Social-networking sites share breaking newsStory Highlights
More people are turning to social networking sites for breaking news
Sites like Twitter, Facebook and Flickr provide firsthand accounts of disasters
Users enjoy the speed and immediate access of those posting
Professor: Citizen journalism sometimes happens accidentally
By Lisa Respers France
CNN
(CNN) -- Janis Krums was heading to New Jersey on a ferry when he clicked a snapshot with his iPhone of US Airways Flight 1549 partially submerged in the Hudson River. He uploaded the picture to his Twitter account and then forgot about it as he assisted in the rescue of the plane's passengers.
iReporter Julie Pukelis used a camera and a telescope to get this view of the scene in Hudson River.
The deluge of image views crashed the servers of TwitPic, the application that allows Twitter users to send photos with their Twitter updates or "tweets."
"I posted it because I thought 'That's pretty newsworthy' and I wanted to share it with the people who follow me on Twitter," Krums said. "I was letting some of the survivors use my phone and it wasn't until later that I looked and saw that I had quite a few messages."
More people are turning to social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook and Flickr when news breaks to share stories and pictures.
In an era when even the president of the United States has a Facebook page and spectators texted and tweeted about Inauguration Day, the power of online and digital social networking is clear.
Barack Obama tapped into the stream for his grass-roots presidential campaign and the Israeli Consulate in New York used its Twitter account to disseminate information during the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza.
Twitter doesn't release figures on the total number of registered users, but according to Compete, which offers analytics on Web sites, the site had more than 4.4 million unique visitors as of December 2008. Facebook has more than 150 million active users and Flickr has more than 34 million registered users worldwide.
Accounts of the deadly attacks last fall in Mumbai, India, the May 2008 earthquake in China and last week's plane crash show what used to be just a virtual gathering place to communicate pet peeves or plans for the weekend has evolved into a go-to spot for eyewitness news -- sometimes even before mainstream media has had time to crack the story.
Twitter co-founder Biz Stone said Twitter users were the first to alert others last summer after an earthquake hit Southern California. "The earthquake struck at 11:42 [a.m.] PST and at 11:42 PST people started twittering," he said.
Twitter allows its users to post messages, or tweets, to their accounts that are then distributed to those who are "following" that user online. Stone noted that there was an Associated Press story on the quake that he saw posted nine minutes later on their site and said that during those nine minutes there were more than 3,600 tweets.
"That's when it sort of struck home for me," he said. "With Twitter, we have this real-time feed of what people around the world are seeing, thinking and feeling."
Such citizen journalism is in some cases happening almost accidentally, said Susan Jacobson, an assistant professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who researches the impact of technology on journalism.
"Most people are just sending this information off to their friends," Jacobson said. "The main thing to take from sites like Twitter and Facebook is that they are informal modes of news dissemination."
Part of that informality includes brevity -- tweets have a maximum capacity of 140 characters, and Facebook statuses can only be a few lines -- and the possibility of inaccurate information. Jacobson said users, especially those who have grown up in the digital age, are very much aware of that.
"Young people, I think, have an innate radar about what is legitimate and what is not," she said. "They realize that not everything they read and see on the Web is true."
Stephen Hultquist, a Boulder, Colorado, consultant who gets a great deal of his breaking news from Twitter, said traditional media sources also make mistakes or give skewed reports.
"If anything, Twitter reminds me that everyone is human and they all have their own views and a paradigm through which they see the world," said Hultquist who had a unique appreciation of the quick, firsthand tweets that came after the earthquake in China last year.
"I was five miles from the epicenter of the earthquake in 1989 that happened right before a World Series game and I noticed that the media that was reporting on it wasn't getting it all right," he said.
Immediacy, said iReporter Jim Davidson, is one reason he posted his images of the downed plane in the Hudson on Flickr in addition to CNN.com. "When something like this happens, it's an easy way to syndicate it," said Davidson, who lives two blocks from the Hudson in Hoboken, New Jersey.
Social networking sites also enable spry reactions to news. Rob Reale of New York City started a Facebook group soon after the crash for the "Fans of Sully Sullenberger -- and the crew of Flight 1549" to celebrate the pilot who is being hailed as a hero for deftly landing the plane. The group quickly swelled to more than 27,000 members, some of whom posted video and photos and provided information that Reale used to update the page.
"I felt like the Facebook group was an opportunity to spread the good news," Reale said of the crash, which all survived. "Part of it was getting the word out and part of it was keeping that good feeling going."
Chris Krewson, executive online editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has a personal Twitter account in addition to posting tweets for his paper. Mainstream media is learning to better utilize online social networking to connect with its audience, he said.
