本集介紹
2021.05.20 國際新聞導讀-以巴雙方意猶未盡，但停火就在這幾天，分析中國威脅論，以色列總統大選候選人分析
Senior Hamas official predicts ceasefire in next day or two
By AGENCIESToday, 11:52 pm 0
Moussa Abu Marzouk, a top Hamas official, tells the Lebanese station Mayadeen TV that he expects a ceasefire in a day or two.
A diplomat from Egypt, which has been working to halt the fighting in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, says officials are waiting for Israel’s response to a ceasefire offer. The diplomat speaks on the condition of anonymity in line with regulations.
阿什肯納齊（Ashkenazi）飛往布林肯（Blinken）：以色列必須打擊哈馬斯'直到恢復和平與安全'
在美國總統喬·拜登敦促總理本傑明·內塔尼亞胡朝著“今天在加沙地帶停火的道路上大幅度升級”邁進之後，進一步的拜登政府高級官員再次與以色列同行交談。
外交部長加比·阿什肯納齊（Gabi Ashkenazi）說，他與國務卿安東尼·布林克（Antony Blinke）進行了“又一次良好的交談”，感謝他在與加沙執政的哈馬斯恐怖組織的持續鬥爭中美國對以色列的“全力支持”。
在今天早些時候從黎巴嫩發射了幾枚火箭，在海法地區和以色列北部其他地區發出警笛後，阿什肯納茲在推特上說：“我向他介紹了北方的火箭彈襲擊情況。”
他補充說：“我指出，以色列必須繼續對哈馬斯和加沙的恐怖組織採取行動，直到恢復以色列公民的和平與安全。”
阿什肯納齊說，他還感謝布林肯“對以色列，包括安理會的堅定支持。”
他沒有提及拜登對內塔尼亞胡的評論。
美國國家安全顧問傑克·沙利文（Jake Sullivan）在推特上寫道，他也再次與以色列的梅爾·本·沙巴特（Meir Ben-Shabbat）和“埃及政府今天再次談到了持續的危機”。
他說：“美國正在進行密集的外交，我們將繼續努力。”
Ashkenazi to Blinken: Israel must strike Hamas ‘until peace and security restored’
Further senior Biden administration officials again speak with their Israeli counterparts, after US President Joe Biden urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to move toward “a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire” in the Gaza Strip.
Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi says he had “another good conversation” with Secretary State Antony Blinke, thanking him for America’s “full backing” of Israel in the ongoing fighting against the Gaza-ruling Hamas terror group.
“I updated him on the rocket fire from the north,” Ashkenazi tweets, after several rockets were fired from Lebanon earlier today, setting off sirens in the Haifa area and other parts of northern Israel.
He adds: “I noted that Israel must continue to act against Hamas and the terrorist organizations in Gaza until peace and security are restored to the citizens of Israel.”
Ashkenazi says he also thanked Blinken “for his uncompromising support for Israel, including in the Security Council.”
He makes no mention of Biden’s comments to Netanyahu.
US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan writes on Twitter that he too spoke again with Israel’s Meir Ben-Shabbat and “the Government of Egypt again today about the ongoing crisis.”
“The United States is engaged in intensive diplomacy and our efforts will continue,” he says.
檢察官說迄今已起訴170人暴動，其中15人是猶太人
哈雷斯（Haaretz）報導，在過去10天中，檢察官對170名參與種族間騷亂的人提出了起訴，其中15人是猶太人，其餘為阿拉伯人。
大多數起訴書都引用了種族主義動機。
報告說，警方在動亂中逮捕了1,319名嫌疑犯，其中252名未成年人。絕大多數是阿拉伯人，而159是猶太人。
在被捕者中，有543人仍被監禁。
Prosecutors said to indict 170 people so far for riots, 15 of them Jewish
Prosecutors have filed indictments against 170 people involved in inter-ethnic rioting over the past 10 days, of which 15 are Jewish and the rest Arab, Haaretz reports.
Most of the indictments cite racist motives.
Police have arrested 1,319 suspects in the unrest, of which 252 are minors, the report says. The vast majority are Arab, while 159 are Jewish.
Of those arrested, 543 remain jailed.
報告：以色列安全官員預計週五之前不會停火
第12頻道新聞報導，以色列安全官員認為，加沙地帶的戰鬥不會在周五之前停止。
它說，這是今天會議上分享的評估。
Report: Israeli security officials do not expect ceasefire before Friday
Israeli security officials believe combat in the Gaza Strip will not cease before Friday, Channel 12 news reports.
It says that was the assessment shared during meetings of top brass today.
伊斯蘭聖戰組織負責人：戰鬥代價高昂，但這僅是通往自由的道路
巴勒斯坦伊斯蘭聖戰恐怖組織的負責人說，加沙武裝派別與以色列進行了最近的戰鬥，知道這將“代價高昂，但也知道這是通往自由和保護耶路撒冷的唯一道路”。
齊亞德·納哈萊（Ziad Nakhaleh）在貝魯特的電視講話中說，核武器，戰機或與某些阿拉伯國家的和平協議都無法帶來以色列的安全與和平。
2020年巴勒斯坦伊斯蘭聖戰恐怖組織Ziad Nakhaleh的領導人（視頻截圖）
他補充說，加沙的武裝團體“創造了奇蹟，用肉眼就能看到，每當逃到庇護所時，他們就活在當下。”
納哈萊（Nakhaleh）指的是加沙恐怖分子向以色列發射的數千枚導彈和火箭。
納哈萊赫說，在以色列採取行動威脅東耶路撒冷數十個巴勒斯坦家庭被驅逐之後，“我們處於兩個選擇面前，投降並給予他們一切，或就一切進行鬥爭。”
Islamic Jihad chief: Battle is costly, but it is only road to freedom
The leader the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group says armed factions in Gaza went into the latest battle with Israel knowing it would be “costly but also knowing that it is the only road to freedom and to protect Jerusalem.”
