以内部视角探析中东动荡之因

            杨鸿玺 

内容提要： 中东局势长期为世界关注。可以说冷战开始之后超级大国的激烈争夺，以及冷战结束后美国、俄罗斯、欧盟、日本等各大国的介入和干预是导致中东地区动荡不定的关键因素，但能源储量、地缘位置、政治运作以及领土领水争端、民族宗教矛盾等因素也是影响地区局势的重要内因。外部势力的长期介入加剧了内因的复杂性，而某种程度上看，内因的存在、发酵与发展反过来给外部势力进一步介入中东提供了理由和借口。从长远看，中东的和平与发展有赖于地区国家的深刻自省和联合自强。

关键词： 中东  内因  巴勒斯坦问题  宗教  民族  领土  矛盾  伊斯兰教  全球化  政体  石油  地缘

一、中东诸多问题的关键和核心枢纽是巴勒斯坦问题，但该问题短期内难以峰回路转，很可能要继续绵延半个世纪。

（一）布什政府匆忙撮合的中东和会象征意义大于实际意义。由美国主办、为期一天的中东和会于2007年11月27日在马里兰州首府安纳波利斯举行。从形式上看，这是自1991年马德里和会以来规模最大的中东问题国际会议，和会由美国总统布什提议召开，以色列、巴勒斯坦民族权力机构、中东问题有关四方以及巴以周边国家等40多个国家、地区和国际组织的代表与会。布什先是宣读巴以先前达成的联合宣言，称巴以定于今年12月12日正式开启和谈，预期在2008年底前就巴以间的重大问题达成协议。尽管有关各方高调表态，但考虑到种种制约因素，有关方面对中东和会以及巴以重启和谈的过高期待是很不现实的。布什政府在任7年来，一直没有真正重视解决巴勒斯坦问题，而目前作为摆脱中东困局的策应，布什政府仓促撮合中东问题国际会议，尽管这一举动有值得肯定的积极面，但会议只是布什政府以及有关方面的政治秀，对此次布什政府谢幕前的匆忙举动不宜抱过高期望，重启之后的巴以和谈何去何从还要拭目以待。国际社会真正重拾中东和谈机制与框架恐怕要等到2009年美国新总统上台后再行观察。巴勒斯坦问题充满复杂性。中东问题包括巴勒斯坦问题、以色列同阿拉伯国家之间的争端两个内容，核心是巴勒斯坦问题。巴勒斯坦位于亚洲西部地中海沿岸，该地区充满传奇但又多灾多难。在这里，犹太人和巴勒斯坦人本是有共同祖先的亲兄弟；耶路撒冷是世界三大宗教的圣地。二战后，四次大规模中东战争都与该问题有关联，并给地区民众造成惨重损失和巨大创伤。人们对和平望眼欲穿，充满期待，但中东和平进程绵延至今，举步艰难。总体看，以2001年初美国和以色列政府相继更替为标注，20世纪90年代以来的巴以关系发展实际被划分为两个阶段，即取得重大成就的大发展阶段和新世纪初以来陷入冲突、倒退和停滞的阶段。巴以和平进程从1991年以来取得一些重要成果，但其中最棘手最关键的问题如耶路撒冷最终地位问题、难民问题、边界问题、犹太人定居点问题以及水资源问题等远未解决。2000年9月以色列利库德集团领袖沙龙冒然闯入耶路撒冷的穆斯林清真寺引发的大规模冲突绵延数年，至今巴以双方恨意绵绵，仇视心理强烈。几年来，1993年奥斯陆协议签订以来的各种谈判机制和框架实际上已经被搁置，巴以和平进程实际上已经因近年来巴以持续冲突与仇恨、以色列的单方面行动以及巴以政局变化而死亡。

（二）掣肘巴以和谈的客观棘手问题。观察巴以局势发展一定要注意看其实质和历史，拘泥于一时一事的发展变化往往影响对巴以时局总体趋势的判断。涉及到难民回归、边界划分、耶路撒冷最终地位、定居点拆除、水资源分配等等一系列关键问题，巴以一贯归于缁铢必较。从历史经验看，即使达成一些协议，协议实施起来依旧障碍重重，巴方的极端组织和以方的右翼或极右翼势力总能找到理由或方法使之流产或夭折，最后不了了之。布什政府严重偏袒以色列的政策、以色列政府的不稳定性、巴方内部的协调程度等诸多问题，也都是影响和谈的重要因素，布什政府在该问题上的超脱和严重偏袒是导致极端势力袭击美国的重要因素之一。边界划分和水资源分配。阿拉伯国家一直要求以色列遵守联合国第242号和338号决议，以“土地换和平”，要求以1967年战争以前的巴以边界线作为标准，要求以色列严格履行奥斯陆协议和“路线图”计划，以色列前总理沙龙的单边行动计划只能是“路线图计划”和奥斯陆协议的一个进程和组成部分，而不是全部。而从沙龙的观点看，以色列至多希望顺利履行“单边行动计划”，即交还加沙全部和约旦河西岸50%左右的土地，比巴实际要求的领土要少一半左右。而回溯2000年戴维营谈判时，当时的以总理巴拉克曾答应出让约旦河西岸96%的土地，阿拉法特当时慑于国内压力和一些阿拉伯大国的反对而没有签字；目前的形势下，现任巴民族权力机构主席阿巴斯更不会签字画押。耶路撒冷最终地位问题。该城作为犹太人和阿拉伯人的宗教圣地，双方都有各自强硬立场。尽管该城市被以实际控制，但巴勒斯坦和阿拉伯人一直要求获得其应得的领土和宗教权利。伊斯兰教在耶城统治时间长，从公元七世纪到上个世纪犹太人大批返回前，在此生活了一千多年的阿拉伯人和其他穆斯林已将耶城变成了一个完全阿拉伯化的城市。19世纪以来，随着犹太人从世界各地大批返回巴勒斯坦，他们同住在这里的阿拉伯人为争夺土地和宗教权益的斗争也愈演愈烈。1947年11月联合国决议规定耶城国际化。1948年英国委任统治结束，以色列宣布建国，阿拉伯国家强烈反对，第一次阿以战争爆发。战争结束后，停火线将耶城一分为二，以色列控制了耶城西部和南部的部分地区，约旦占领了老城及其以北和以南地区。1950年以迁都至耶城以占领区。1967年中东战争后，以占领了约旦控制区，耶城重新统一。后来以一直宣布耶城为其永久和不可分割的首都，但国际社会包括美国在内迄今对此不予承认。1988年11月巴勒斯坦也宣布建立耶路撒冷为首都的独立国家。由于耶城问题错综复杂，1993年9月，巴、以双方达成原则宣言，规定耶城归属问题留待最终谈判时解决。但以历届政府一直在谋求实现“大耶路撒冷”计划，并付诸于一系列具体行动，致使解决耶路撒冷问题的进程一再严重受阻。据报道奥尔默特2007年10月15日暗示他可能愿意分割耶路撒冷，这是他第一次公开发出信号，愿意与巴分享这一历史名城，但实际发展可能不顺利、不简单。巴难民回归问题。400多万巴难民的回归问题几乎一直是巴以和谈中不可逾越的关键所在。以惧怕巴难民回归被占领土后，犹太人和巴勒斯坦人的人口比例将会发生颠覆性变化，因此坚持巴难民在所在国就地安置，以对其做出补偿，实际剥夺了其回归权。这是巴方所一直拒绝的。犹太人定居点问题。沙龙的“单边行动计划”将撤出加沙地带的全部定居点以及约旦河西岸的部分次要定居点，但以不会撤出西岸地区的许多重要定居点，而是继续在约旦河西岸修建定居点让从加沙地带撤出来的犹太人居住，引起巴方强烈不满。