"People are already talking about the news," Krewson added. "This is just a way for us to involve ourselves in the conversation
2009年2月10日星期二
以色列最新大选结束
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304741384&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Both parties claim victory and race to form rival coalitions
By GIL HOFFMAN AND JPOST.COM STAFF
Both Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's Kadima party and Binyamin Netanyahu's opposition Likud styled themselves the winners of Tuesday's elections, after it became apparent that Kadima had won the most seats in the new Knesset, but the Likud-led right-wing would constitute the larger bloc.
Kadima's Nachman Shai cautious on exit polls
With 99.7 percent of the votes counted by 7:00 a.m., Kadima was narrowly leading Likud with a predicted 28 mandates, while the latter had garnered a predicted 27 seats. Israel Beiteinu was expected to earn 15 mandates, Labor 13, Shas 11, United Arab List five, United Torah Judaism four, National Union four, Hadash four, Meretz three, Bayit Hayehudi three, and Balad two.
The final results, including votes from soldiers and emissaries abroad, will only be published on February 18.
Overall voter turnout, which observers had feared would be low, was 65.2%, over two percentage points higher than in the 2006 national elections.
Livni had argued earlier in the day that whoever headed the biggest party should be deemed to have "won the public's trust" and should thus be charged with forming the next coalition.
But Likud leaders were already working on Tuesday to construct a "blocking" majority that would deny her any such prospect.
Israel Beiteinu, whose support could be critical to the nature of the next coalition, was to meet on Wednesday to discuss the options produced by the election outcome. But party leader Avigdor Lieberman, in a victory speech after midnight, indicated it was his intention to go with the Likud.
"We've turned into a significant party, the third largest in Israel," Lieberman told cheering supporters. "It's true that Tzipi Livni won a surprise victory. But what is more important is that the right-wing camp won a clear majority... We want a right-wing government. That's our wish and we don't hide it."
Both Netanyahu and Livni had called Lieberman on Tuesday night and asked for his support.
Kadima leaders expressed confidence that Livni would be able to form a government together with at least Labor, Meretz and Israel Beiteinu.
In an effort to reach out to Lieberman, Livni's associates said her first step as prime minister would be to change the political system, an issue at the top of his platform.
Livni challenged Netanyahu in statements throughout the day Tuesday to fulfill the public's desire for a national-unity government by joining a coalition led by her.
"As soon as Kadima gets more mandates, Bibi will have to stop with his manipulations and join a national-unity government," Livni said.
"Whoever gets more mandates won the public's trust and no one can argue with that. We are the only party that can form a national-unity government."
A Kadima official told The Jerusalem Post late Tuesday night that Israel Beitenu was more
of a natural partner in a future coalition than the Likud, and that Avigdor Lieberman's party was "not really in the right wing bloc."
"They are not on the right on the issue of a two-state solution. They support that solution but they want a land swap in it. They are not on the right on state-religion issues and they are not on the right on the issue of changing the system of government. Lieberman is pragmatic and he can definitely be in the coalition," the top Kadima official said. The official added that Kadima would like to form as broad a coalition as possible, but would settle for a Kadima-Labor-Israel Beitenu-UTJ coalition, which would give it about 63 Knesset seats.
Lior Chorev, another top Kadima strategist, said, "The President has to allow Livni the chance to form a coalition. It's going to be difficult, but if she gets a chance she will succeed. The last time she had the opportunity to do it she decided not to burden the Israeli taxpayer with billions of shekels paid to the ultra-Orthodox. Livni has a backbone that Netanyahu never had. This time she can get the moderate left and the moderate right. We will ask Netanyahu to join us. We know he is hurting now, but he'll take the next 48 hours to recover and then we'll talk to him. Lieberman can also join without too many problems. Lieberman's campaign is far from what he is when he's in the government, he's much more practical."
Likud MKs said that due to the six- to eight-seat victory of the Right bloc over the Left bloc, they expected President Shimon Peres to entrust Netanyahu with forming the government, even if Kadima ended up with more seats than the Likud.
They said they had no doubt that Livni would fail to form a government, because she was not able to build a coalition in October when the Left bloc had more seats.
"Netanyahu will be Israel's next prime minister," the Likud said in a statement after the exit polls were released. "The election proved that the path of the Likud and the national camp won. A clear majority of the nation rejected the path of Kadima and its partners and accepted the path of Likud and the nationalist camp."
The Likud leader called for the entire nationalist camp to unite under his leadership and said he would immediately begin efforts to form as wide a government as possible.
Peres intends to meet with the factions quickly to expedite the process of appointing a candidate to form a coalition.
In his concession speech, Labor Party chairman Ehud Barak said he would not join a government that "does not fit with what we believe" and that he was not afraid to join the opposition.
He cautioned against eulogizing Labor and vowed to rehabilitate the party and return it to power.
