(下边有中文翻译，请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
For decades, Israel presented itself to the world as a small victim state, born out of historical tragedy and surrounded by hostility. That image once carried emotional weight, especially in Europe and North America, where the memory of the Holocaust shaped public sympathy. But in recent years, and especially after the devastation in Gaza, the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, repeated violations in Jerusalem, attacks in Lebanon, and the continued occupation of Arab lands, that old perception has changed dramatically. Israel is no longer seen by many people as only a victim of history; it is increasingly viewed as a state exercising overwhelming military power against an occupied and dispossessed people.
This change in global perception did not happen suddenly. It is the result of decades of occupation, ignored United Nations resolutions, settlement expansion, military campaigns, and a continuous refusal to accept a just settlement for Palestine. The events of the last few years have only exposed more clearly what many in the Global South, the Muslim world, and human rights circles had been saying for a long time: the central cause of instability in the Middle East is not the Palestinian demand for freedom, but Israel’s refusal to end occupation and accept equal rights and sovereignty for Palestinians.
The United Nations never gave Israel a blank cheque to expand without limit. The 1947 UN Partition Plan, General Assembly Resolution 181, proposed two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with Jerusalem placed under international administration. Israel was later admitted to the United Nations in 1949 through General Assembly Resolution 273. But from the beginning, the Palestinian question remained unresolved. General Assembly Resolution 194 affirmed that Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so, and that compensation should be paid to those choosing not to return. This principle has never been implemented.
After the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Syrian Golan Heights, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. The Sinai was later returned to Egypt under a peace treaty, but the Palestinian and Syrian territories remain central to the conflict. UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict and affirmed the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war. Resolution 338, later called for the implementation of Resolution 242 and negotiations toward a just and durable peace. Yet, more than half a century later, occupation continues.
Israel’s annexationist policies have also been repeatedly rejected by the international community. Security Council Resolution 478 declared Israel’s “Basic Law” on Jerusalem null and void and called upon states not to recognize the change in the city’s status. Security Council Resolution 497 declared Israel’s annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights null and void and without international legal effect. Security Council Resolution 2334 reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law. These resolutions are not emotional statements; they are part of the international legal record.
Despite this record, Israeli policy has moved in the opposite direction. Instead of ending the occupation, it has deepened it. Instead of stopping settlements, it has expanded them. Instead of preserving the possibility of a viable Palestinian state, it has fragmented Palestinian land through walls, checkpoints, roads, military zones, outposts, home demolitions, and settlement blocs. The result is a daily reality in which Palestinians live under military control, restricted movement, unequal access to land and resources, and repeated displacement.
Gaza has become the most painful symbol of this injustice. The destruction there has shocked the conscience of the world. Civilian deaths, mass displacement, the collapse of health services, hunger, the killing of aid workers and journalists, and restrictions on humanitarian access have turned Gaza into a moral test for the international community. The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts under the Genocide Convention, allow humanitarian assistance, and halt actions that worsen the humanitarian catastrophe. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants against Israeli leaders on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel rejects these proceedings, but the legal and moral questions cannot be dismissed.
The West Bank is another front in the same crisis. Settlement expansion, settler violence, land confiscation, and threats of annexation are destroying the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution. Recent sanctions by European states and institutions against extremist settlers show that even Israel’s traditional partners are beginning to recognize the danger. The issue is no longer confined to Arab or Muslim criticism. It has entered mainstream European debate, American campuses, civil society networks, churches, universities, and human rights institutions. Public opinion is changing because people can now see the reality directly.
Lebanon and Syria further demonstrate that the conflict is not limited to Palestine alone. Israel’s military actions in Lebanon and continued occupation of the Golan Heights keep the region under constant pressure. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 called for a full cessation of hostilities in Lebanon and for Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon as Lebanese forces and UNIFIL deployed. Yet repeated violations and renewed military escalation keep Lebanon unstable. The Golan Heights remain Syrian territory under international law, despite Israel’s attempt to annex them.
This is why the Abraham Accords cannot be treated as a substitute for justice. Normalisation without Palestinian rights does not solve the Middle East crisis; it bypasses it. It may produce ceremonies, trade agreements and diplomatic photographs, but it does not resolve occupation, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, Gaza, the West Bank, or Arab territories occupied since 1967. Any normalisation project that ignores Palestine risks becoming a mechanism for legalising aggression and rewarding expansion.