（三）巴以内部都面临反对势力，决策层面临重重阻力。巴内部的哈马斯、杰哈德等激进组织的斗争方式和策略有所改变，但其设定的民族解放目标不会有多大改变，它们今后继续袭击以的可能仍是存在的，而一旦袭击连续发生往往就破坏和谈。巴内部斗争激烈。2007年2月8日，巴勒斯坦两大主要派别法塔赫（巴民族解放运动）和哈马斯（伊斯兰抵抗运动）在沙特阿拉伯麦加正式签署“麦加协议”，双方就建立民族联合政府、新政府政治纲领和重建巴勒斯坦解放组织（巴解组织）等问题达成一致。但好景不长，2007年6月，巴勒斯坦内部哈马斯和法塔赫发生严重火并，巴民族权力机构主席、法塔赫领导人阿巴斯宣布解散民族联合政府，组建紧急内阁并受到美等西方国家的支持。尽管两个派别都拒绝宣布单独建国、不敢承担分裂国家的责任，但巴勒斯坦内部事实形成两大派别各自为政的局面。在以色列内部，同样存在强大的反和谈、反让步的政治派别和民众。犹太圣经联盟、移民党、沙斯党、“以色列是我们的家园”等许多反和派别立场非常保守。2007年11月27日中东和会后，以色列的利库德集团也反对向巴方作出任何让步，并号召沙斯党和“以色列是我们的家园”退出联合政府。沙斯党和“以色列是我们的家园”分别控制12个和11个议席。如两党退出，奥尔默特领导的联合政府在120个议席中将只控制55个，政府即可再次面临不稳定问题。以副总理兼工业贸易部长伊沙伊已经表示，如果奥尔默特在耶路撒冷问题上向巴方让步，他所在的沙斯党将退出联合政府。20多万定居者多数反对拆除定居点，且其活动能力非常大。而如巴勒斯坦一样，目前的以色列同样缺乏一个强势政府和威望很高的领导人，在关键时刻做出决断并左右局势发展。美国受制于国内犹太人势力以及美国与以色列的战略盟友关系，不可能对以色列真正施加强大压力、公正解决巴勒斯坦问题。阿拉伯国家的作用不大，有时产生负面影响。从表面上看，阿拉伯国家都对巴以局势紧张深表焦虑，但出于争取美援、显示本国在中东影响力等考虑，个别阿拉伯国家内心里并不愿该问题尽快彻底解决。2000年7月和12月，在克林顿极力撮合巴以和谈即将取得突破的时期，阿拉法特和巴拉克也想一鼓作气，争取取得重大进展。当时，以总理巴拉克的让步是空前的、至今也是绝后的，但阿拉法特正是因为顾忌一些阿拉伯大国的警告而退缩了。  

（四）中东问题的最终解决还是要走和平之路。犹太人和阿拉伯人都是闪族，有共同祖先，有基因、历史和语言等多种基础，尤其他们之间的血缘联系源远流长。阿拉伯人在19世纪末对前来移居的少量犹太人友好相待，历史上的阿拉伯人也并未因宗教信仰差异而虐待待犹太人。近代和现代的积怨造成了犹太人把部分曾经的苦难加在巴勒斯坦人身上，这是有失公平和公正的。从现实角度看，巴以双方都要作出痛苦妥协才是关键，对此双方上下都要保持理性。巴方民众真心盼望和平，但巴方民众应当理性地看到，完全坚持联合国有关决议、不能有丝毫动摇目前看是不现实的，从以方看，一味坚守利己不利他的所谓底线、拒不作出实质妥协也是行不通的。贯彻和平政策和实现和平需要大智大勇的新思维，用超常的胆识和谈判思想，用理智和务实的高屋建瓴态度，思考和解决中东问题并实现国家的政治民主和经济繁荣。阿拉法特生前的某些思维有要调整的地方，但他的主流和威信都是不可抹杀的。阿巴斯务实理性，认识到和平建国的可贵，在实现中东和平问题上有自己的见解和远见，但他的理想和目标实现，需要来自激进组织，还有美国、以色列、阿拉伯国家和国际社会等多个方面的配合，但目前看这样的好牌局还无法出现。

二、领土、领水纠纷与民族矛盾盘根错节，短期内无法克服。

第一、领土争端严重并与民族矛盾交织。殖民主义者曾在其殖民统治区采取“分而治之”等政策，给中东留下严重隐患。伊朗与伊拉克、伊朗与阿联酋、沙特与卡塔尔、卡塔尔与巴林、埃及与苏丹、摩洛哥与西班牙、也门与厄立特里亚、叙利亚与以色列、黎巴嫩与以色列等国家之间均存在领土纠纷，不少国家曾经因领土问题而兵戎相见。目前，少数领土争端已基本解决，部分悬而未决但有所缓和，部分仍处于僵持状态。巴勒斯坦人与犹太人、塞浦路斯岛上希腊与土耳其两族之间、库尔德族与其他民族之间以及苏丹达尔富尔地区不同种族之间的矛盾也都与领土要求交织在一起，解决起来异常困难。阿拉伯人与犹太人的矛盾实质是领土问题，领土问题贯穿巴以争端、叙以争端和黎以争端。约旦与以色列1994年签署和平条约后，双方已经进行了边界划分。巴以边界划分相当棘手，由于领土划分直接涉及两族在巴勒斯坦土地上的生存或生活，双方斗争异常激烈，谈判异常艰苦。叙以之间的领土争端相对简单，主要涉及戈兰高地的归属问题，但两国谈判2000年中断后一直未恢复。鉴于黎巴嫩与叙利亚的特殊关系，黎以谈判与叙以谈判仍基本保持同步。以色列巴拉克政府2000年5月执行联合国425号决议、以军从黎巴嫩南部撤军后，黎以领土争端基本获得解决，但萨巴阿农场归属未确定，以色列坚持认为该地属于叙利亚，要将其移交给叙，而黎巴嫩坚持对该地的主权归属。塞浦路斯问题是英国殖民主义造成的历史遗留问题。英国殖民者统治塞岛的80多年里，利用了岛上的希腊和土耳其两族的矛盾，两族的分歧也反映了希腊和土耳其两国在塞问题上的矛盾。多年来，经多方斡旋，两族举行了多轮会谈，但双方在安全、领土、财产及权力分配等问题上依然存在很大分歧，该问题短期内无法解决。库尔德问题近来明显升温，土耳其在此问题上态度趋于强硬。库尔德民族分布在土耳其、伊朗、叙利亚、伊拉克等国，涉及库尔德人、波斯人、阿拉伯人以及突厥人等多个种族，库尔德人一直想在其聚居地区建立独立的民族国家，但由于复杂的历史与现实原因，这一愿望难以实现。由于苏丹边界是十九世纪欧洲列强瓜分非洲和实行殖民统治时人为划定，苏丹达尔富尔地区的不少部落曾被划到不同的国家。20世纪70年代，达尔富尔地区发生干旱，来自该地区北部甚至乍得等邻国的阿拉伯游牧部落大批迁徙至达尔富尔中南部地区以寻找草场和水源，致使当地人口过度膨胀，阿拉伯移民与当地非洲黑人部落之间因争夺土地和水源而发生的冲突明显增多。近年来，伴随该地区的石油开发，部族之间争夺资源的斗争日趋激烈，一些邻国也以各种形式卷入其中。可以说，达尔富尔问题背后涉及复杂，它是水土资源匮乏、部族冲突、宗教矛盾、地区被边缘化、中央与地方的关系和受南方内战影响等多方面因素作用的结果。