Ziad Nakhaleh says in a televised speech from Beirut that neither nuclear weapons, warplanes nor peace agreements with some Arab states can bring Israelis security and peace.
Leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group Ziad Nakhaleh in 2020 (video screenshot)
He adds that armed groups in Gaza have “made miracles that you can see with your own eyes and you live them every moment when you run to shelters.”
Nakhaleh is referring to thousands of missiles and rockets that Gaza terrorists have fired toward Israel.
Nakhaleh says that after Israel’s moves that threatened the eviction of dozens of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem, “we were in front of two choices, to surrender and to give them everything or fight them over everything.”
內塔尼亞胡·拜登與美國就可能的停火問題與埃及進行會談
總統表示支持停火，並討論了美國為此目的與埃及和其他夥伴的接觸。
通過OMRI NAHMIAS
2021年5月18日07:45
美國總統喬·拜登上週二在白宮橢圓形辦公室內致辭。
（照片來源：湯姆·布倫納/路透社）
廣告
美國總統拜登週一與以色列總理內塔尼亞胡進行了會談。這是自 上週“圍牆行動”開始以來，兩國領導人之間的第三次對話 。
白宮在一份聲明中說：“總統重申堅決支持以色列捍衛自己免受不加選擇的火箭彈襲擊的權利。”
聲明說：“總統歡迎為解決族裔間暴力和使耶路撒冷平靜而作出的努力。他鼓勵以色列盡一切努力確保對無辜平民的保護。”
白宮說，兩人討論了以色列對加沙的哈馬斯和其他恐怖組織的軍事行動的進展。
“總統表示支持停火，並討論了美國 為此目的與埃及和其他夥伴的接觸 。兩國領導人一致認為，他們及其團隊將保持密切聯繫。”
兩國領導人之間的呼籲是在政府尋求促進停火之際進行的。在星期天和星期一，國務卿安東尼·布林肯與該地區的幾名高級官員討論了這一局勢，其中包括以色列外交部長加比·阿什肯納齊以及埃及，約旦，卡塔爾，阿聯酋，沙特阿拉伯，突尼斯和歐盟的官員。
國務院在一份聲明中說，在與阿什肯納齊的對話中，布林肯討論了美國為製止暴力而做出的努力，“暴力已經奪走了包括兒童在內的以色列和巴勒斯坦平民的生命，”。
國務院發言人內德·普萊斯（Ned Price）表示：“秘書還對族裔間的暴力行為表示深切關注。”
“兩人討論了前進的道路，秘書指出，美國將繼續與以色列，巴勒斯坦權力機構和其他區域利益攸關方接觸，作為我們外交的一部分，以緩解緊張局勢並結束敵對行動。”
國務院在該地區的特使漢德·阿姆（Handy Amr）還會見了巴勒斯坦總統阿巴斯（Mahmoud Abbas）和其他巴勒斯坦官員。
白宮新聞秘書詹·普薩基（Jen Psaki）週一早些時候表示，美國與世界上許多國家都分享了結束暴力的承諾和願望。
她說：“我們如何通過這個棱鏡來實現這一目標，我們可以採取什麼步驟；我們可以在幕後採取什麼行動。”
“過去一周，我們接到了60多個電話，從總統到以色列，巴勒斯坦權力機構以及整個地區的高級領導人，我們如何通過該地區的關係結束暴力與以色列人和以色列政府以及其他重要夥伴（無論是埃及人，卡塔爾人還是該地區其他主要國家）進行合作，”普薩基說。
Biden, Netanyahu discuss US talks with Egypt on possible ceasefire
The President expressed his support for a ceasefire and discussed US engagement with Egypt and other partners towards that end.
By OMRI NAHMIAS
MAY 18, 2021 07:45
US PRESIDENT Joe Biden speaks inside the Oval Office at the White House, last Tuesday.
(photo credit: TOM BRENNER/REUTERS)
Advertisement
US President Joe Biden spoke on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was the third conversation between the two leaders since the beginning of Operation Guardian of the Walls last week.
"The President reiterated his firm support for Israel’s right to defend itself against indiscriminate rocket attacks," the White House said in a statement.
"The President welcomed efforts to address inter-communal violence and to bring calm to Jerusalem. He encouraged Israel to make every effort to ensure the protection of innocent civilians," the statement read.
The two discussed the progress of Israel’s military operations against Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, the White House said.
"The President expressed his support for a ceasefire and discussed US engagement with Egypt and other partners towards that end. The two leaders agreed that they and their teams would remain in close touch."
The call between the two leaders comes as the administration seek to promote a ceasefire. On Sunday and Monday, Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, discussed the situation with several senior officials in the region, including Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi and officials from Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the EU.
In his conversation with Ashkenazi, Blinken discussed US efforts to bring an end to the violence, "which has claimed the lives of Israeli and Palestinian civilians, including children," the State Department said in a statement.
"The Secretary also expressed deep concern at the inter-communal violence," said Ned Price, the State Department spokesperson.
"The two discussed the path forward, and the Secretary noted that the United States would remain engaged with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other regional stakeholders as part of our diplomacy to ease tensions and put an end to the hostilities."
Handy Amr, the State Department's envoy to the region also met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and other Palestinian officials, the Department said in a statement.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said earlier on Monday that the United States shares with a range of countries around the world a commitment and a desire to bring an end to the violence.
"And how we are approaching this is through the prism, again, of what steps can we take; what actions can we take behind the scenes," she said.