If the results predicted by the exit polls turn out to be accurate, the Likud would have fallen massively from as many as 36 seats predicted by polls taken in December to as few as 27.
But Likud MKs put a positive spin on the results by saying that the party had more than doubled its mandates since the 2006 election while Kadima had remained with around the same number of seats.
In Likud and Labor, opponents of the party chairmen already began talking after the exit polls about their leaders' failure. Both Netanyahu and Barak could face challenges to their leadership from inside their parties.
Netanyahu's nemesis in the Likud, Moshe Feiglin, released a statement saying that Netanyahu's battle against him took right-wing votes away from Likud and gave them to Israel Beiteinu.
A number of Likud politicians privately admitted that the party had assumed that the victory was theirs and had not campaigned hard enough in the last weeks before the election, a move that made them vulnerable to rival parties.
Tovah Lazaroff, Amir Mizroch, and Rebecca Anna Stoil contributed to this report.
Both parties claim victory and race to form rival coalitions
By GIL HOFFMAN AND JPOST.COM STAFF
Both Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's Kadima party and Binyamin Netanyahu's opposition Likud styled themselves the winners of Tuesday's elections, after it became apparent that Kadima had won the most seats in the new Knesset, but the Likud-led right-wing would constitute the larger bloc.
Kadima's Nachman Shai cautious on exit polls
With 99.7 percent of the votes counted by 7:00 a.m., Kadima was narrowly leading Likud with a predicted 28 mandates, while the latter had garnered a predicted 27 seats. Israel Beiteinu was expected to earn 15 mandates, Labor 13, Shas 11, United Arab List five, United Torah Judaism four, National Union four, Hadash four, Meretz three, Bayit Hayehudi three, and Balad two.
The final results, including votes from soldiers and emissaries abroad, will only be published on February 18.
Overall voter turnout, which observers had feared would be low, was 65.2%, over two percentage points higher than in the 2006 national elections.
Livni had argued earlier in the day that whoever headed the biggest party should be deemed to have "won the public's trust" and should thus be charged with forming the next coalition.
But Likud leaders were already working on Tuesday to construct a "blocking" majority that would deny her any such prospect.
Israel Beiteinu, whose support could be critical to the nature of the next coalition, was to meet on Wednesday to discuss the options produced by the election outcome. But party leader Avigdor Lieberman, in a victory speech after midnight, indicated it was his intention to go with the Likud.
"We've turned into a significant party, the third largest in Israel," Lieberman told cheering supporters. "It's true that Tzipi Livni won a surprise victory. But what is more important is that the right-wing camp won a clear majority... We want a right-wing government. That's our wish and we don't hide it."
Both Netanyahu and Livni had called Lieberman on Tuesday night and asked for his support.
Kadima leaders expressed confidence that Livni would be able to form a government together with at least Labor, Meretz and Israel Beiteinu.
In an effort to reach out to Lieberman, Livni's associates said her first step as prime minister would be to change the political system, an issue at the top of his platform.
Livni challenged Netanyahu in statements throughout the day Tuesday to fulfill the public's desire for a national-unity government by joining a coalition led by her.
"As soon as Kadima gets more mandates, Bibi will have to stop with his manipulations and join a national-unity government," Livni said.
"Whoever gets more mandates won the public's trust and no one can argue with that. We are the only party that can form a national-unity government."
A Kadima official told The Jerusalem Post late Tuesday night that Israel Beitenu was more
of a natural partner in a future coalition than the Likud, and that Avigdor Lieberman's party was "not really in the right wing bloc."
"They are not on the right on the issue of a two-state solution. They support that solution but they want a land swap in it. They are not on the right on state-religion issues and they are not on the right on the issue of changing the system of government. Lieberman is pragmatic and he can definitely be in the coalition," the top Kadima official said. The official added that Kadima would like to form as broad a coalition as possible, but would settle for a Kadima-Labor-Israel Beitenu-UTJ coalition, which would give it about 63 Knesset seats.
Lior Chorev, another top Kadima strategist, said, "The President has to allow Livni the chance to form a coalition. It's going to be difficult, but if she gets a chance she will succeed. The last time she had the opportunity to do it she decided not to burden the Israeli taxpayer with billions of shekels paid to the ultra-Orthodox. Livni has a backbone that Netanyahu never had. This time she can get the moderate left and the moderate right. We will ask Netanyahu to join us. We know he is hurting now, but he'll take the next 48 hours to recover and then we'll talk to him. Lieberman can also join without too many problems. Lieberman's campaign is far from what he is when he's in the government, he's much more practical."
Likud MKs said that due to the six- to eight-seat victory of the Right bloc over the Left bloc, they expected President Shimon Peres to entrust Netanyahu with forming the government, even if Kadima ended up with more seats than the Likud.