第二，水资源争端也非常复杂。中东地区幅员辽阔但严重缺水，水资源只占世界总量的0.4%。该地区有三个主要水系：两河水系、尼罗河水系和约旦河水系。伴随该地区水源供需矛盾日益突出，水资源纷争进一步加剧。两河均发源于土耳其东部山地，流经土耳其、伊朗、叙利亚和伊拉克四国，四国关系一直微妙，土耳其在该问题占据主动。非洲的尼罗河流经9个国家，埃及和欲与其共享该河水资源的上游国家之间矛盾丛生，其中与埃塞俄比亚和苏丹之间的矛盾一度比较突出。约旦河的水量虽然只有尼罗河的1%，但它是巴勒斯坦地区唯一的水源，也是阿以冲突的焦点之一，巴勒斯坦、黎巴嫩、约旦同以色列围绕该河水源利用问题进行过殊死斗争和艰苦谈判。叙以谈判最为棘手的问题也包括太巴列湖水资源争执。苏丹达尔富尔是苏丹经济发展水平最落后的地区，当地居民多从事家庭畜牧业。达尔富尔地区的气候由北向南呈现出由热带沙漠气候向热带草原气候过渡的特征，降水量也从北向南逐渐递增，这是当地居民争夺水土资源的重要自然因素。

三、中东充满着复杂的宗教和教派纠纷，鉴于宗教问题的长期性积淀和发展，许多问题根深蒂固、盘根错节、历史久远，几乎无法得以解决。

（一）犹太教与伊斯兰教、伊斯兰教与基督教之间存有矛盾。中东是犹太教、基督教和伊斯兰教等三大宗教的发源地。耶路撒冷位于巴勒斯坦中部，面积只有158平方公里，人口约65万。其历史最早可以追溯到4000年前，作为三大宗教的圣地，耶路撒冷地位问题已经超出了普通的领土范畴。犹太教、基督教、伊斯兰教的起源及传播都与耶路撒冷有着千丝万缕的联系。由于各宗教与耶城关联密切，甚至有些宗教圣迹已有些难分彼此了，如著名的“神庙山”上有一块巨石，犹太教称它是亚伯拉罕杀长子以撒祭献上帝耶和华之地；基督教则称该处是上帝捏土造人的地方；伊斯兰教则称此石是先知穆罕默德由天使陪同登霄的踏脚石，穆斯林为此还于后来在此建筑了著名的萨赫莱清真寺和阿克萨清真寺。伊斯兰教内部如逊尼派、什叶派、苏菲派等派别之间也矛盾重重。在伊拉克，萨达姆统治以逊尼派为基础，其被推翻后什叶派获得参政和平等权利，两者今后的争端还将继续发展。多数阿拉伯国家的穆斯林是逊尼派。什叶派穆斯林在伊朗、伊拉克居多，但海湾国家也生活着大量的什叶派穆斯林，所以1979年以来海湾和其它阿拉伯国家对伊朗的什叶派教义输出抱有警惕。伊斯兰教什叶派与逊尼派之间的矛盾是导致发生两伊战争的重要因素之一；极端的原教旨主义组织与伊斯兰温和派别之间的矛盾常常导致国内政局动荡。黎巴嫩的教派结构是一个非常典型的例证。黎是阿拉伯国家中唯一的由穆斯林和基督教徒两大类居民组成的国家，其中穆斯林又分为什叶派、逊尼派和德鲁兹派。黎巴嫩全国只有1.04万平方公里面积、400多万人口，在1975-1990年内战时期却曾有分属于两大宗教派别的100多个党派团体、30多支民兵武装和数十家电台。目前，该国的教派分歧依然非常明显，西方国家、伊朗、叙利亚等国某种程度上也是通过支持与其相近的教派影响该国局势发展，2006年的黎巴嫩真主党与以色列之间的战争就是非常明显的例证，近年来黎巴嫩发生的一系列暗杀事件据分析与外部影响有关。

（二）伊斯兰教需要改革，但伊斯兰世界内部堪当宗教改革的领袖人物难以出现。伊斯兰教自诞生至今并未接受过深层次的宗教改革，历史经历与现实发展证明，包括伊斯兰原教旨主义在内的伊斯兰社会需要从内核上主动进行类似于16世纪欧洲基督教推行的宗教改革，进一步融入适应现代社会发展的新理念。未来伊斯兰教的生命力在很大程度上要看其理论家、思想家和宗教上层领袖能否以高屋建瓴锐利视角和胆识，开创性地对《古兰经》做出新的解释，增添新的现代社会内容。但是，要出现类似超越于国家和民族之上、具备远见卓识的伊斯兰宗教权威和前瞻人士决非易事。现有的伊斯兰思想家更多强调当代社会对伊斯兰教的背离，在一些妇女地位、人口控制等涉及人类和社会发展的重大问题上态度非常保守。伊斯兰教呼唤具备崇高威信和能力的改革领袖人物，推动伊斯兰社会的宗教和社会改革，使之最终融入现代社会发展洪流，并最终具备自我发育和自我发展能力。例如，推动土耳其世俗化现代化先河的国父基马尔，再往后有埃及的纳赛尔、萨达特。叙利亚、伊拉克尽管仍面临诸多问题，但这些国家的世俗化已做得较好。

