Economist 2011-01-01 Leaders：The United States, Israel and t
The United States, Israel and the Arabs
Please, not again
Without boldness from Barack Obama there is a real risk of war in the Middle East
美国，以色列和阿拉伯国家
请不要再来一次
没有了奥巴马的勇气，也许中东将真的爆发战争
Dec 29th 2010 | from PRINT EDITION Tweet
NO WAR, no peace, is the usual state of affairs between Israel and its neighbours in the Middle East. But every time an attempt at Arab-Israeli peacemaking fails, as Barack Obama’s did shortly before Christmas, the peace becomes a little more fragile and the danger of war increases. Sadly, there is reason to believe that unless remedial action is taken, 2011 might see the most destructive such war for many years.
“没有战争，就没有和平”这是以色列和他的中东邻居的常态。但每次阿以和解的努力失败时——正如奥巴马在圣诞节前的调解——和平似乎更难长存而战争却更有可能爆发。令人失望的是，我们有理由确信：除非有一定的补救措施，否则2011年将会爆发近年来最具毁灭性的战争。
One much-discussed way in which war might arise stems from the apparent desire of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons at any cost, and Israel’s apparent desire to stop Iran at any cost. But fear of Iran’s nuclear programme is only one of the fuses that could detonate an explosion at any moment. Another is the frantic arms race that has been under way since the inconclusive war in 2006 between Israel and Hizbullah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon. Both sides have been intensively preparing for what each says will be a “decisive” second round.
广为讨论的战争爆发可能显而易见，那便是伊朗不惜一切代价以获得核武器的意图和以色列不惜一切代价阻止伊朗获得核武器的意图。但伊朗的核计划仅仅是引爆中东的导火索之一。另一种可能则是在2006年未分高下的战后以色列、真主党以及伊朗的盟友黎巴的疯狂军备竞赛。双方都在积极为其口中决定性的“第二轮”进行准备。
Such a war would bear little resemblance to the previous clashes between Israel and its neighbours. For all their many horrors, the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2009 were limited affairs. On the Israeli side, in particular, civilian casualties were light. Since 2006, however, Iran and Syria have provided Hizbullah with an arsenal of perhaps 50,000 missiles and rockets, many with ranges and payloads well beyond what Hizbullah had last time. This marks an extraordinary change in the balance of power. For the first time a radical non-state actor has the power to kill thousands of civilians in Israel’s cities more or less at the press of a button.
这样的战争和之前以色列和邻国的冲突并无相似之处。尽管造成了巨大的恐慌，但是2006年的黎巴嫩战争和2009年的加沙战争并不严重。尤其是以色列一方，平民的伤亡很少。然而自2006年以来，伊朗和叙利亚资助了真主党约50000枚导弹和火箭弹，其中很大一部分导弹的射程以及战斗部重大大超过了真主党之前的武器。这意味着战争双方平衡的显著变化。这也是这个激进的非国家党派第一次拥有“轻按按钮”就能杀伤成千上万以色列城市中平民的能力。
In that event, says Israel, it will strike back with double force. A war of this sort could easily draw in Syria, and perhaps Iran. For the moment, deterrence keeps the peace. But a peace maintained by deterrence alone is a frail thing. The shipment to Hizbullah of a balance-tipping new weapon, a
skirmish on the Lebanese or increasingly volatile Gaza border—any number of miscalculations could ignite a conflagration.
以色列宣称者如果发生，他们将会以两倍的武力还击。如此一来，战火将很容易蔓延至叙利亚，甚至是伊朗。此时，威慑力则会带来和平，但是仅仅依赖威慑带来的和平是脆弱的。运向真主党的满载新式武器的货轮、黎巴嫩以及日渐混乱的加沙边境的擦枪走火——任何小小的错误都有可能点燃战争的火焰。
From peace process to war process
和平进程转向战争进程
All of this should give new urgency to Arab-Israeli peacemaking. To start with, at least, peace will be incomplete: Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. But it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war.