"We've had over 60 calls in the past week, from the President on down, with senior leaders in Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and across the region; and how can we bring an end to the violence through our relationships in the region, both with the Israelis and the Israeli government and also with key other partners whether it's the Egyptians, the Qataris, and other key countries in the region," said Psaki.
為什麼火箭現在是中東的主要恐怖形式？
過去，團體會使用自殺炸彈或其他方法。現在，導彈或火箭已成為恐怖的新象徵-那些無法與坦克，噴氣機，輪船和潛艇作戰的國家所使用。
由SETH J.FRANTZMAN
2021年5月19日19:58
一枚火箭擊中了一座Ashkelon建築物，在加沙地帶升級期間在牆上留下了一個洞
（照片來源：YONATAN SINDEL / FLASH90）
廣告
胡希（Houthis）使用火箭。伊拉克的民兵使用火箭。哈馬斯使用火箭。真主黨有火箭彈。無導火箭和彈道導彈（有些精度更高，可以飛行數百甚至數千公里）又是什麼呢，這使它們成為恐怖組織的主要武器？
用政治學和軍事術語來說，我們應該稱這些團體為“非國家行為者”。有些人稱它們為“恐怖部隊”。無論哪種方式，將所有這些群體團結在一起的是，它們確實不是國家，但它們控制著許多地區性國家。
哈馬斯控制加沙並像一個國家一樣運作它。胡塞叛軍控制也門的部分地區，包括機場。伊拉克的什葉派民兵，稱為PMU或Hashd al-Shaabi，實際上是政府的官方准軍事部隊，類似於伊朗的IRGC。但是他們是從民兵部隊開始的。它們包括與各個城市，宗派單位有聯繫的領土旅，以及與Badr等政黨有聯繫並與Asaib Ahl al-Haq等前幫團有聯繫的民兵。
真主黨也是一個控制黎巴嫩大片土地的政黨和民兵。它是亞州民兵，控制著龐大的軍隊和軍火庫，不受國家管制。
這些群體是中東地區特有的。在世界上大多數地方，國家並沒有部分受到擁有數千枚導彈的武裝團體的控制。真主黨，哈馬斯和胡希斯等組織可能比許多小國擁有更先進的導彈和無人駕駛飛機。
導彈或火箭是恐怖主義的新象徵。在過去，團體會使用自殺炸彈或其他方法。但是，伊朗試圖將與德黑蘭有聯繫的許多集團轉變成使用非對稱手段（通常是這些火箭）來實現其目標的軍隊。
火箭的類型各不相同。例如，伊拉克的民兵使用的是107毫米長 和122毫米 Katyusha或Grad火箭攻擊美軍。真主黨擁有龐大的火箭彈庫，甚至還有精確制導的彈藥。霍希特人利用彈道導彈瞄準利雅得，並擁有基於伊朗技術的卡塞夫無人駕駛飛機。哈馬斯現在擁有射程約200公里的火箭，使以色列大部分地區處於危險之中。
哈馬斯在20年前就開始了其火箭戰，其卡薩姆號可以飛行數公里。從那時起，它就獲得了令人印象深刻的成功，其中大部分是基於伊朗技術的新型火箭。在不做所有細節的情況下，哈馬斯擁有以下火箭：107毫米，122毫米，法赫爾3號，法赫爾5號，M-302，Q-12，S-40，M-75，J-80，R -160，A-120等。其中一些是伊朗使用的Fajrs的直接伊朗副本，其他類似。
相對的相似性可以從火箭的名字中看出。巴勒斯坦伊斯蘭聖戰組織使用的火箭類似於霍希特河和PMU，也類似於伊朗模型。
重要的是要知道，不管名字太多，火箭都有相似的策略。他們將要能夠使用相對不那麼複雜的技術來瞄準複雜的軍隊。沙特阿拉伯，以色列和美國是富有的現代軍事力量。伊朗的代理人並不富裕，但他們用火箭打平了比賽場地。它們造成威懾和獨特的不對稱威脅。這給了德黑蘭以槓桿作用和合理的可否認性。
伊朗的目標是使整個地區受到這些火箭的威脅。到目前為止，它已經成功。由於在也門，加沙，黎巴嫩，伊拉克和伊朗設有火箭基地，伊斯蘭共和國似乎已將整個地區置於各種火箭的射程範圍內。這些應被視為伊朗相互聯繫的恐怖主義節點。每個人都可以使用火箭來投射力量。
火箭威脅並不總是需要發揮作用。自2006年以來，真主黨甚至沒有使用火箭就擁有了權力。
這是伊朗的目標：它使用火箭來產生影響和力量。如果需要的話，它將像過去一周一樣，將哈馬斯火箭和PIJ火箭投入運營，並讓它們降落在以色列上。
IDF認為，哈馬斯和PIJ大約有15,000枚火箭。到目前為止，大約有3,500人被解僱，其中500人甚至未能進入猶太國家。哈馬斯可能需要盡快停止並補充石油，但它說可以持續六個月。
在這方面，伊朗可能從薩達姆·侯賽因那裡學到了一些東西。1991年的“飛毛腿”威脅是以色列的一個重大轉折點，導致建立了以色列導彈防禦組織。這也導致增加了對箭式導彈防禦系統和其他防空計劃（如戴維的彈弓和鐵穹頂）的支持。
薩達姆的火箭彈可能使以色列和海灣地區感到恐懼。薩達姆（Saddam）也用它們對伊朗。這可能是德黑蘭想到將火箭作為獨特武器的想法。
像伊朗及其恐怖分子軸心這樣的貧窮國家無法建造坦克來迎戰美國艾布拉姆斯坦人或默卡瓦人。伊朗不能製造飛機對抗F-16。它不能建造潛艇或大型水面艦艇。
它可以製造的一件事是導彈和無人駕駛飛機。這是它投資資金以及技術出口方式的地方。據了解，這些武器可以由民兵和非國家行為者或恐怖組織製造。在這方面，它採取了獨特的恐怖主義戰略。
就像二十年前的自殺式炸彈襲擊一樣，火箭在很大程度上是這一戰略的象徵。
Why are rockets now the main form of terror in the Middle East?