现代土耳其是凯末尔按照西欧国家社会模式建立的，实行政教分离，同时保留文化传统，允许伊斯兰教在私人生活领域发挥作用。从国家建立至今，一方面现代文明和欧洲的民族主义思想加快了土民族认同和现代化进程，另一方面伊斯兰文明又在占人口绝大大多数的群众中发挥着巨大影响。长期以来土就是一个复杂的对立统一体，但土在处理现代与传统、宗教与改革之间的多样性问题上较好地保持了统一性和稳定性，保持着它“世俗的国家，信教的民族”的平衡特征：努力促进民族传统文化的认同，同时又以西方改革模式加入全球政治、经济和社会发展进程。在世俗化和现代化的主流发展方向指引下，土取得了良好的经济和社会发展业绩而发展成为中上等发展中国家。国父凯末尔奠定了土耳其的世俗化基石和现代化方向，军方也努力维护凯末尔思想，国家发展大势不会轻易被撼动。伊斯兰要迎头赶上现代文明，这种有清醒头脑的现代精英是必不可少的。但当前实际分裂的伊斯兰世界依然缺乏类似的改革领袖。既然伊斯兰内部暂时无法出现这样的改革领袖，靠外部强加和推动改革并非好的选择。布什政府试图在几年内催生“民主、自由”并实现彻底的宗教融合并不现实，甚至是遥不可及的缘木求鱼式设计。涉及宗教和文化方面的热点问题在未来很长时期内会持续影响地区局势，特别是美国不合时宜、没有理由地抛出所谓“文明冲突论”并在一定程度上付诸实施，将导致美国与该地区国家在一定时期内的对立与对抗。

（三）客观看待伊斯兰原教旨主义的影响。当代伊斯兰原教旨主义是对当今世界政治与经济、宗教与文化具有举足轻重影响的重要思潮，它强调遵循建筑在伊斯兰教法基础上的政治主张，认为国家和社会都必须以伊斯兰法作为合法性基础，除真主外没有别的政治合法性根源。伊斯兰原教旨主义以伊斯兰法为衡量一切的标准，要求严格遵循伊斯兰教初创时期的原旨教义和传统，将伊斯兰教的本原精神视作推动宗教复兴和社会改良的动力，使社会生活全面伊斯兰教化，最终消除腐败和各种外来异端学说，清除西方腐朽文化和生活方式的污染，重建以伊斯兰教法为基础，以古代麦地那哈里发国家为楷模的理想伊斯兰国家、社会和秩序。需要指出的是，一些伊斯兰原教旨主义者只是主张回归伊斯兰教本原教义，但反对极端主义和恐怖主义，实际上原教旨主义、极端主义和恐怖主义是不同的概念，对此要注意区分。劝导与革命是温和与激进的两种原教旨主义派别实现伊斯兰的两种道路。温和的伊斯兰原教旨主义派别一般主张通过公众压力促使统治者做出让步，进而推动伊斯兰改革。作为激进原教旨主义的极端派别，伊斯兰极端主义是伊斯兰教政治化最突出的表现形式。它主张以伊斯兰教为旗帜，以穆斯林极端分子组成的社团或组织为基础，以极端的暴力手段达到其净化信仰、排除异己、确立正义的目的，最终建立伊斯兰教法统治下的政教合一的“伊斯兰国家”和不受地域限制的统一的“伊斯兰社会”。

伊斯兰原教旨主义是当代文化现代化、世俗世界观与伊斯兰传统文化、宗教世界观之间紧张状态的产物。它在感官上排斥源自西方的现代化，却又接受工具现代化，其行事理念和方式存在矛盾。其主张代替不了实际生活中的政治学说和经济政策，更无法解决当代社会和经济发展中提出的许多新问题。面对全球化下的经济与科学加速发展态势，在寻找适当发展模式问题上原教旨主义无所作为。从表面上看，伊斯兰原教旨主义的出现和发展是目前全球化进程中令人困惑不满的现象和非理性结果之一。其实，因其高调标榜维护本土传统文化和核心宗教价值观，注意迎合中下层穆斯林群众要求改变不良现实、实现社会正义的愿望和要求，因而在伊斯兰世界具有广泛的群众基础。当前和今后，只要政治腐败、领土纠纷、贫富悬殊、经济停滞和教育落后等问题没有解决，伊斯兰原教旨主义就要凭借其迷惑性而继续发挥影响和作用。既然伊斯兰原教旨主义属于社会现象、民众心理和政治问题范畴，就必须相应采取政治和社会手段对症下药、标本兼治，逐步消除极端主义的孳生土壤，单纯采取军事手段只能激化矛盾。只有深刻反思并切实处理好不同民族、不同文化传统之间的诸多矛盾与问题，建立一个相对平衡和公正的国内经济与社会体系，建立公平合理的国际政治经济新秩序，伊斯兰原教旨主义才最终不再成为一个问题，而逐步退出历史舞台。

四、受到政治发育程度、经济发展水平、各类矛盾交织等因素影响，在全球化大潮和大国干预面前，中东国家自身的力量有限。

第一，各国政体复杂多样，现代政治发育并不完整，经济和社会发展不平衡。二战前，多数中东国家的政体是君主专制和君主立宪制。战后，许多原来的君主制国家转而实行资产阶级共和制，但不少国家的共和政体仍带有比较浓厚的传统历史色彩、宗教色彩并实行事实上的总统终身制。政治体制比较完善的代议制民主国家如以色列和土耳其，其它政体还有君主立宪制、君主专制制及酋长制等。子承父业、弟承兄业的政权延续方式仍在许多中东地区国家存在。中东的近代和现代史多次表明，政治制度发育相对不成熟容易引发局势动荡，容易出现集权统治者个人。如果统治者治理成功则在一定时期内推动国家发展和地区稳定，否则其统治方式易给国家带来发展延宕，个别地区霸权主义者历史上还曾多次给中东带来动荡。在经济发展方面，中东地区许多国家缺乏激励发展的内生机能和科技创新能力，经济结构比较单一，过于依赖能源支撑，缺乏发展后劲。同时，不少国家的社会问题严重，腐败成风，经济发展失衡，贫富悬殊，两极分化严重，越来越多的人把原教旨主义视为实现“社会公正”的希望和出路，原教旨主义势力趁机煽动宗教狂热，不断采取暴力恐怖活动，导致国内政局不稳。

第二，地区国家无法形成反抗大国介入的统一阵营和合力。目前以伊朗为核心，伊斯兰教什叶派阵营已经在美国的高压下形成并进一步增强凝聚力，但今后以美国为首的西方对伊朗政策存在重大调整的迫切性和可能性，由于布什政府的强烈敌视而结成的中东反美阵营不会长期维系。实际上，伊朗、叙利亚、苏丹等国内心也都希望与美国缓和关系，并与之实现关系正常化、借机融入国际社会，它们并不愿意与美国为敌。只要美国政府改变敌视政策，这些国家与美国的关系短期内将出现较大幅度缓和，2000年美国与伊朗关系明显转暖，克林顿政府已经考虑与伊朗实现关系正常化问题了。阿拉伯国家联盟的存在和团结更多具有象征意义。22个阿拉伯国家的利益取向各异，内部矛盾重重，无法形成整体合力，伊斯兰会议组织50多个成员国也存在类似情况。从总体上看，大多数中东地区国家在经济发展、政治制度、宗教信仰、种族差异等许多方面存在或这或那的缺陷和不足，在全球化浪潮和国际体系分工中处于边缘地位，尤其是诸多难以克服的深刻矛盾涉及绝大多数地区国家。这些因素都导致中东地区国家无法形成与大国进行讨价还价的实力与合力，容易被外部大国利用矛盾、各个击破，它们长期操纵地区局势，引发地区热点此起彼伏、地区局势持续动荡。