They said they had no doubt that Livni would fail to form a government, because she was not able to build a coalition in October when the Left bloc had more seats.
"Netanyahu will be Israel's next prime minister," the Likud said in a statement after the exit polls were released. "The election proved that the path of the Likud and the national camp won. A clear majority of the nation rejected the path of Kadima and its partners and accepted the path of Likud and the nationalist camp."
The Likud leader called for the entire nationalist camp to unite under his leadership and said he would immediately begin efforts to form as wide a government as possible.
Peres intends to meet with the factions quickly to expedite the process of appointing a candidate to form a coalition.
In his concession speech, Labor Party chairman Ehud Barak said he would not join a government that "does not fit with what we believe" and that he was not afraid to join the opposition.
He cautioned against eulogizing Labor and vowed to rehabilitate the party and return it to power.
If the results predicted by the exit polls turn out to be accurate, the Likud would have fallen massively from as many as 36 seats predicted by polls taken in December to as few as 27.
But Likud MKs put a positive spin on the results by saying that the party had more than doubled its mandates since the 2006 election while Kadima had remained with around the same number of seats.
In Likud and Labor, opponents of the party chairmen already began talking after the exit polls about their leaders' failure. Both Netanyahu and Barak could face challenges to their leadership from inside their parties.
Netanyahu's nemesis in the Likud, Moshe Feiglin, released a statement saying that Netanyahu's battle against him took right-wing votes away from Likud and gave them to Israel Beiteinu.
A number of Likud politicians privately admitted that the party had assumed that the victory was theirs and had not campaigned hard enough in the last weeks before the election, a move that made them vulnerable to rival parties.