Many Arab and Muslim societies understand this clearly. Their governments may sometimes remain cautious because of diplomatic, economic or security pressures, but public opinion is far more direct. After Gaza, it has become extremely difficult to sell the idea that normalisation with Israel can proceed while Palestinians are bombed, displaced and denied sovereignty. Even in countries that already normalised relations with Israel, public unease has grown. The moral foundation of normalisation has weakened because the reality on the ground has become unbearable.
A just peace requires clear principles. First, Israel must end its occupation of Arab territories seized by force. Second, settlement expansion must stop, and illegal settlements must not be recognised as permanent facts. Third, the Palestinian people must receive their right to self-determination through a sovereign and viable state, including Gaza and the West Bank, with Jerusalem as its capital. Fourth, refugees must be addressed in accordance with international law and UN resolutions. Fifth, the sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria must be respected. Sixth, no country should assist policies that enable war crimes, ethnic displacement, settlement expansion or collective punishment.
The issue of foreign support for Israel is therefore not secondary. Countries that supply weapons, intelligence, diplomatic cover or financial support while serious violations are being alleged cannot escape moral responsibility. International law is not supposed to apply only to weak states. If arms are used in unlawful attacks on civilians, if occupation is sustained through foreign assistance, or if settlement expansion is protected by diplomatic vetoes, then supporting states also face serious ethical and legal questions. The world cannot condemn aggression in one region while enabling it in another.
This is also the problem with selective Western policy. When international law is invoked against rivals but ignored for allies, the credibility of the global order collapses. Many people in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East see this double standard clearly. They ask why occupation is condemned in one case but tolerated in Palestine; why civilian suffering matters in one war but is explained away in Gaza; why sanctions are imposed quickly on some states but delayed or softened when Israel is involved. Such selectivity does not strengthen international law. It weakens it.
It is important to state clearly that criticism of Israel’s policies is not hostility toward Jews. Jewish communities around the world are diverse, and many Jews themselves oppose occupation, apartheid-like practices, settlement expansion and the destruction of Gaza. The issue is not religion or ethnicity. The issue is state policy, military conduct, occupation, and accountability under international law.
Israel’s long-term security cannot be built on occupation. No one can be permanently denied dignity without resistance. No region can remain stable while one state expands by force and another people live without sovereignty. No normalisation accord can succeed if it ignores the central wound of Palestine. Lasting peace will not come through military dominance, annexation or diplomatic pressure on weaker states. It will come through justice.
The international community must return to first principles: land cannot be acquired by war; occupation must end; civilians must be protected; refugees have rights; Jerusalem cannot be seized unilaterally; settlements are illegal; and peace must be based on equality, not domination. These are not radical demands. They are the foundation of the United Nations system.
Israel today faces a crisis of legitimacy because its actions have exposed the gap between its narrative and its conduct. The world has seen Gaza. It has seen the West Bank. It has seen the settlements. It has seen the bombing of Lebanon and the continued occupation of the Golan Heights. It has seen international law ignored again and again. The result is a profound shift in global opinion.
If Israel wants acceptance, it must choose a different path. It must withdraw from occupied territories, accept Palestinian sovereignty, respect international law, and abandon the illusion that force can produce permanent peace. If the world wants stability in the Middle East, it must stop rewarding aggression and start enforcing justice.
The Palestinian question is not a side issue. It is the heart of Middle East peace. Until it is resolved with dignity, sovereignty and justice, every normalisation project will remain fragile, every ceasefire temporary, and every claim of peace incomplete.