五、能源因素与地缘因素仍将长期存在并引发大国对中东的觊觎和争夺。第一，丰富的能源储备成为吸引外部因素介入的重大因素之一。世界能源的不可再生性及其地缘分布的严重失衡，使能源因素成为各国制定对外政策和处理外交关系的重要参考要素之一。中东是当今世界最主要、最大的石油供应基地，有“世界油库”和“石油海洋”之称。中东石油蕴藏量之丰、油质之好、开采成本之低、运输之便捷，令世界其他地区难以望其项背。中东地区95%以上的油田储量超过5亿桶，属较大油田，储量在10亿桶以上的大油田有38个，储量在50亿桶以上的特大油田有15个。中东石油储量的98.3%集中在海湾及其周围100万平方公里范围内。中东石油的探明储量占世界总量的62%，仅沙特、伊朗、伊拉克、科威特和阿联酋等国的探明储量就分别占世界的22%、11%、9.7% 、8.3%和 8.2%。2004年底，全球天然气探明储量为180亿立方米，中东占40.6%，世界石油储采比至少可维持50年以上（中东为90多年）。中东的石油不仅是阿拉伯经济的命脉，也是西方经济高速发展的重要支柱，同时在很大程度上制约着本地区政局的变化和国家间的关系。美国、西欧和日本对海外石油的依存度分别为51%、60%、99%。其中美国25%、欧洲60%、日本80%的石油进口都来自中东。“9·11”事件以来，美国对外政策激变、地区形势动荡、世界经济发展强劲、产油国形势不稳、国际投机商炒作等诸多因素，使国际石油价格从2001年初的10多美元/桶骤然攀升到2007年的接近100美元/桶。但总体看，国际石油储备充足，并不存在石油枯竭一说，国际石油价格其实深受美国对外政策影响。如美国的新政府调整对外政策，则在2010年前后国际油价仍有望大幅度回落到40美元左右/桶（按照2003年美元汇率）。但无论石油价格高低，大国都不会放松对中东石油的高度关注。第二，重要的地理位置一向为大国所觊觎和争夺。中东地区是亚欧非三洲的接合部，地理位置非常显眼而重要，且正好位于东半球大陆的中心，素有“五海三洲之地”之称。中东周围环绕着黑海、地中海、红海、阿拉伯海、里海和波斯湾等国际海域，这些海域大大便利了中东与世界各地的联系。沟通上述海域的博斯普鲁斯海峡、达达尼尔海峡、苏伊士运河、曼德海峡和霍尔木兹海峡等，是重要的国际航道，也是扼守这些航道的重要门户。中东地区这种适中、临海的地理位置，使之成为沟通大西洋和印度洋、东方和西方的十字路口，是从欧洲经西亚到北非的联系纽带，从而在世界政治、经济、军事方面具有十分重要的战略地位，历来为兵家所必争。 

部分参考文章：

杨鸿玺文章《大中东的动态相持特征继续发展》，载2007年12月10日人民网—国际频道。

杨鸿玺文章《美国的中东政策与中东时局发展——对当前中东形势的几点思考》，载2005年第2期《西亚非洲》。

杨鸿玺文章《土耳其—一个独特的发展中个案》，载云南大学国际关系学院2002年《亚洲论坛》。

2007年02月9日新华网文章《法塔赫和哈马斯正式签署“麦加协议” 》。

杨鸿玺文章《一超多強争夺，中东路在何方？》，载2005年9月27日香港中国评论网 http://www.chinareviewnews.com。

高峰文章《中东的液体黄金》，载2007年第15期《物理教学探讨》。

马永红，张葵叶文章《我国油田企业提升国际竞争力的紧迫性》，载2007年1月《集团经济研究》。

常泽鲲 李新华文章《美国“倒萨”的战略意图》，载2003年第3期《西亚非洲》。   

杨鸿玺文章《冷静面对国际油价走势》，载2008年1月10日《中国经济时报》。

作者 杨鸿玺 系 中国当代世界研究中心研究员、牛津大学伊斯兰研究中心客座研究员、中国和平与发展研究中心特约研究员，中国亚非学会理事、中国中东学会理事

（2008年2月截稿），发表于2008年中国社会科学院西亚非洲所《西亚非洲》第7期,发前略有改动。

Observation on the Internal Factors Affecting the Middle East Situation

Yang Hongxi

Research Fellow，China Center for Contemporary World Studies

 The fierce rivaling between superpowers during the Cold War and the involvement and intervention of big countries such as the US, Russia, EU, and Japan after the Cold War are crucial factors leading to the turmoil in the Middle East, but the energy reserve, geographical location, political operation, territorial and water disputes, and ethnic and religious conflicts constitute important internal factors affecting the situation of this region. The long-term interference of external forces has made the internal factors more complicated, while the evolution and changes of the internal factors also provide an excuse for further intervention by external forces. From a long-term perspective, deep reflection of countries in this region and their unity are crucial for peace and development in the Middle East. 

 I.                  Unique and critical natural conditions are tempting.Rich oil reserve here is one of the objective factors attracting the intervention of external elements. The Middle East is the most important and biggest basis for oil supply in the world today, renowned as the world oil depot and sea of oil. The large reserve and high quality of oil, low cost of exploration, and convenient transportation make it unrivaled by any other region on the whole globe. Over 95% of the oil fields in this region are big ones that have above 500 million barrels in reserve, including 38 with a deposit of over 1billion barrels and 15 super oil fields with a deposit of over 5 billion barrels each. 98.3% of this rich oil reserve concentrates in the Persian Gulf and the 1million square kilometer circumjacent areas around it. The proven oil deposit in this region makes up 62% of the world total, and the share of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates to the global total is 22%, 11%, 9.7%, 8.3% and 8.2% respectively. By the end of the year 2004, the proven deposit of global natural gas was 18 billion cubic meters, with the Middle East taking 40.6%. The existing petroleum reserve-production ratio of the world can last at least 50 years (90 years for the Middle East). Oil in this region is not only the lifeline of the Arab economy, but also an important pillar underpinning the fast economic growth of the west. 25% of American oil import comes from the Middle East, while this figure for Europe and Japan is 60% and 80% respectively. After 9.11, the drastic changes of America’s foreign policy, turbulence of regional situation, strong momentum of global economic development, instability of the situation of oil producers, and the driving of international speculators have led to the rocketing of oil prices from just over US $10 per barrel in early 2001 to nearly US $100 per barrel in 2007. However, generally speaking, the world has sufficient oil reserve, and there is no oil depletion. In fact, world oil price is deeply influenced by America’s foreign policy. If the upcoming American Administration readjusts its foreign policy, the international oil price is likely to fall back to US $30 to US $40 a barrel by around 2010. Whether the oil price is high or low, big countries will never set their eyes off oil reservoir in the Middle East.  The Middle East’s geographical location which is of important strategic value also makes it tempting for big countries to rival with each other. As the convergence of the three continents of Asia, Europe and Africa, this region enjoys outstanding geographical importance. Lying in the center of the continent of the Eastern Hemisphere, it is known as a place connecting five seas and three continents. The international waters like the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the Arab Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Persian Gulf surrounding this region facilitate its contacts with all parts of the world. The Strait of Bosporus, the Dardanelles Strait, the Suez Canal, the Mandab Strait, and the Strait of Hormuz that connect these waters are important international passages, constituting critical gateways. Such a central and coastal geographical position puts the Middle East at the crossroad linking the Atlantic with the Indian Ocean, making it the bond from Europe to North Africa across West Asia. Therefore, this region has important strategic position from world political, economic, and military perspective, and has always been a focus of attention for military strategists. 