上述这些都给阿以和谈敲响了警钟。首先，和平至少不会纯粹：伊朗、真主党以及偶尔出现的哈马斯表示他们将永远不会允许在中东建立一个犹太国家。但正是以色列长期的占领给了这些反对者们底气。以色列若允许巴勒斯坦人在约旦河西岸建国，这些反以色列国家缺乏开战的正当理由。
Easy enough to say. The question is whether peacemaking can succeed. After striving for almost two years to shepherd Israeli and Palestinian leaders into direct talks, only for this effort to collapse over the issue of settlements, Mr Obama is in danger of concluding like many presidents before him that Arab-Israeli diplomacy is a Sisyphean distraction. But giving up would be a tragic mistake, as bad for America and Israel as for the Palestinians. The instant the peace process ends, the war process begins, and wars in this energy-rich corner of the world usually suck in America, one way or another. Israel will suffer too if Mr Obama fails, because the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not fall silent while their rights are denied. The longer Israel keeps them stateless under military occupation, the lonelier it becomes—and the more it undermines its own identity as a liberal democracy.
但这只是说起容易做起难，和谈能否成功还有待商榷。在对巴以双方领导人展开和谈进行了超过两年的敦促后，谈判破裂，双方在巴勒斯坦人定居点的问题上未能达成一致。奥巴马可能像他的诸多前任一样在阿以问题的外交事务中白费力气。但是放弃却是一个巨大的错误，不仅对美国，对以色列、巴勒斯坦也是一样。一旦和平结束，那么战争马上开始。在中东这样的重要能源输出地爆发战争将很可能把美国卷入其中，不论以何种方式。如果奥巴马的外交政策宣告破产，以色列也将遭受打击——巴勒斯坦人已经再次证明：自身权利被侵害时，他们绝不会坐以待毙。以军占领使其无主权时间越长，以色列就会愈发孤立无援，这也恰恰和他们自我标榜的自由民主相对。
Don’t mediate. Legislate
协调？不，立法。
Instead of giving up, Mr Obama needs to change his angle of attack. America has clung too long to the dogma that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are the way forward. James Baker, a former secretary of state, once said that America could not want peace more than the local parties did. This is no longer true. The recent history proves that the extremists on each side are too strong for timid local leaders to make the necessary compromises alone. It is time for the world to agree on a settlement and impose it on the feuding parties.
奥巴马总统更需要转换他进攻的角度，而不是放弃。美国深陷巴以直接对话才是唯一出路的教条之中。前国务卿詹姆斯·贝克曾说美国比中东地区的国家更渴望和平，但这不再是事实。近年的历史证明了各方的极端主义者已然压制态度温和的领导人使得和解难以达成。是时候让各方就定居问题拿出解决方案并且将其落实到冲突各方。
The outlines of such an agreement have been clear since Bill Clinton set out his “parameters” after the failure of the Camp David summit a decade ago. The border between Israel and a new Palestine would follow the pre-1967 line, with adjustments to accommodate some of the bigger border-hugging Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and land-swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those adjustments. But there is also much difficult detail to be filled in: how to make Jerusalem into a shared capital, settle the fate of the refugees and ensure that the West Bank will not become, as Gaza did, an advance base for war against Israel after Israeli forces withdraw.
在十年前戴维营峰会达成和解失败后，克林顿总统提出了解决方案的概要。以色列和新巴勒斯坦国之间的国界将遵循1967年前的边界划分：在约旦河西部做出调整以容纳更大的以色列定居点，同时给予巴勒斯坦一定的土地进行补偿。但这其中仍有许多棘手的细节需要考虑：如何把耶路撒冷设为共同的首都、如何安置难民、如何确保约旦河西岸在以色列军队撤出后不会成为第二个加沙——抵抗以色列的前沿阵地？
Mr Clinton unveiled his blueprint at the end of a negotiation that had failed. Mr Obama should set out his own map and make this a new starting point. He should gather international support for it, either through the United Nations or by means of an international conference of the kind the first President Bush held in Madrid in 1991. But instead of leaving the parties to talk on their own after the conference ends, as Mr Bush did after Madrid, America must ride herd, providing reassurance and exerting pressure on both sides as required.
在那场失败的谈判后期，克林顿总统公布了他的蓝图。奥巴马总统也应当提出他的蓝图并以此为新的起点。除此，他也需要寻求国际支持，不论是联合国亦或是布什总统首创的于1991年于马德里举行的国际会议。但不同以往的是，在会后并未仅举行冲突双方的单独对话，而是在美国的监督之下。如今美国政府需要做的正和布什总统当年的做法如出一辙：按双方要求，对谈判双方进行监督，保证和施压。
The pressure part of this equation is crucial. In his first round of peacemaking, Mr Obama picked a fight with Israel over settlements and then backed down, thereby making America look weak in a region where too many people already believe that its power is waning (see article). This is a misperception the president needs to correct. For all its economic worries at home and military woes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is far from weak in the Levant, where both Israel and the nascent Palestine in the West Bank continue to depend on it in countless vital ways.