以色列的合法性危机与“正常化”叙事的崩塌。
几十年来，以色列一直向世界展示自己是一个小型的受害国，一个诞生于历史悲剧、并被敌意包围的国家。这个形象曾经具有很强的情感影响力，特别是在欧洲和北美地区，大屠杀的记忆塑造了公众对以色列的同情。然而，近年来，尤其是在加沙遭受严重破坏、约旦河西岸定居点扩张、耶路撒冷屡遭侵犯、黎巴嫩遭受袭击以及阿拉伯土地持续被占领之后，这种旧有认知已经发生了巨大变化。如今，许多人不再仅仅把以色列看作历史的受害者，而是越来越多地将其视为一个对被占领、被剥夺权利的人民使用压倒性军事力量的国家。
这种全球认知的变化并不是突然发生的。它是几十年来占领、联合国决议被忽视、定居点扩张、军事行动以及持续拒绝接受巴勒斯坦公正解决方案的结果。过去几年的事件只是更加清楚地揭示了全球南方、穆斯林世界和人权团体长期以来一直指出的问题：中东不稳定的核心原因，并不是巴勒斯坦人要求自由，而是以色列拒绝结束占领，拒绝接受巴勒斯坦人的平等权利和主权。
联合国从未给予以色列无限扩张的空白支票。1947年的联合国分治计划，即联合国大会第181号决议，提出建立两个国家，一个阿拉伯国家和一个犹太国家，并将耶路撒冷置于国际管理之下。后来，以色列通过联合国大会第273号决议于1949年加入联合国。但从一开始，巴勒斯坦问题就没有得到解决。联合国大会第194号决议确认，希望返回家园并与邻居和平相处的巴勒斯坦难民应被允许返回，不选择返回者应获得赔偿。然而，这一原则从未得到落实。
1967年战争后，以色列占领了约旦河西岸、东耶路撒冷、加沙、叙利亚戈兰高地以及埃及西奈半岛。西奈半岛后来根据和平条约归还埃及，但巴勒斯坦和叙利亚领土仍然是冲突的核心。联合国安理会第242号决议要求以色列武装力量撤出1967年冲突中占领的领土，并确认通过战争获取领土是不可接受的。第338号决议后来要求执行第242号决议，并通过谈判实现公正、持久的和平。然而，半个多世纪之后，占领仍在继续。
以色列的吞并政策也一再遭到国际社会拒绝。安理会第478号决议宣布以色列关于耶路撒冷的“基本法”无效，并要求各国不要承认该城市地位的改变。安理会第497号决议宣布以色列吞并被占领的叙利亚戈兰高地无效，并且不具有国际法律效力。安理会第2334号决议重申，自1967年以来以色列在被占领巴勒斯坦领土，包括东耶路撒冷，建立的定居点没有法律效力，并构成对国际法的公然违反。这些决议不是情绪化声明，而是国际法律记录的一部分。
尽管有这些记录，以色列政策却朝着相反方向发展。它没有结束占领，而是加深了占领。它没有停止定居点建设，而是继续扩张。它没有维护建立一个可行的巴勒斯坦国的可能性，而是通过隔离墙、检查站、道路、军事区、前哨据点、拆毁房屋和定居点集团，把巴勒斯坦土地分割得支离破碎。结果是，巴勒斯坦人每天都生活在军事控制之下，行动受到限制，无法平等获得土地和资源，并不断遭受流离失所。
加沙已经成为这种不公正最痛苦的象征。那里的破坏震惊了世界良知。平民死亡、大规模流离失所、医疗服务崩溃、饥饿、援助人员和记者被杀，以及人道主义准入受到限制，使加沙成为国际社会的一场道德考验。国际法院已经命令以色列采取措施，防止《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》所规定的行为，允许人道主义援助，并停止加剧人道主义灾难的行动。国际刑事法院也已经以涉嫌战争罪和危害人类罪为由，对以色列领导人发出逮捕令。以色列拒绝这些程序，但相关的法律和道德问题不能被忽视。
约旦河西岸是同一危机的另一个前线。定居点扩张、定居者暴力、土地没收以及吞并威胁，正在摧毁通过谈判实现两国方案的可能性。欧洲一些国家和机构近期对极端定居者实施制裁，表明即使是以色列的传统伙伴也开始认识到危险。这个问题已经不再局限于阿拉伯或穆斯林世界的批评。它已经进入欧洲主流讨论、美国校园、民间社会网络、教会、大学和人权机构。公众舆论正在变化，因为人们现在可以直接看到现实。
黎巴嫩和叙利亚进一步说明，冲突并不只限于巴勒斯坦。以色列在黎巴嫩的军事行动以及对戈兰高地的持续占领，使该地区长期处于压力之下。联合国安理会第1701号决议要求黎巴嫩全面停止敌对行动，并要求以色列在黎巴嫩军队和联合国驻黎巴嫩临时部队部署时，从黎巴嫩南部撤军。然而，反复的违规行为和新的军事升级继续使黎巴嫩陷入不稳定。尽管以色列试图吞并戈兰高地，但根据国际法，戈兰高地仍然是叙利亚领土。