II.               There are complex religious and sectarian disputes. This region is riddled with complicated religious contradictions. Conflicts exist between Judaism and Islam and between Islam and Christianity. The Middle East is the birthplace of three major religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem lies in the middle of Palestine, the earliest history of which can be traced back to 4000 years ago. As it is the holy site of these three religions, the issue of Jerusalem’s position has gone beyond the ordinary territorial scope. The start and spread of all these religions are closely related to this place, making it hard to distinguish the holy relics of some religions. For example, there is a big rock on Temple Mount. According to Judaism, it is where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his eldest son Isaac to the Lord God; while Christians believe it is where God created man with soil; yet Muslims maintain that it is the stepping-stone from which the Prophet Mohammed, accompanied by angels, ascended to heaven and for this reason they built the famous Al Sakhra Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque. Apart from this, internal contradictions also exist among the six sects of Islam such as the Sunni, the Shi’ah and the Sufiyyah. The contradiction between the Sunni and the Shi’ah is an important reason behind the war between Iran and Iraq. The conflicts between extremist organizations and the moderate also cause political turbulence quite often. In Iraq, Saddam’s ruling was mainly based on Sunnites support, while the Shiites got the right of equal participation in the government after the Saddam Administration was toppled, but the disputes between the two will continue. Population of most of the Arab states are Sunnite Muslims, whereas in Iran and Iraq Shiites are the majority. There also lives a large Shiite community in the Gulf states. Therefore, many Arab countries keep vigilance about the export of Shiite doctrine of Iran. Lebanon is a typical example of complicated sectarian structure. It is the only Arab nation where both Muslims and Christians have a big presence, and the Islam there is composed of the Shi’ah, the Sunni and the Daruziyyah. With a tiny area of 10,400 square kilometers and a total population of just over 4 million, Lebanon was home to more than 100 political parties and groups, over 30 militias, and dozens of radio stations, belonging to two major religions during its civil war between 1975 to 1980. Even today the sectarian divergences of this country are still very outstanding, and situation still volatile.  The influence of Islamic fundamentalism should be viewed objectively. Contemporary Islamic fundamentalism is a school of thought that has great influence over the politics, economy, religion and culture of today’s world. It emphasizes on the observation of political principles established on the basis of the Sharia law and maintains that the legitimacy of the state and society should be based on the Sharia and that Allah is the only source of political legitimacy. The principle of this school of thought is to judge everything with Sharia and take the fundamentalist spirit of Islam as the driving force for religious rejuvenation and social transformation so as to comprehensively Islamize social life and ultimately eliminate corruption and other heresies, and iron out the erosion of decadent cultures and ways of life of the western world. It needs to be pointed out that Islamic fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism are different concepts. Some Islamic fundamentalists only call for a return to Islamic fundamentalism and oppose extremist violence, while the moderate sects usually urge the rulers to make concessions through public pressure so as to push ahead Islamic reform. As a manifestation of radical Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic extremism calls for extremist violence to achieve the goal of purifying the belief, excluding others and establishing justice, with the ultimate goal of establishing a Islamic country combining politics and religion under the rule of Sharia and a united “Islamic society” that is not restricted by boundaries. Islamic fundamentalism is the result of the tension between modern culture and secular world outlook on one hand and Islamic traditional culture and religious world outlook on the other. While repelling western modernization in sensory perception, it accepts modernization of tools and uses modern tools together with the rule of games made by themselves to fight against modernization and westernization, which is a self contradiction in their ideology and behavior. It opposes secularization which is the beginning of modernization, cutting the natural connection between modernization, secularization and western political ideologies. It tends to stifle innovation in modern society, delay national economic and social development. Its extremely conservative propositions cannot replace political theories and economic policies in real life, let alone solving many new problems cropping up in the process of economic and social development of the contemporary world. The development of Islamic fundamentalism appears to be an irrational phenomenon in the process of globalization, but it meets the aspiration and requirements among the middle and lower strata of the Islamic society to put an end to bad elements and achieve social justice, thus winning wide popular basis among the Islamic world. So long as problems such as political corruption, territorial disputes, polarization of wealth, economic stagnation and educational backwardness remain unsolved, Islamic fundamentalism will continue its influence. Islamic fundamentalism should be seen as not only a social phenomenon, but also a political issue, as well as a question of popular psychology. Relevant measures must be taken to address its root cause and symptoms. It is necessary to make a deep reflection of and properly handle the problems and contradictions among different nations and cultural traditions, establish comparatively fair international and domestic economic and social systems, and gradually eliminate the soil nurturing extremist sects. Simply adopting military means can only worsen the problem, and the assumption of so called clash of civilizations is only adding fuel on the fire, which will lead to opposite results.  It is hard to be optimistic about the prospects of Islamic reform because leaders that might usher in religious reform are difficult to find. Islam calls for leaders with high prestige and great capability who can promote religious and social reform in the Islamic society, ultimately enabling this religion to develop and improve itself. Islam, since its birth, has never undergone in-depth reform. History and today’s reality have proven that initiative should be taken within the Islamic society to begin a reform similar to the religious reform of Europe. It is necessary for Islamic leaders to make an innovative interpretation of the Koran, adding the content of the modern society so as to integrate it into the modern world. In spite of the number of problems faced by themselves, countries like Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Egypt have gone a long way in building a secular society, among which Turkey is a good example. Modern Turkey is established by Mustapha Kemal based on the social model of western countries. Since its establishment, modern civilization and European nationalist ideas have accelerated the national identity and modernization process of this country, while the Islamic civilization still has its profound influence among the majority of the people of this country. Turkey has well maintained its unity and stability in tackling issues of diversity such as the relations between modernity and tradition and between religion and reform, reserving its balance as a secular country with a religious nation and growing into a developing country above the average level. The founding father Kemel laid the secular basis and modernization direction for Turkey, whose idea is safeguarded by the Turkish military, making it difficult to change the country’s development tendency easily. Sober-minded national and social elites like Kemel are needed for Islam to catch up with modern civilization, but conditions for such people are not there in the Islamic world. Though there are no such religious leaders for the time within Islam, the imposition of reform from the outside is not a good choice. It is unrealistic for the Bush Administration to attempt to bring in “democracy and freedom” to Islam within years and achieve complete religious integration, which is nothing but a fruitless approach.  