如何平衡地对双方施压十分重要。在第一轮的调停中，奥巴马就定居点问题向以色列发难，但是最后做出了让步，这使得美国在该地区的影响力看起来十分微弱，而外界普遍认为美国在此地的势力正不断下降。这是奥巴马总统需要纠正的外界误解。相对于国内经济的不景气以及在伊拉克和阿富汗战争泥淖的深陷，美国在黎凡特（地中海东部，即泛指巴以地区）的影响力远称不上微小——美国仍有多个关键手段可以改变约旦河西岸的以色列和新巴勒斯坦的发展进程。
The Palestinians have flirted lately with the idea of bypassing America and taking their cause directly to the UN. Going to the UN is well and good. But the fact remains that without the sort of tough love that America alone can bestow, Israel will probably never be able to overcome its settler movement and make the deal that could win it acceptance in the Arab world. Mr Obama has shown in battles as different as health reform and the New START nuclear treaty with Russia that he has the quality of persistence. He should persist in Palestine, too.
巴勒斯坦近日采取了绕过美国，而直接寻求通过联合国解决问题的方式。这是个好策略，但缺乏了美国略显苛刻的支持，以色列可能永远无法解决定居者问题，也无法达成获得阿拉伯国家支持的协议。奥巴马在不同领域的战斗中已经展现了他坚忍不拔、强硬决绝的气质，譬如国内的医改以及和俄罗斯的《美俄削减战略武器条约》(START)。在巴勒斯坦问题上，他应当坚持这么做。
from PRINT EDITION | Leaders
为何新浪网用sinacomcn而不使用sinacom？
互联网行业，好的域名就已经成功了一半，比如腾讯的qq.com，比如58同城的58.com，再比如淘宝网的taobao.com，都是非常好的域名！特别是近几年互联网大公司都是不惜重金购买好的域名，比如 jd.com，比如mi.com，再比如近期火热的 kjt.com。
由此可见，对于互联网公司而言，好记的域名，好拼的域名，够短的域名，都是品牌实力的表现，更是展现出公司实力的最明显的方式与手段！对于网民来说更方便好用，从某种意义上来说也是给投资者以及一些股民提振信心的有效辅助方式。
有一个朋友问就来反驳我了，按照你这么说，com域名是最流行的大家都知道，那为什么国内的互联网大佬新浪网却在使用 sina.com.cn 这个域名呢？因为在浏览器输入 sina.com 就直接跳转到了 sina.com.cn，说明新浪是拥有这个sina.com的域名的啊，为什么他们却舍弃更好的.com而使用.com.cn 呢？
这的确是一个问题，不过这个问题其实是新浪网的一个历史遗留问题。要解决这个疑问，要翻一番新浪网的辛酸血泪史。
早期，新浪公司想把新浪wang搞成一个国际化的大公司，想海外市场发展，所以在国内用sina.com.cn 国际用sina.com，结果是后来发展起来的只有中国内地市场的sina.com.cn ，而新浪的国际化是完全失败的。所以由于用开了sina.com.cn在内地市场，而且内地市场成绩很好，也不方便把域名改来改去了，然后就一直沿用至今！
这个域名也就印证了新浪国际化步伐的完全失败，但内地市场很成功。
不过，这里还要聊聊新浪微博，一开始推广的时候，就是t.sina.com.cn，后来不惜重金购买了weibo.com 这个域名一直沿用至今，而且weibo.com还纳斯达克上市了！
小编闲聊
现在有人进入新浪网是输入 sina.com.cn？小编我偷懒则偷懒，如果需要进入新浪网，能少打3个字符我就用sina.com。然而，小编在新浪网看新闻的习惯已经没有了，每天就是看看今日头条，偶尔QQ的一个弹窗了解天下大事了。
==========分割线===========
本文原创作者：站在风口的猪，微信号：haozhu789
分享生活感悟，美食，养生，以及电商从业经验
==========分割线===========