Tovah Lazaroff, Amir Mizroch, and Rebecca Anna Stoil contributed to this report.
2009年2月5日星期四
【转帖】自卫战争的合法性、适当性与平民伤亡问题
自卫战争的合法性、适当性与平民伤亡问题——加沙之战三评
作者: 张平 | 2009年01月16日 07:01 | 栏目: 以色列的冲突与和平
(1408) 点击 | (81) 评论 | 本文地址: http://zhangp.blshe.com/post/164/321560
善良的人们，我理解你们对那些死亡的平民的同情。我一样同情他们。但是我们必须理智，必须明白谁是真正的战争罪犯。
历次的中东战争，无论战争的起因如何，甚至无论以色列是否参与，都会让国际反犹主义沉渣泛起。某些华文媒体也从不例外！这次的加沙之战，约旦河西岸的巴勒斯坦亲兄弟都还没说什么，很多华文媒体就“皇上不急太监急”，迫不及待地跟在反犹势力后面对以色列横加诬蔑，替恐怖主义张目。这些污蔑主要集中在三个方面：以色列所进行的战争是否合法的自卫战争？这场战争是否具有适当性（也有人翻译成对称性）？战争中加沙地区的平民伤亡是否构成战争罪行？
在讨论这三个问题以前，先附带说明一个小问题，就是所谓的白磷弹问题。这个喧嚣一时的让某些反以反犹人士大脑兴奋不已的所谓以色列使用非法武器的问题日前已被国际红十字会官员正式澄清。白磷弹并非违规武器，战争中使用白磷弹照明或施放烟幕都是国际法允许的。国际法不允许有意使用白磷弹伤害人群或者焚烧建筑物，但没有任何证据表明以色列军队将白磷弹用于这两个目的。散播谎言煽动仇犹情绪是反犹主义历史上常见的伎俩，今天也不例外。
【以色列所进行的是否合法的自卫战争？】
国际法的自卫战争概念有两个来源。
第一个来源是所谓的“凯罗林号法规”。
凯罗林号是一艘美国货运汽轮。19世纪30年代，加拿大境内出现反英暴动组织，美国支持这些组织的活动并为他们运送武器，凯罗林号便参与了这些活动。1837年12月29日夜间，一支英军越过尼亚加拉河，登上凯罗林号放了一把火，又把这条船沿河送下了大瀑布。一名美国人死亡，数人受伤。这次偷袭行动引发了美国国务卿丹尼尔•韦伯斯特与英国贵族阿什布尔敦之间有关“先发制人的自卫战争”的合法性问题的讨论。讨论的结论是：先发制人的自卫战争是合法的，但前提条件是：“情况紧迫、无法避免、别无选择、没有时间深思。”
第二个来源是《联合国宪章》第五十一条，该条款规定：“联合国任何会员国受武力攻击时，在安理会采取必要办法，以维持国际和平与安全以前，本宪章不得认为禁止行使单独或集体自卫之自然权利。会员国因行使此项自卫权而采取之办法，应立即向安全理事会报告，此项办法于任何方面不得影响安全理事会按照本宪章随时采取其所认为的必要行动之权责，以维持和恢复国际和平及安全。”
从内容上看，凯罗林号法规显然比《联合国宪章》严格，因为两者针对的对象不同，前者谈的是受到实际武力攻击之前的自卫行动，后者谈的是受攻击之后的情况。不过也有学者认为《联合国宪章》实际上已经取代了凯罗林号法案，并将联合国法案中的“武力攻击”解释为包括了武力攻击之前的准备阶段。
按照联合国宪章的规定，一个国家在遭受武力攻击后即可行使自卫权，无需联合国批准，行使自卫权的开始和结束时间均不受联合国约束。至于行使自卫权的目的，虽然《联合国宪章》没有规定，但海牙国际法院的《核武器使用和威胁的合法性》案卷谈到了自卫的必要性问题，这个问题的实质是制止攻击者的攻击行为。也就是说，自卫最主要目的是防卫自己不受攻击，只要攻击还在继续，受害国就有权继续进行武力自卫。从常理上说，这一规定也是合情合理的，如果自卫不能制止攻击，自卫行为就失去了意义。
《联合国宪章》并没有规定“武力攻击”的明确定义。其它国际法规似乎也同样阙如。事实上，在战争观念不断变化，作战武器不断更新的情况下，即使有人作出这种规定也很难是长期有效的。对于这一点的判断通常是根据惯例和常识。以色列希伯莱大学法律学院教授尤瓦尔•沙尼对此有个简要的解说：“如果发射了一颗火箭弹，那么国家无权入侵并征服另一个国家的全部领土……但我们这里谈的不是一颗火箭弹，而是连续数年的火箭弹。”
具体到这场加沙战争，由于哈马斯武力攻击在前，所以凯罗林法规并不适用，适用的是《联合国宪章》。到目前为止，以色列对自卫权的行使并没有任何一点违反这一宪章。这场自卫战争的发起和进行都是完全合法的。唯一有可能争辩的是哈马斯的行为是否构成联合国所规定的“武力攻击”。关于这一点，我以为有一个很简单的办法加以判断：翻翻现代历史，看看世界上是不是有哪个国家在遭受了几千枚火箭弹攻击之后认为自己“未受到武力攻击”。或者还有一个更简单的办法，哪个国家认为这不算武力攻击，就让以色列朝他们国家的居民区发射几千枚火箭弹试试，如果该国在挨了这些揍以后还心悦诚服地认为自己“未受到武力攻击”，咱们就承认这些诡辩或许有根据，否则就是在睁着眼睛撒谎。
