的以色列公众和治理系统的必要让步吗？以色列政府宣布进一步批准定居点的每个声明都消除了国际社会对以色列真正对和平的意图的任何疑虑。或者对巴勒斯坦人的意图，其中一些人被困在加沙，另一些人被困在我在地图上展示过的西岸的那个群岛上。这将对以色列的未来产生巨大影响。这是曾经担任以色列总统的西蒙·佩雷斯刚刚几天前得出的结论。这也是我的结论。非常感谢。

Thank you very much, William. You actually have 3.1 seconds to spare. I should say that in wrapping up the question and answer session, I was guilty of yet another filthy lie by a journalist about the Middle East in that I said that the reason we had to wrap it up was because we were going to get kicked out of here. That's not entirely true. We do have to wrap up the debate and I'm now filling for time before I get the results of the vote. But in fact, there is a paying bar here until quarter past nine and in proper journalistic fashion, I'm encouraging you all to go to the bar and spend your pennies. The other thing that I would say as well is, yes, there are books to be had there, including many of Williams, that the organizers of this debate have asked me just to say that they deliberately did not ask Palestinians onto the panel because they wanted it to be a debate among Israelis and Jews and those interested in Israel. So that was the point.
非常感谢，威廉。你实际上多出了3.1秒的时间。在结束问答环节时，我犯了另一个关于中东的肮脏谎言，说我们不得不结束是因为我们将被赶出这里。这不完全是真的。我们确实必须结束辩论，我现在只是在填补时间，等待投票结果。但实际上，这里直到九点十五分有一个付费酒吧，按照正当的新闻报道方式，我鼓励大家去酒吧里消费。另外，我还想说的是，那里有很多书，包括威廉的书，这次辩论的组织者请我说一下，他们故意没有邀请巴勒斯坦人参加辩论，因为他们希望这是一个以色列人、犹太人以及对以色列感兴趣的人之间的辩论。这就是他们的意图。

And that has brought me to the Golden Globe moment where I tell you the result of the debate. But before I do that, thank you all very much for your patience and your attention and your thoughtfulness just actually to turn out on the debate. And I'm actually to turn out on a cold weekday evening to hear all this.
这使我想起了金球奖的时刻，我要告诉大家辩论的结果。在此之前，非常感谢大家的耐心、关注和思考，在这场辩论中投入了这么多的心思。我很高兴看到你们在一个寒冷的工作日晚上参与进来。

In the end, after listening to the speakers, for the motion, Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy, 517 against 99 undecided after all that, 31. So thank you to you. Thank you also very much to Intelligence Square for another very intelligent debate. Safe journey home.
最终，在聆听发言者之后，支持观点——以色列的定居政策正在毁灭自己，得到517票，反对99票，还有31票未决。所以非常感谢大家。也非常感谢智慧广场举办了又一场非常有智慧的辩论。祝大家平安回家。