In the old days, groups would use suicide bombings or other methods; now, the missile or rocket is the new symbol of terror – used by countries who can't win against tanks, jets, ships and subs.
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
MAY 19, 2021 19:58
A rocket hits an Ashkelon building, leaving a hole in the wall amid Gaza escalations
(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
Advertisement
The Houthis use rockets. Militias in Iraq use rockets. Hamas uses rockets. Hezbollah has rockets. What is it about unguided rockets and ballistic missiles – some with increasing precision, which can fly hundreds or even thousands of kilometers – that is making them the main go-to weapon for terrorist groups?
In the parlance of political science and military jargon, we are supposed to call these groups “non-state actors.” Some refer to them as “terror armies.” Either way, what unites all these groups is that they are indeed not countries, but they control swaths of many regional states.
Hamas controls Gaza and runs it like a state. The Houthi rebels control a portion of Yemen, including airports. The Iraqi-based Shi’ite militias, called PMU or Hashd al-Shaabi, are actually an official paramilitary force of the government, akin to the IRGC in Iran. But they began as a militia force. They include territorial brigades linked to various cities, as well as sectarian units, and militias linked to parties like Badr and linked to former gangs like the Asaib Ahl al-Haq.
Hezbollah, too, is a political party and a militia that controls a swath of Lebanon. It is a substate militia, controlling a massive army and arsenal, which is not regulated by the state.
These kinds of groups are unique to the Middle East. In most places in the world, countries are not partly controlled by armed groups that have access to thousands of missiles. Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis may have a more sophisticated arsenal of missiles and drones than many small countries.
THE MISSILE or rocket is the new symbol of terrorism. In the old days groups would use suicide bombings or other methods. However, Iran sought to transform a plethora of groups linked to Tehran into armies that use asymmetric means, usually these rockets, to achieve their goals.
The types of rockets vary. For instance, the militias in Iraq use the 107-mm. and 122-mm. Katyusha or Grad rockets to attack US forces. Hezbollah has a massive arsenal of rockets and even precision-guided munitions. The Houthis use ballistic missiles to target Riyadh and possess Qasef drones, based on Iranian technology. Hamas now has rockets with a range of some 200 km., putting most of Israel in danger.
Hamas began its rocket campaign two decades ago with the Qassams which could travel a few kilometers. Since then it has achieved impressive successes with new rockets, most based on Iranian technology. Without going into all the details, Hamas has the following rockets: the 107 mm., 122 mm., the Fajr 3, Fajr 5, M-302, Q-12, S-40, M-75, J-80, R-160, A-120 and others. Some of these are direct Iranian copies of the Fajrs that Iran uses, and others are similar.
The relative similarities can be seen in the names of the rockets. Palestinian Islamic Jihad uses rockets similar to the Houthis and PMU and similar to Iranian models.
What’s important to know is that regardless of the plethora of names, the rockets share a similar strategy. They are about being able to target sophisticated militaries using relatively less sophisticated technology. Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US are modern, wealthy militaries. Iran’s proxies are not as wealthy, but they level the playing field with the rockets. They create deterrence and a unique asymmetric threat. This gives Tehran leverage and plausible deniability.
The goal of Iran is to put the whole region under threat from these rockets. So far, it has succeeded. With the rocket bases in Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, it appears that the Islamic Republic has put the whole region under its range of various rockets. These should be seen as interconnected Iranian nodes of terrorism. Each is able to project power using rockets.
THE ROCKET threat doesn’t always need to be put into play. Hezbollah has had power without even using the rockets since 2006.
This is the goal of Iran: It uses the rockets for influence and power. When it wants to, it will operationalize Hamas rockets and PIJ rockets and have them rain down on Israel, as it has this past week.
Hamas and PIJ have some 15,000 rockets, the IDF thinks. So far, some 3,500 have been fired, and 500 failed to even reach the Jewish state. Hamas may need to stop soon and replenish, but it says it can go on for six months.
Iran may have learned a bit from Saddam Hussein in this respect. The Scud threat in 1991 was a major turning point for Israel, leading to the creation of the Israel Missile Defense Organization. It also led to increased support for the Arrow missile defense system and to other air defense programs like David’s Sling and Iron Dome.
Saddam’s rockets could strike fear into Israel and the Gulf. Saddam used them against Iran as well. This may be how Tehran got the idea to use rockets as a unique weapon.
Poorer countries like Iran and its terrorist axis can’t build tanks to meet the US Abrams or the Merkava. Iran can’t build aircraft to go up against an F-16. It can’t build subs or major surface vessels.
One thing it can build is missiles and drones. This is where it invests its money and how it exports technology. It has learned that these weapons can be built by militias and non-state actors or terrorist groups. In this respect, it has hit on a unique terrorist strategy.
The rocket is very much the symbol of this strategy, much as suicide bombing was two decades ago.