III.           Territorial, water and national contradictions are interwoven. Territorial disputes and national contradictions are intertwined, which are hard to be overcome in a short period of time. The colonial policies adopted in the past such as “divide and rule” have left severe hidden troubles. Territorial disputes exist between Iran and Iraq, Iran and United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Qatar and Bahrain, Egypt and Sudan, Morocco and Spain, Yemen and Eritrea, Syria and Israel，Lebanon and Israel, for which many countries even resorted to war. By now only a number of territorial disputes have been basically solved, while some remain there but are moving towards relaxation, yet others are still in a stalemate. Conflicts between different peoples such as Palestinians and Jews, Greeks and Turks on the Cyprus Island, Kurds and other nationals, and different ethnic groups in Darfur of Sudan are intertwined with territorial demands, making it hard to settle. The contradiction between Arabs and Jews is essentially a territorial issue, which goes through Palestine-Israel dispute and that between Israel and Syria as well as Lebanon. Demarcation between Israel and Palestine is very hard to achieve, making their negotiation filled with difficulty. Territorial disputes between Syria and Israel is relatively simple, which concerns mainly the alignment of the Golan Heights, but the two countries’ negotiation has never been resumed since its suspension in 2000. Territorial disputes between Israel and Lebanon have been basically solved since Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 according to Resolution 435 of the United Nations, but leaving the alignment of Shebaa Farms undecided, with Israel insisting that it belongs to Syria yet Lebanon sticking to its claim of sovereign ownership. Cyprus is a historical issue caused by Britain colonists, who, during their 80 years of colonial rule, the British colonialists fomented discords by making use of the disputes between the Greeks and Turks on this island, leading to the stalemate of relations between Turkey and Greece. Despite rounds of negotiations, the two ethnic groups still have big divergences, which are hard to overcome in a short period of time. Recent years have also seen the escalation of the Kurdish issue, on which Turkey holds a tough position. The Kurds live in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq, and the issue involves the Kurds, Persians, Arabs and Turks. The Kurds have been expecting an independent nation state in areas where they are concentrated, but have failed to achieve that due to complicated historical and practical reasons. The issue of Darfur also has complex reasons behind, which is the result of the interaction between various factors such as tribal conflicts, religious disputes, the shortage of water and resources, the marginalization of this area, the relations between the central government and local authorities, and the impact of civil war in southern Sudan. The border of Sudan was artificially imposed by European powers in the 19th Century, resulting in quite a number of tribes finding themselves set apart in different countries. In the 1970s, the Arab nomads from the north of Darfur and from Sudan’s neighbours such as Chad migrated to the central and southern part of this region for grasslands and water resources, resulting in an obvious increase of conflicts between the Arab migrants and local African black tribes vying for land and water. With oil being explored in this region in recent years, the rivaling between different tribes for resources is becoming more fierce, even dragging in some of Sudan’s neighbouring countries in various forms.  The dispute over water resources in the Middle East is equally complicated. This region has a vast territory but is in severe shortage of water, the availability of which is only 0.4% of the world total. The Middle East has three major water systems: the Tigris-Euphrates system, the Nile system and the Jordan River system. The first one originates from the hilly land of eastern Turkey, and flows across Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq, making the relations among the four countries very delicate. The Nile of Africa flows across 9 countries, putting Egypt in contradiction with countries in the river’s upper reaches who hope to share this water. Although the flow of the Jordan River is only 1% of that of the Nile, it constitutes the only water source for the Palestine region, and is one of the focuses of tension of Arab-Israel conflict. Negotiation between Syria and Israel also involves the rivaling of Tiberias. The progressive increase of rainfall in Darfur from the north to the south is one important factor for local residents to vie for water and land resources. 

  IV． The Middle East lacks the capability to cope with globalization and interference of big powers.Due to the impact of the lagging of political development, low level of economic progress, and the intertwining contradictions, countries in the Middle East are very limited in their strength in front of globalization and intervention of world powers. First, the forms of state of countries in this region are very complicated, showing lagging of modern political development coupled with imbalanced economic and social development. Before World War II, monarchy or constitutional monarchy was prevalent among most of the Middle East countries, many of which moved to capitalist republican system after this war. In spite of such a transformation, the new system still embodies traditional historical and religious characteristics, with the de facto life-long presidency. While well-developed political systems such as parliamentary democracy is adopted in Israel and Turkey, and constitutional monarchy, autocratic monarchy, and sheikdom，are still maintained in some other countries. Father-to-son and elder-to-younger brother way of power succession can be seen in many countries of this region. Modern history of this region has presented a lot of evidence that relatively immature political system tends to result in political turmoil and produce totalitarians or dictators. These rulers, if governing successfully, will promote state development and regional stability in a period, otherwise will delay national development. Some individual regional hegemonism even brought turmoil to this region for many times. In terms of economic development, many countries in this region do not have the internal capability and scientific and technological capacity favorable for development. Their economic structure is relatively simple with too much dependence on energy, resulting in very limited development potential. At the same time, many countries are faced with serious social problems. The prevalence of corruption, imbalance of economic development, alarming gap between the rich and the poor, and polarization of wealth have turned many people onto the path of fundamentalism as the hope for “social justice”. Fundamentalist force has taken the opportunity to incite religious fanaticism, and ignite violent terrorist activities, destabilizing the domestic situation in their countries. Second, countries in this region cannot establish a united front and form a synergy against the interference of big powers. At present, a Shiah camp with Iran as its core has been formed under American pressure and its cohesion power is growing, however, the urgency and possibility of changes of policy over Iran by the west with the US as the lead determines that the anti-America camp of the Middle East formed due to the hostility of the Bush Administration will not last. As a matter of fact, countries like Iran, Syria, and Sudan all hope to ease tension with the US at heart, and to normalize relations with it so as to integrate themselves into the international community, rather than standing against America. So long as the American government changes its hostile policy, its relations with these countries can see great relaxation in a short period. For example, the year 2000 saw obvious detente between Iran and the US, and the Clinton Administration was already considering normalizing relations with Iran. The existence of the League of Arab States and the unity demonstrates are mostly symbolic. The diversified interests of 22 Arab states and mountainous contradictions among them make it hard for these countries to form a synergy, and it is the same with the 50 member states and more of the Organization of Islamic Conference. Generally speaking, most of the countries in the Middle East have shortcomings and defects in economic development, political system, religious belief or ethnic divergence. They fall to the margin in globalization and international division of labor and are faced with many deep-rooted contradictions which are hard to overcome. All these factors make it hard for these countries to gain the strength and synergy to bargain with world powers, who may exploit their contradictions and divide and conquer them one by one. The long-term control of big powers over the regional situation will only result in the cropping of hot-spot issues one after another and sustained turbulence in this region.  