【以色列所进行的自卫战争是否具有“适当性”？】
对于以巴冲突，历来就有一种奇谈怪论，他们把以色列在冲突中死亡的人数跟巴勒斯坦方面死亡的人数放在一块，宣称因为这两个数字悬殊太大，所以以色列的战争不具有“适当性”。这个理论背后的逻辑是赤裸裸的反犹主义，他们对巴勒斯坦人死了多少并没有真正的兴趣，唯一让他们遗憾的是犹太人死得太少了。在他们看来，如果巴勒斯坦恐怖分子再多杀害一些犹太人，这战争就“对称”了，就“成比例”了，他们就满意了。
虽然“适当性”是国际法的一个基本原则，但没有任何一个国际法规定战争的“适当性”是根据冲突中的双方死亡人数计算的。“消灭敌人，保存自己”是战争的基本原则，只有白痴才会在战争中要求自己的死亡人数跟敌方的死亡人数“对称”。国际法不是白痴法律，所以只要攻击的是对方的武装人员，死亡多少都不会构成所谓“不适当”的问题。
还有一个谬论，是说以色列的武器比哈马斯的武器厉害得多，所以也“不对称”。在这一点上，同样没有哪部国际法用武器级别的高低来计算战争的“适当性”。国际法上的“适当性”在这方面实际上指的是攻击行为与反击行为之间的适当关系，也就是对于不同级别的攻击行为应该有相应的、有差别的反击行为。绝对不是说攻击者采取何种行为反击者也必须采取何种行为。如果反击行为必须跟攻击行为相等的话，那么哈马斯是倾尽全力攻击以色列平民区，所以以色列也该把能用上的导弹炮弹炸弹全扔到加沙的居民区里去才对，那样加沙的伤亡就不会以百计算，而是早就以万乃至以十万计算了。
战争适当性的最主要内涵实际上指的是攻击目标的价值与攻击行为可能造成的对无辜者的伤害的关系。这包括两个方面的内容：第一、攻击目标必须有军事价值。第二、平民生命财产的损失与这些目标的军事价值之间有一定的关系。按照这两个内容去分析，真正没有“适当性”、真正不“对称”的是巴勒斯坦恐怖组织。哈马斯攻击的绝大多数都是毫无军事价值的平民住宅区、造成的是百分之一百的平民生命财产损失。而以色列攻击的都是情报确认的军事目标，而且在很多情况下采取了减少平民伤亡的措施。因此，除非你对以军攻击的目标的军事价值和所造成的平民损失进行了逐一分析并得出法律认可的结论，否则你没有任何理由宣称以色列的战争“不适当”。由于“适当性”并不排除平民伤亡的可能性，因此无论平民伤亡是何等令人遗憾，都不单独构成“不适当”的结论。
【如何看待平民伤亡问题？】
展示死者照片，特别是儿童的死亡照片，是巴勒斯坦恐怖组织干的最高兴的事情。这种照片可以很快地引起不明真相的人的愤怒，让人们忘记战争的性质是什么，忘记真正的屠夫是谁。
关于战争中的平民死亡问题，我在《战争就是地狱》一文中已经讲得非常清楚，在战争中，军队不会因为可能伤到平民就停止军事行动，战争中军队的底线是“不以平民为攻击目标”，只要这个底线不破，就不是犯罪行为。在此我将给我的观点提供一点国际法依据。
海牙国际犯罪法庭的起诉人办公室曾在2006年2月就美军在伊拉克的行为问题发表过一封公开信（http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf），其中对战争中的平民伤亡问题作了专门的说明：
“根据国际人道法律和《罗马法》，武装冲突中的平民死亡，无论如何严重和令人遗憾，其本身都不构成战争罪行。国际人道法律和《罗马法》允许交战国对军事目标进行适当的攻击，即使确知某些平民伤亡将因此发生。罪行发生的条件是：有意对平民进行攻击，或者在攻击军事目标时确知平民意外伤亡将明显远远超过预期军事价值。”
的确，有不少巴勒斯坦平民死于这场战火，我对此深感遗憾，但如果你想就此指责以色列犯有战争罪行的话，你必须证明以色列有意攻击平民，或者证明该攻击的平民伤亡远远超过军事价值，而且得证明以色列事先明确知道这一点。
如果你能证明，就请拿出来，否则就请停止污蔑以色列国。
【别忘了真正的战争罪犯！】
哈佛大学法学教授Dershowitz曾谈到一个令人感叹的事例：某次以军发现某民宅被用来给哈马斯制造火箭弹，于是在打击前给宅主半个小时的时间撤离。结果宅主给哈马斯打了电话，哈马斯不但不让居民撤走，反而送来一群怀抱婴儿的妇女，呆在宅子里等着以军的炮火。
那些举着巴勒斯坦儿童尸体照片游行的反战垃圾们、那些用平民的死亡来为哈马斯的恐怖行为百般辩解的文人骚客们历来让我恶心。他们不是和平使者，他们是一群恐怖主义的帮凶。因为他们的努力，哈马斯才想方设法地把平民送上火线，想方设法地让平民损失最大化。因此，每个死亡的巴勒斯坦儿童的背后，都有这群恐怖主义帮凶的罪恶之手。