以色列和哈馬斯之間的停火將持續多長時間？- 分析
預計以色列和加沙之間的戰鬥將在幾天之內消失。問題是接下來會發生什麼。
由丹尼爾·索南菲爾德/針對媒體線
2021年5月19日01:03
2021年5月17日，以色列士兵攜帶砲彈在以色列和加沙地帶邊界附近的一個地區奔跑。
（照片來源：REUTERS / AMIR COHEN）
廣告
自哈馬斯向耶路撒冷發射七枚遠程導彈以來，已經過去了一個多星期，以色列與加沙恐怖組織之間的戰鬥仍在繼續。
有關The Media Line的更多故事，請訪問themedialine.org
截至週二上午，哈馬斯和巴勒斯坦伊斯蘭聖戰組織向以色列城市發射了3,350多枚火箭彈。以色列的十二個人，包括兩個孩子，在來自加沙的火箭彈襲擊中喪生。據以色列國防軍發言人稱，以色列國防軍已通過打擊“屬於加沙的哈馬斯和巴勒斯坦伊斯蘭聖戰組織的軍事目標”進行報復。據加沙衛生部稱，在加沙的820多次罷工中，至少有213名巴勒斯坦人被殺，包括61名兒童。以色列國防軍發言人說，加沙有160名哈馬斯特工。
預計戰鬥將在幾天之內消失。耶路撒冷戰略與安全研究所戰略與國家安全專家奧默爾·多斯特里（Omer Dostri）對媒體專線說：“據我估計，行動將最遲在周六晚上或週日結束。”
接下來是一個大問題。
近年來，以色列對哈馬斯和加沙採取的政策是：“他們可以在加沙地帶做任何他們想做的事”，布里格。以色列國防軍戰略規劃部前主任，特拉維夫大學國家安全研究所（INSS）的高級研究員Shlomo Brom將軍告訴《媒體熱線》。布羅姆解釋說，以色列集中精力製止用於製造武器的材料進入加沙地帶，但除非首先被向該國發射火箭彈激發，否則避免攻擊哈馬斯的彈藥生產基地。
以色列除了允許哈馬斯自由控制加沙地帶外，還批准了向卡塔爾轉移大量資金，最著名的是從卡塔爾轉移到該組織。以色列的行徑是相信，改善加沙的生活質量和財務狀況，再加上其軍事力量的威脅，將確保穩定與安靜。
但是哈馬斯利用以色列的不干涉和外界的資金來發展其軍事能力，例如改善火箭彈。這些改進已轉化為在以色列人口稠密地區特拉維夫大都會發動的火箭彈襲擊，這使許多人感到驚訝，並為迄今採用的政策打上了問號。
布羅姆（Brom）解釋說，迄今為止，該策略一直基於以下事實：“當升級如此之多時，您會用力打擊對方，並將其損壞到如此程度，以至於應加強威懾力並導致安靜。這並不是無休止的安靜，因為威懾力會隨著時間的流逝而失去作用，並且應該在一段合理的時間（幾年）內導致安靜，而事實是這已經實現了。”
布羅姆說，另一種選擇是與哈馬斯不斷發展其軍事能力的努力作鬥爭。這種戰略意味著以色列在加沙地帶採取行動（無論是通過空襲還是其他方式進行的行動），以製止哈馬斯的武器發展並定期摧毀彈藥製造基地。布羅姆說：“這種策略的問題是，如果您不斷對他們採取行動，他們將進行報復。”
他說，在這種規模小但交換頻繁的情況下，請想像每天有少量火箭彈落在以色列城鎮上。“建立起來製止這種壓力需要多長時間？那你該怎麼做呢？再進行一次大型手術？” 布羅姆問。他解釋說，基於幾輪戰鬥的戰略的創建是為了使居住在加沙附近的以色列人享有“正常生活，一次至少幾年。”
布羅姆說，考慮到這一困境，即使在最近對特拉維夫的襲擊之後，也可以期望以色列繼續執行其當前戰略。
以色列和加沙之間的最後一次重大衝突發生在2014年，被以色列國防軍稱為“保護邊行動”。
多斯特里還希望以色列在先前爆發暴力事件之後與哈馬斯達成與過去達成的協議類似的協議。行動之後，對加沙的第一階段援助將是停火協議的一部分。但是，他認為，對加沙經濟的進一步投資應該而且可能以兩個以色列平民的回返以及目前由哈馬斯拘留的兩名以色列士兵的遺體為條件。
儘管多斯特里（Dostri）預測該地區將享有數年的寧靜，但預計火箭有時會落在以色列領土上。他說，與近年來報復非常有限的標準相反，他說，在未來幾年中，當他們選擇向以色列開火時，對哈馬斯和伊斯蘭聖戰組織發動的更重大的罷工更有可能發生。但是，抵抗哈馬斯在軍事上加強力量的持續努力的可能性卻很小。他談到哈馬斯的軍事建設努力時說：“有可能對此做出一些反應，但不會達到可能引發另一場戰鬥的水平。”
專家們與眾不同的地方在於他們尋求長期安靜的道路。
多斯特里說：“只有當以色列決定征服哈馬斯而不是阻止它時，以色列政策才會發生改變。” 他說，大規模的地面行動將結束巴勒斯坦伊斯蘭聖戰組織，隨後以色列在加沙地帶的短期存在，直到出現另類的巴勒斯坦領導人為止，是“唯一的條件會帶來安靜。”
反過來，布羅姆（Brom）則完全相信政治協議能帶來真正的寧靜。他說：“我認為擺脫這種難題的唯一途徑就是爭取達成政治協議。”
How long will a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas last? - analysis
The fighting between Israel and Gaza is expected to die down in a matter of days. The question is what comes next.
By DANIEL SONNENFELD/THE MEDIA LINE
MAY 19, 2021 01:03
Israeli soldiers carry artillery shells and run in a field near the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, on its Israeli side May 17, 2021.
(photo credit: REUTERS/AMIR COHEN)
More than a week has passed since Hamas fired seven long-range missiles toward Jerusalem, and the fighting between Israel and terror groups in Gaza continues.