V.               Core issues can hardly be solved in a short period to come.  The Palestine issue, which is a typical example reflecting complicated internal factors, and which represents the key to many other issues in this region, is very difficult to solve. Palestine lies on the coast of the Mediterranean in the west of Asia, a region filled with legends as well as disasters. The Palestinians and Jews were brothers from the same ancestors and Jerusalem is the holy land for three major religions in the world. Four large-scale wars in the Middle East after the end of World War II were all related to the Palestine issue, causing severe casualties on civilians. People here are desperately yearning for peace, but the long-running peace process is filled with difficulties. Taking the change of governments in the US and Israel in early 2001 as a landmark, we can divide Palestine-Israel relations from the 1990s into two stages, namely the boom stage with great achievements made and the stage of conflicts, recession and stagnation since the beginning of this century. In spite of some important outcomes obtained in the Palestine-Israel peace process since 1991, crucial issues like the ultimate status of Jerusalem, the issue of refugees, border between Palestine and Israel, the Jewish settlements and water resources fail to be solved. Large scale conflicts between the two sides ignited by the intrusion of Likud leader Ariel Sharon into mosque in Jerusalem in September 2000 lasted for years, resulting in strong hostility between the two peoples even today. In recent years, various negotiation mechanisms and documents formed since the signing of Oslo Agreement in 1993 have actually been put aside. The real reopening of negotiation might not come true until a new American president takes office in 2008. We cannot have too much expectation on the international conference on the Middle East presided by the US in November 2007.  The major internal reasons hindering Palestine-Israel peace talks. When observing the development of situation between Palestine and Israel, we must pay attention to its history and nature. The two sides show little compromise on crucial issues. The biased policy of the Bush Administration towards Israel, instability of the Israeli government, and the degree of coordination within the Palestinian side are also important factors affecting peace negotiation. The neglect of the Bush Administration on this issue and its bias towards Israel is an important fuse leading to the 9.11 incident. The following are the key issues concerning Palestine and Israel.  The issue of demarcation. The Arab states have been asking Israel to observe Resolutions 242 and 338 of the United Nations and implement the “land for peace” deal. They demand the fulfillment of the Oslo Agreement and the Roadmap Peace Plan based on the border between Palestine and Israel before the 1967 war, and regarded the unilateral plan of Sharon as a part of the Roadmap and the Oslo Agreement rather than the end of it. But Sharon only hopes to return the whole of Gaza Strip and 50% of the West Bank, which is less than half of the territory demanded by Palestine.  The ultimate status of Jerusalem. Despite the de facto control of this city by Israel, the Palestinians and Arabs have been claiming their due territorial and religious rights. Due to the complication of the issue of Jerusalem, Palestine and Israel reached a principle declaration in September 1993, agreeing that the ownership of Jerusalem shall be left for the final negotiation to decide. However, successive governments of Israel have been pursuing the Great Jerusalem plan, setting obstacles to the settlement process.  The return of Palestinian refugees. The return of over 4 million Palestinian refugees has always been an insurmountable question for the two sides. Fearing that the return of Palestinian refugees to their occupied land will bring about upheaval in the ratio between Jews and Palestinians, Israel insists that Palestinian refugees be settled in countries of their present residence, for which Israel will compensate. This has actually exploited the refugees’ right to return to their motherland and has been rejected by the Palestinian side.  The Jewish settlements. According to Sharon’s unilateral plan, Jewish settlements in Gaza and part of the less important settlements in the West Bank will be evacuated, while major settlements in the West Bank will be maintained and more will be built to accommodate Jews withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, which was rejected by the Palestinian side. Both the Palestinian and Israeli authorities face opposition forces in their own countries. Despite some changes in the way and tactics of struggle for radical Palestinian organizations like Hammas and Jihad, they are sill likely to continue their attacks against Israel, which once happens, will damage peace talks. There is also fierce struggle between different Palestinian factions. In February 2007, the two major factions in Palestine Fatah and Hammas signed the Mecca Agreement and reached consensus on the forming of a national unity government and the political programs of the new administration, but it did not last long. The following June saw the clash between the two. Abbas announced dissolution of the national unity government and formed an emergency cabinet that is supported by the west. Consequently, Palestine became divided with each the rivaling two factions controlling a part of the country. Similarly, there are strong forces against peace talks or compromise in Israel too. Many anti-negotiation parties like the United Torah Judaism, the Yisrael Ba’ Aliya, and the Shas Party are very conservative, and Likud is also against too much compromise towards Palestinians. Most of the over 200,000 settlers are against the disengagement action, and are very capable in organizing activities. At present the political heavyweights of both Palestine and Israel have stepped down from the stage of history, and current leaders are lacking the capability to control and cope with complicated situation. The role of Arab states is quite limited, which might even exert other impacts on the peace process. It appears that the Arab states are deeply concerned with the Palestine-Israel tension, but some are unwilling to see a complete settlement of this issue out of the consideration of seeking American assistance and demonstrating their influence in the Middle East. In July and December, 2000, the peace talks driven by President Clinton was about to make a breakthrough, and both Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak wanted to strive for important progress. The then Prime Minister Barak also hoped to map out a splendid chapter in the history of peace talks between the two sides. Although some other key issues remaining to be further discussed, he made unprecedented and so far unmatched concessions on territorial demarcation, namely giving up all of Gaza Strip and 95% to 96% percent of the West Bank and compensating for the remaining 4%. Yet Arafat shrunk back just because of the repeated warning of some major Arab states. As a matter of fact, Arafat could have reached agreements with the Israeli side on some important issues while expressing Palestine’s adherence to its principle positions on other issues so as to promote the gradual settlement of core issues concerning the two sides. The warning from big countries outside and opposition from internal factions held Arafat back from signing at last. The development of Palestine-Israel situation since 2001 has proven that this is not only a pity for Arafat himself, but also a pity for all parties hoping to promote peace talks, and to some extent a pity for history.  

The ultimate settlement of the Middle East issues shall be achieved by peaceful means. Jews and Arabs have common ancestors as well as various common bases in terms of genes, histories and languages. The Arabs were friendly towards the small number of Jewish migrants in the late 19th century. And they never mistreated Jews out of the differences in religious beliefs in the history, so it is unjustifiable for Jews to relicate some of their sufferings to Palestinians. Both Palestinians and Israelis should be rational and make painful compromise, which is imperative for the settlement of this issue. The Palestinian people should realize that it is unrealistic to completely implement UN resolutions without any compromise, and so should Israelis understand that their so called bottom line of seeking their own benefits at the expense of others without any compromise won’t work. The implementation of peace policy and realization of peace need new and courageous thinking and require bold ideas of negotiation to view and settle the Middle East issues. Some of the ideas of Arafat need to be reexamined, but his mainstream ideas and authority are undeniable. Abbas is practical and has his own vision, but needs the cooperation of Palestinian radical organizations, the US, Israel, Arab states and the international community to realize his aspiration, which is not likely to come true according to the current situation.

注： 英文兼为2007年12月中国当代世界研究中心与德国卢森堡基金会联办的中东形势国际研讨会发言