善良的人们，我理解你们对那些死亡的平民的同情。我一样同情他们。但是我们必须理智，必须明白谁是真正的战争罪犯。如果我们同情这些罪犯，让这些罪犯的阴谋得逞，这个世界只会有更多的平民死于战火。
张平 2009年1月16日 于特拉维夫
作者: 张平 | 2009年01月16日 07:01 | 栏目: 以色列的冲突与和平
(1408) 点击 | (81) 评论 | 本文地址: http://zhangp.blshe.com/post/164/321560
善良的人们，我理解你们对那些死亡的平民的同情。我一样同情他们。但是我们必须理智，必须明白谁是真正的战争罪犯。
历次的中东战争，无论战争的起因如何，甚至无论以色列是否参与，都会让国际反犹主义沉渣泛起。某些华文媒体也从不例外！这次的加沙之战，约旦河西岸的巴勒斯坦亲兄弟都还没说什么，很多华文媒体就“皇上不急太监急”，迫不及待地跟在反犹势力后面对以色列横加诬蔑，替恐怖主义张目。这些污蔑主要集中在三个方面：以色列所进行的战争是否合法的自卫战争？这场战争是否具有适当性（也有人翻译成对称性）？战争中加沙地区的平民伤亡是否构成战争罪行？
在讨论这三个问题以前，先附带说明一个小问题，就是所谓的白磷弹问题。这个喧嚣一时的让某些反以反犹人士大脑兴奋不已的所谓以色列使用非法武器的问题日前已被国际红十字会官员正式澄清。白磷弹并非违规武器，战争中使用白磷弹照明或施放烟幕都是国际法允许的。国际法不允许有意使用白磷弹伤害人群或者焚烧建筑物，但没有任何证据表明以色列军队将白磷弹用于这两个目的。散播谎言煽动仇犹情绪是反犹主义历史上常见的伎俩，今天也不例外。
【以色列所进行的是否合法的自卫战争？】
国际法的自卫战争概念有两个来源。
第一个来源是所谓的“凯罗林号法规”。
凯罗林号是一艘美国货运汽轮。19世纪30年代，加拿大境内出现反英暴动组织，美国支持这些组织的活动并为他们运送武器，凯罗林号便参与了这些活动。1837年12月29日夜间，一支英军越过尼亚加拉河，登上凯罗林号放了一把火，又把这条船沿河送下了大瀑布。一名美国人死亡，数人受伤。这次偷袭行动引发了美国国务卿丹尼尔•韦伯斯特与英国贵族阿什布尔敦之间有关“先发制人的自卫战争”的合法性问题的讨论。讨论的结论是：先发制人的自卫战争是合法的，但前提条件是：“情况紧迫、无法避免、别无选择、没有时间深思。”
第二个来源是《联合国宪章》第五十一条，该条款规定：“联合国任何会员国受武力攻击时，在安理会采取必要办法，以维持国际和平与安全以前，本宪章不得认为禁止行使单独或集体自卫之自然权利。会员国因行使此项自卫权而采取之办法，应立即向安全理事会报告，此项办法于任何方面不得影响安全理事会按照本宪章随时采取其所认为的必要行动之权责，以维持和恢复国际和平及安全。”
从内容上看，凯罗林号法规显然比《联合国宪章》严格，因为两者针对的对象不同，前者谈的是受到实际武力攻击之前的自卫行动，后者谈的是受攻击之后的情况。不过也有学者认为《联合国宪章》实际上已经取代了凯罗林号法案，并将联合国法案中的“武力攻击”解释为包括了武力攻击之前的准备阶段。
按照联合国宪章的规定，一个国家在遭受武力攻击后即可行使自卫权，无需联合国批准，行使自卫权的开始和结束时间均不受联合国约束。至于行使自卫权的目的，虽然《联合国宪章》没有规定，但海牙国际法院的《核武器使用和威胁的合法性》案卷谈到了自卫的必要性问题，这个问题的实质是制止攻击者的攻击行为。也就是说，自卫最主要目的是防卫自己不受攻击，只要攻击还在继续，受害国就有权继续进行武力自卫。从常理上说，这一规定也是合情合理的，如果自卫不能制止攻击，自卫行为就失去了意义。
《联合国宪章》并没有规定“武力攻击”的明确定义。其它国际法规似乎也同样阙如。事实上，在战争观念不断变化，作战武器不断更新的情况下，即使有人作出这种规定也很难是长期有效的。对于这一点的判断通常是根据惯例和常识。以色列希伯莱大学法律学院教授尤瓦尔•沙尼对此有个简要的解说：“如果发射了一颗火箭弹，那么国家无权入侵并征服另一个国家的全部领土……但我们这里谈的不是一颗火箭弹，而是连续数年的火箭弹。”
具体到这场加沙战争，由于哈马斯武力攻击在前，所以凯罗林法规并不适用，适用的是《联合国宪章》。到目前为止，以色列对自卫权的行使并没有任何一点违反这一宪章。这场自卫战争的发起和进行都是完全合法的。唯一有可能争辩的是哈马斯的行为是否构成联合国所规定的“武力攻击”。关于这一点，我以为有一个很简单的办法加以判断：翻翻现代历史，看看世界上是不是有哪个国家在遭受了几千枚火箭弹攻击之后认为自己“未受到武力攻击”。或者还有一个更简单的办法，哪个国家认为这不算武力攻击，就让以色列朝他们国家的居民区发射几千枚火箭弹试试，如果该国在挨了这些揍以后还心悦诚服地认为自己“未受到武力攻击”，咱们就承认这些诡辩或许有根据，否则就是在睁着眼睛撒谎。