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
As of Tuesday morning, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fired more than 3,350 rockets towards Israeli cities. Twelve people in Israel, including two children, were killed in the rocket attacks from Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces has retaliated by attacking “military targets belonging to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza,” according to the IDF spokesperson. In more than 820 strikes in Gaza, at least 213 Palestinian have been killed, according to Gaza Health Ministry, including 61 children. Some 160 Hamas operatives are among the casualties in Gaza, according to the IDF spokesperson.
The fighting is expected to die down in a matter of days. “In my estimation, the operation will end on Saturday night or Sunday at the latest,” Omer Dostri, a strategy and national security expert at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told The Media Line.
What comes next is the big question.
In recent years, the policy employed by Israel vis-à-vis Hamas and Gaza has been that “they can do whatever they want inside the Strip,” Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, former director of the IDF’s strategic planning division and a senior researcher with Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), told The Media Line. Israel focused on stopping materials that could be used to manufacture arms from entering the Strip, Brom explains, but avoided attacking Hamas’ ammunition production sites unless first provoked by rockets being fired into the country.
In addition to allowing Hamas free rein inside Gaza, Israel approved the transfer of large sums of money, most notably from Qatar, to the organization. Israel was acting under the belief that improving the quality of life and the financial situation in Gaza, combined with the threat of its military might, would ensure stability and quiet.
But Hamas used Israel’s non-interference and money coming from the outside to develop its military capabilities, such as improving its rockets. These improvements have translated into the barrage of rockets on Israel’s most populated area, the Tel Aviv metropolis, which caught many by surprise and has placed a question mark on the policy employed until now.
Brom explains that the strategy until now has relied on the fact that “when there is such an escalation, you hit the other side so hard, and damage it to such an extent, that it should strengthen your deterrence, and should lead to quiet. Not endless quiet, because the sense of deterrence loses its power over time, and it should lead to quiet for a reasonable amount of time, a few years – and the truth is that this was achieved.”
The alternative, says Brom, is fighting against Hamas’ efforts to develop its military capabilities constantly. Such a strategy means that Israel acts inside the Strip – whether through air strikes or otherwise – to foil Hamas arms development and destroy ammunition manufacturing sites on a regular basis. “The problem with this strategy,” said Brom, “is that if you are acting against them constantly, they will retaliate.”
In such a scenario of small-scale but constant exchanges, he says, imagine that a small number of rockets fall on a daily basis on Israeli towns. “How long would it take for pressure to build up to put a stop to it? And how do you do that? With yet another large operation?” Brom asks. He explains that the strategy based on rounds of fighting was created to allow Israelis living close to Gaza to enjoy “normal lives, at least a few years at a time.”
With this dilemma in mind, Brom says, Israel can be expected to pursue its current strategy, even after the latest attacks on Tel Aviv.
The last major flare-up between Israel and Gaza took place in 2014, and was dubbed Operation Protective Edge by the Israel Defense Forces.
Dostri also expects Israel to reach an agreement with Hamas similar to those concluded in the past, after previous flare-ups of violence. The first stage of aid for Gaza following the operation will be part of the ceasefire agreement. However, further investments in the Gazan economy, he believes, should and may be conditioned on the return of two Israeli civilians and the remains of two Israeli soldiers currently held by Hamas.
While Dostri predicts that the region will enjoy a few years of quiet, rockets can be expected to fall on Israeli territory from time to time. Contrary to the standard in recent years of very limited retaliation, he says that much more significant strikes against Hamas and Islamic Jihad are more likely in the next few years when they choose to fire at Israel. A sustained effort to counter Hamas’ efforts at strengthening militarily, however, is far less likely. “It’s possible that there will be some response to this,” he says of Hamas military-building efforts, “but not at a level that could lead to another bout of fighting.”
Where the experts differ significantly is in the path they see for long-term quiet.
“A change in Israeli policy will only come about when Israel decides to vanquish Hamas, instead of deterring it,” Dostri said. A large-scale ground operation that will bring an end to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization, followed by a short-term Israeli presence in the Strip until an alternative Palestinian leadership arises are, he said, “the only conditions that will bring quiet.”
Brom, in turn, believes solely in the power of political accords to bring true quiet. “I think that the only way out of such a conundrum is to strive for a political agreement,” he said.