这就是为什么《亚伯拉罕协议》不能被视为正义的替代品。没有巴勒斯坦权利的正常化，无法解决中东危机，只是在绕开危机。它也许可以带来仪式、贸易协议和外交照片，但它无法解决占领、难民、耶路撒冷、定居点、加沙、约旦河西岸，以及1967年以来被占领的阿拉伯领土问题。任何忽视巴勒斯坦的正常化项目，都有可能成为将侵略合法化并奖励扩张的机制。
许多阿拉伯和穆斯林社会对此看得很清楚。由于外交、经济或安全压力，它们的政府有时可能保持谨慎，但公众舆论要直接得多。加沙事件之后，要继续推销这样一种观点变得极其困难：在巴勒斯坦人遭受轰炸、被迫流离失所并被剥夺主权的同时，与以色列的关系正常化仍可继续推进。即使在已经与以色列实现关系正常化的国家，公众的不安也在加深。正常化的道德基础已经削弱，因为当地现实已经变得令人无法承受。
公正和平需要明确原则。第一，以色列必须结束其对通过武力夺取的阿拉伯领土的占领。第二，定居点扩张必须停止，非法定居点不得被承认为永久事实。第三，巴勒斯坦人民必须通过一个拥有主权、具有可行性的国家实现自决权，该国家应包括加沙和约旦河西岸，并以耶路撒冷为首都。第四，难民问题必须根据国际法和联合国决议加以解决。第五，黎巴嫩和叙利亚的主权必须得到尊重。第六，任何国家都不应协助那些助长战争罪、族群驱逐、定居点扩张或集体惩罚的政策。
因此，对以色列的外国支持并不是次要问题。在严重违法行为被指控的情况下，仍然提供武器、情报、外交保护或财政支持的国家，不能逃避道德责任。国际法不应只适用于弱国。如果武器被用于非法攻击平民，如果占领依靠外国援助得以维持，或者如果定居点扩张受到外交否决权保护，那么支持这些行为的国家也将面临严肃的伦理和法律问题。世界不能一边谴责某一地区的侵略，一边又在另一个地区纵容侵略。
这也是选择性西方政策的问题所在。当国际法被用来针对对手，却在盟友问题上被忽视时，全球秩序的公信力就会崩塌。亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲和中东的许多人清楚地看到了这种双重标准。他们会问，为什么在一个案例中占领受到谴责，而在巴勒斯坦却被容忍；为什么某场战争中的平民苦难值得关注，而加沙的苦难却被解释或淡化；为什么一些国家很快遭到制裁，而涉及以色列时制裁却被推迟或削弱。这种选择性不会加强国际法，而是削弱国际法。
必须明确指出，批评以色列政策并不等于敌视犹太人。世界各地的犹太社群是多元的，许多犹太人自己也反对占领、类似种族隔离的做法、定居点扩张以及对加沙的破坏。问题不是宗教或族裔。问题是国家政策、军事行为、占领，以及国际法下的问责。
以色列的长期安全不能建立在占领之上。没有任何人民可以被永久剥夺尊严而不反抗。一个国家以武力扩张、另一个民族没有主权的地区，不可能保持稳定。任何忽视巴勒斯坦核心创伤的正常化协议都不可能成功。持久和平不会来自军事优势、吞并或对弱国的外交施压。它将来自正义。
国际社会必须回到基本原则：土地不能通过战争获得；占领必须结束；平民必须受到保护；难民拥有权利；耶路撒冷不能被单方面夺取；定居点是非法的；和平必须建立在平等之上，而不是支配之上。这些并不是激进要求。它们是联合国体系的基础。
今天，以色列面临合法性危机，因为它的行动暴露了其叙事与行为之间的差距。世界已经看到了加沙。它已经看到了约旦河西岸。它已经看到了定居点。它已经看到了对黎巴嫩的轰炸以及对戈兰高地的持续占领。它已经看到国际法一次又一次被无视。结果就是全球舆论发生了深刻转变。
如果以色列想要获得接受，它就必须选择一条不同的道路。它必须从被占领土撤出，接受巴勒斯坦主权，尊重国际法，并放弃武力可以带来永久和平的幻想。如果世界想要中东稳定，就必须停止奖励侵略，开始执行正义。
巴勒斯坦问题不是一个边缘问题。它是中东和平的核心。在它以尊严、主权和正义得到解决之前，每一个正常化项目都将脆弱不堪，每一次停火都只是暂时的，每一个关于和平的说法都不会完整。
(注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://www2.apdnews.cn/en/item/26/0601/axjfmnan2a06d3cee8fe10.html