【以色列所进行的自卫战争是否具有“适当性”？】
对于以巴冲突，历来就有一种奇谈怪论，他们把以色列在冲突中死亡的人数跟巴勒斯坦方面死亡的人数放在一块，宣称因为这两个数字悬殊太大，所以以色列的战争不具有“适当性”。这个理论背后的逻辑是赤裸裸的反犹主义，他们对巴勒斯坦人死了多少并没有真正的兴趣，唯一让他们遗憾的是犹太人死得太少了。在他们看来，如果巴勒斯坦恐怖分子再多杀害一些犹太人，这战争就“对称”了，就“成比例”了，他们就满意了。
虽然“适当性”是国际法的一个基本原则，但没有任何一个国际法规定战争的“适当性”是根据冲突中的双方死亡人数计算的。“消灭敌人，保存自己”是战争的基本原则，只有白痴才会在战争中要求自己的死亡人数跟敌方的死亡人数“对称”。国际法不是白痴法律，所以只要攻击的是对方的武装人员，死亡多少都不会构成所谓“不适当”的问题。
还有一个谬论，是说以色列的武器比哈马斯的武器厉害得多，所以也“不对称”。在这一点上，同样没有哪部国际法用武器级别的高低来计算战争的“适当性”。国际法上的“适当性”在这方面实际上指的是攻击行为与反击行为之间的适当关系，也就是对于不同级别的攻击行为应该有相应的、有差别的反击行为。绝对不是说攻击者采取何种行为反击者也必须采取何种行为。如果反击行为必须跟攻击行为相等的话，那么哈马斯是倾尽全力攻击以色列平民区，所以以色列也该把能用上的导弹炮弹炸弹全扔到加沙的居民区里去才对，那样加沙的伤亡就不会以百计算，而是早就以万乃至以十万计算了。
战争适当性的最主要内涵实际上指的是攻击目标的价值与攻击行为可能造成的对无辜者的伤害的关系。这包括两个方面的内容：第一、攻击目标必须有军事价值。第二、平民生命财产的损失与这些目标的军事价值之间有一定的关系。按照这两个内容去分析，真正没有“适当性”、真正不“对称”的是巴勒斯坦恐怖组织。哈马斯攻击的绝大多数都是毫无军事价值的平民住宅区、造成的是百分之一百的平民生命财产损失。而以色列攻击的都是情报确认的军事目标，而且在很多情况下采取了减少平民伤亡的措施。因此，除非你对以军攻击的目标的军事价值和所造成的平民损失进行了逐一分析并得出法律认可的结论，否则你没有任何理由宣称以色列的战争“不适当”。由于“适当性”并不排除平民伤亡的可能性，因此无论平民伤亡是何等令人遗憾，都不单独构成“不适当”的结论。
【如何看待平民伤亡问题？】
展示死者照片，特别是儿童的死亡照片，是巴勒斯坦恐怖组织干的最高兴的事情。这种照片可以很快地引起不明真相的人的愤怒，让人们忘记战争的性质是什么，忘记真正的屠夫是谁。
关于战争中的平民死亡问题，我在《战争就是地狱》一文中已经讲得非常清楚，在战争中，军队不会因为可能伤到平民就停止军事行动，战争中军队的底线是“不以平民为攻击目标”，只要这个底线不破，就不是犯罪行为。在此我将给我的观点提供一点国际法依据。
海牙国际犯罪法庭的起诉人办公室曾在2006年2月就美军在伊拉克的行为问题发表过一封公开信（http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf），其中对战争中的平民伤亡问题作了专门的说明：
“根据国际人道法律和《罗马法》，武装冲突中的平民死亡，无论如何严重和令人遗憾，其本身都不构成战争罪行。国际人道法律和《罗马法》允许交战国对军事目标进行适当的攻击，即使确知某些平民伤亡将因此发生。罪行发生的条件是：有意对平民进行攻击，或者在攻击军事目标时确知平民意外伤亡将明显远远超过预期军事价值。”
的确，有不少巴勒斯坦平民死于这场战火，我对此深感遗憾，但如果你想就此指责以色列犯有战争罪行的话，你必须证明以色列有意攻击平民，或者证明该攻击的平民伤亡远远超过军事价值，而且得证明以色列事先明确知道这一点。
如果你能证明，就请拿出来，否则就请停止污蔑以色列国。
【别忘了真正的战争罪犯！】
哈佛大学法学教授Dershowitz曾谈到一个令人感叹的事例：某次以军发现某民宅被用来给哈马斯制造火箭弹，于是在打击前给宅主半个小时的时间撤离。结果宅主给哈马斯打了电话，哈马斯不但不让居民撤走，反而送来一群怀抱婴儿的妇女，呆在宅子里等着以军的炮火。
那些举着巴勒斯坦儿童尸体照片游行的反战垃圾们、那些用平民的死亡来为哈马斯的恐怖行为百般辩解的文人骚客们历来让我恶心。他们不是和平使者，他们是一群恐怖主义的帮凶。因为他们的努力，哈马斯才想方设法地把平民送上火线，想方设法地让平民损失最大化。因此，每个死亡的巴勒斯坦儿童的背后，都有这群恐怖主义帮凶的罪恶之手。
善良的人们，我理解你们对那些死亡的平民的同情。我一样同情他们。但是我们必须理智，必须明白谁是真正的战争罪犯。如果我们同情这些罪犯，让这些罪犯的阴谋得逞，这个世界只会有更多的平民死于战火。
张平 2009年1月16日 于特拉维夫
2009年2月2日星期一
订阅：
博文 (Atom)