中國會統治未來嗎？
如果是這樣，志同道合的民主國家可以做什麼競爭？
由格倫·C·阿爾茨楚勒
2021年5月19日22:44
中國國家主席習近平於2018年在北京會見德國總理默克爾。該書警告民主國家離中國太近了
（照片來源：JASON LEE / REUTERS）
廣告
在2021年2月與習近平主席進行了兩個小時的交談後，拜登總統在推特上發文說，如果美國不“行動起來”，中國將“吃午餐”。白宮的一項後續公報強調了拜登“對北京的強制性和不公平經濟做法，對香港的鎮壓，對新疆[100萬穆斯林維吾爾族人的侵犯人權行為]以及該地區日益自信的行動（包括對台灣的行動）的基本關切。” ”
拜登的言論一定是在哈利法克斯國際安全論壇（Halifax International Security Forum）的工作人員的耳中聽到的。哈利法克斯國際安全論壇是華盛頓特區的一個國際政府和軍事官員，戰略家，學者，記者和商業領袖的組織，致力於加強民主國家之間的合作。
2020年秋天，HFX發表了《中國與民主》在其中，羅賓·謝潑德（Robin Shepherd）（HFX副總裁，倫敦時報前莫斯科分社社長，《蒼白之外的國家：歐洲對以色列和捷克斯洛伐克的問題：天鵝絨革命及其後的問題》的作者）接受了250位專家的採訪，以駁斥經濟上充滿活力的中國將隨著時間的流逝為中國人民提供更多自由的“傳統智慧”，這是“對歷史比例的外交政策錯誤估計”。牧羊人認為，中國“歷史上最強大的威權國家”已經成為“危害世界的病毒”。他堅持認為，與“龐大的盟國”一起有效部署“美國幾乎不可想像的力量，財富和技術實力”，將迫使中國進行“政權重組”。
牧羊人調集了大量證據，以證實他對中國領導人的動機和不良行為的說法。Shepherd引用互聯網審查制度，監視，拘留，灌輸，監禁和酷刑的基礎設施以及對香港民主自治倡導者的鎮壓，顯示自由之家將中國置於最低的類別：“非自由”。他預測，中國的資本主義，民族主義和列寧主義可能會產生“比斯大林夢dream以求的更加完整的極權主義形式”。
中國經濟生產了世界上70％的假冒商品。中國特工從政府和公司那裡竊取知識產權，並瞄準先進的武器系統。中國控制著世界上許多最重要的供應鏈。
中國利用社交媒體傳播宣傳和虛假信息。它在美國的75所孔子學院顛覆了學術自由。“一帶一路”倡議（到2027年，中國將在此項目上花費1.3萬億美元）和“債務陷阱外交”使北京在幾乎每個大陸的數十個基礎設施匱乏的國家擁有財務槓桿。中國每年的國防預算為2000億美元，比2000年增加了7倍，因此擴大了在印度太平洋地區的軍事存在。五角大樓在2020年的一份報告得出的結論是，中國在海軍造船，彈道導彈和綜合防空系統方面現在已超過美國。
Shepherd寫道：“除非這種行為被反駁並堅決反駁，否則在現實世界中沒有跡象表明其侵略會逐漸消失。”
中國與民主之間沒有任何陰影。謝潑德堅稱，中國領導人“過分專注於執政”並稱霸世界。他承認他們提高了自己國家的生活水平，因此急忙補充道，“任何人都不應該忘記”共產黨“首先造成了很多貧困”。
儘管謝潑德沒有審查西方大國可能威脅或傷害中國的行動，但謝潑德認為中國對世界事務的干預“史無前例”。儘管情報報告“既不是權威性的，也不是容易理解的”，但謝潑德宣稱，總理鮑里斯·約翰遜（Boris Johnson）有權禁止華為建立英國的5G基礎設施：“在這對國家安全，主權或民主權利有最小風險的地方，中國人高科技公司必須被完全排除在外或被視為有罪，直到他們能夠證明自己是無辜的。”
最後，中國與民主提出了一系列建議。其中有些是非常合理的，但它含糊不清，其中民主國家應集中資源並在人工智能上找到協同作用，並呼籲政府支持研究與開發。其他–使印度成為聯合國安理會第六個常任理事國；使非洲國家擺脫債務；在拉丁美洲實施投資以“與馬歇爾計劃相抗衡”；推動墨西哥和加拿大增加其國防預算–似乎與Shepherd認為的迫在眉睫和迫在眉睫的威脅相去甚遠。
一些承諾（代價高昂，不切實際，並且很可能引起騷動）-民主制將停止有助於和教China中國壓迫人民的商業活動，並停止購買或交易由強迫勞動或假冒或知識產權盜竊造成的產品。中國的報復。民主國家的國防部門應該與HFX正式建立關係，“這是一個現成的中心，可以共享最佳實踐和創新思想，以爭奪高層來應對來自中國的挑戰”，這是自私自利的。
充斥著阻止格言（“對出口共產主義意識形態不感興趣，中國想要現金，而不是同志。比起馬克思和恩格斯，馬克斯和斯賓塞更重要”），中國對。民主對其分析充滿信心。就是說，在我看來，對於HFX和公司是否最終將成為先知還是恐嚇者，尚無定論。
作者是康奈爾大學美國研究的托馬斯和多蘿西·利特溫教授。
中國VS. 民主
最偉大的遊戲
羅賓·謝潑德（Robin Shepherd）
哈利法克斯國際安全論壇（HFX）
93頁;
免費下載：halifaxtheforum.org/china-handbook/en/
Will China dominate the future?
If so, what can like-minded democracies do to compete?
By GLENN C. ALTSCHULER
MAY 19, 2021 22:44
CHINESE PRESIDENT Xi Jinping meets German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Beijing in 2018. The book warns about democracies getting too close to China
(photo credit: JASON LEE / REUTERS)
Advertisement
After a two-hour conversation with President Xi Jinping in February 2021, President Joe Biden tweeted that if the United States did not “get moving,” China is going “to eat our lunch.” A follow-up White House communique highlighted Biden’s “fundamental concerns about Beijing’s coercive and unfair economic practices, crackdown in Hong Kong, human rights abuses [of one million Muslim Uyghurs] in Xinjiang, and increasingly assertive actions in the region, including toward Taiwan.”
Biden’s comments must have been music to the ears of the staff of the Halifax International Security Forum, a Washington D.C.-based organization for international government and military officials, strategists, academics, journalists, and business leaders, dedicated to strengthening cooperation among democratic nations.
In the fall of 2020, HFX published China vs. Democracy, in which Robin Shepherd (HFX vice president, former Moscow bureau chief of The Times of London, author of A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem With Israel and Czechoslovakia: The Velvet Revolution and Beyond) drew on interviews with 250 experts to refute the “conventional wisdom” that an economically vibrant PRC would over time provide more freedom for its people, as a “foreign policy miscalculation of historic proportions.” Shepherd makes the case that China, “the most powerful authoritarian state in history,” has become a “virus that endangers the world.” And he maintains that effective deployment of the “almost unimaginable power and wealth and technological prowess of the United States,” in concert with its “vast array of allies,” will force “regime reconfiguration” in China.
Shepherd mobilizes a considerable amount of evidence to substantiate his claims about the malignant motives and bad behavior of China’s leaders. Citing internet censorship, an infrastructure of surveillance, detention, indoctrination, incarceration and torture, and the crackdown on advocates of democratic autonomy for Hong Kong, Shepherd reveals that Freedom House has placed China in its lowest category: “Not free.” Capitalist, nationalist, and Leninist, China, he predicts, may produce “an even more complete form of totalitarianism than Stalin could have dreamed of.”
China’s economy produces 70% of the world’s counterfeit goods. PRC operatives steal intellectual property from governments and corporations and target advanced weapons systems. China controls many of the world’s most important supply chains.
China uses social media to spread propaganda and disinformation; its 75 Confucius Institutes in the United States subvert academic freedom. The One Belt One Road Initiative (on which China will spend $1.3 trillion by 2027) and “debt trap diplomacy” give Beijing financial leverage over dozens of infrastructure-starved countries on almost every continent. With a defense budget of $200 billion a year, a seven-fold increase since 2000, China has extended its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region. A 2020 report of the Pentagon concluded that the PRC now surpasses the United States in naval shipbuilding, ballistic missiles, and integrated air defenses.
“Unless this behavior is rebutted, and rebutted firmly,” Shepherd writes, “there is no real-world prospect of its aggression petering out.”
China vs. Democracy contains no shades of gray. China’s leaders, Shepherd insists, are “obsessively focused on staying in power” and dominating the world. Acknowledging that they have raised the standard of living in their country, he hastens to add, “no one should forget” that the communists “caused a lot of the poverty in the first place.”
Although he does not examine actions by Western powers that may have threatened or harmed China, Shepherd deems PRC interference in world affairs “unprecedented and unprovoked.” Although intelligence reports were “neither definitive nor easy to understand,” Shepherd declares that Prime Minister Boris Johnson was right to ban Huawei from building Great Britain’s 5G infrastructure: “where there is even the slightest risk to national security, sovereignty or democratic rights, Chinese tech companies must either be excluded completely or regarded as guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.”
China vs. Democracy concludes with a bucketful of recommendations. Some of them – that democracies should pool resources and find synergies on artificial intelligence, and a call for government-supported research and development – are eminently reasonable, but vague. Others – making India the sixth permanent member of the UN Security Council; releasing African nations from debt; implementing investment in Latin America “to rival the Marshall Plan”; pushing Mexico and Canada to increase their defense budgets – seem distant from a threat Shepherd deems dire and imminent.
A few – a pledge that democracies will stop business activities that aid and abet China to oppress its people, and cease buying or trading products made by forced labor or the result of counterfeiting or intellectual property theft – seem costly, impractical, and likely to provoke retaliation by China. And one – defense departments of democratic nations should formalize their relationship with HFX “as a ready-made hub for the sharing of best practices and innovative ideas in a race to the top to meet the challenge from China” – is self-serving.
Awash in arresting aphorisms (“Uninterested in exporting communist ideology, China wants cash, not comrades. It is more Marks and Spencer than Marx and Engels”), China Vs. Democracy exudes confidence in its analysis. That said, it seems to me the jury is still out on whether HFX and company will turn out to be seers or scaremongers.
The writer is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
CHINA VS. DEMOCRACY
THE GREATEST GAME
By Robin Shepherd
Halifax International Security Forum (HFX)
93 pages;
Free download: halifaxtheforum.org/china-handbook/en/
只有Herzog，Peretz獲得足夠的簽名才能競選總統
隨著午夜的截止日期過去，只有艾薩克·赫爾佐格（Isaac Herzog）和米里亞姆·佩雷茨（Miriam Peretz）成功地收集了MK的最少簽名，以競選總統職位，這將由以色列議會的120名成員在下個月的無記名投票中進行投票。
Only Herzog, Peretz gets enough signatures to run for president
As a midnight deadline passes, only Isaac Herzog and Miriam Peretz succeed in gathering the minimum number of signatures from MKs to run in elections for the presidency, which will be voted on by the Knesset’s 120 members in a secret ballot next month.
米里亞姆·佩雷茲（Miriam Peretz）
維基百科，自由的百科全書
跳轉到導航跳轉到搜索
米里亞姆·佩雷茲（Miriam Peretz）
מריםפרץ
天生
1954年4月10日（67歲）
卡薩布蘭卡，法國摩洛哥
國籍
以色列
母校
內蓋夫本古里安大學（文學士）
職業
· 教育家
· 公眾演說家
配偶
埃列澤·佩雷茨（Eliezer Peretz）
孩子們
6
所獲獎項
以色列獎（2018）
Miriam Peretz（希伯來語：מריםםרץ；生於1954年4月10日）是以色列的教育家和演說家。在她的兩個兒子在以色列國防軍中服役期間去世後，佩雷茲成為猶太復國主義和失落者的講師。由於一生的成就，她於2018年獲得以色列獎。
2021年5月，佩雷茲宣布，她將在2021年大選中競選以色列總統。
內容
· 1個早年生活和教育
· 2個公開演講
· 3政治
· 4個人生活
· 5參考
早期生活和教育[編輯]
佩雷茲出生在卡薩布蘭卡的猶太父母Yaakov Ohayon和Ito Vaknin 。1963年，一家人離開摩洛哥，向以色列定居。抵達以色列後，他們定居在貝爾謝巴。Peretz繼續從內蓋夫的本古里安大學獲得文學和歷史學士學位，後來在1970年代中期與Eliez