用主义者”；是目前为确保加沙停火和释放以色列人质而进行的谈判中的关键人物。 路透社： 哈马斯的军事部门在加沙策划了 10 月 7 日的袭击。尽管哈马斯在公开场合言辞强硬，但阿拉伯外交官和官员们认为，与加沙内部更强硬的声音相比，[哈尼亚]相对务实。一方面，他告诉以色列军方，他们会发现自己’淹没在加沙的泥沙中’，另一方面，他和他的前任哈马斯领导人哈立德·梅沙尔（Khaled Meshaal）在该地区穿梭，就卡塔尔促成的与以色列的停火协议进行谈判，该协议将包括用人质交换以色列监狱中的巴勒斯坦人，以及向加沙提供更多援助。 天空新闻（Sky News）： 哈尼亚是哈马斯的务实代表。他没有叶海亚·辛瓦尔（Yahya Sinwar）那么强硬和军国主义，辛瓦尔是哈马斯在加沙的领导人，领导着这场战斗。哈尼亚是哈马斯在阿拉伯国家首都外交的公众形象。他领导着加沙停火谈判。 本雅明·内塔尼亚胡领导的以色列极右翼政府周三选择在伊朗领土上暗杀的就是他。 为什么？ 很简单，内塔尼亚胡及其法西斯和偏执狂联盟不希望达成释放人质的协议。他们宁愿继续战争，无论加沙平民或仍被关押在飞地内的本国公民付出多大代价。尽管乔·拜登的说法令人啼笑皆非，但内塔尼亚胡才是达成释放加沙以色列人质协议的最大障碍。人质家属的前发言人说，内塔尼亚胡拒绝了一个协议。以色列前战争内阁成员恩尼·甘兹（enny Gantz）说，内塔尼亚胡阻止了协议的达成。以色列国防官员告诉《国土报》，“内塔尼亚胡系统地挫败了释放人质的谈判”。 这并不新鲜。套用温斯顿·丘吉尔的话说，以色列一向喜欢“战争-战争”，而不是“谈话-谈话”。以色列政府——尤其是内塔尼亚胡领导的政府——更喜欢把哈马斯作为永久的敌人，或者用以色列现任财政部长贝扎莱尔·斯莫特里奇的话说，作为“资产”，而不是试图与哈马斯达成永久协议。 就如已故以色列记者佩达祖尔在分析 2012 年灾难性的贾巴里暗杀事件时所写的： 包括国防部长在内的决策者，或许还有本雅明·内塔尼亚胡总理，都知道贾巴里在推动永久停火协议方面的作用……因此，杀害贾巴里的决定表明，我们的决策者认为此时停火对以色列来说并不可取，攻击哈马斯更可取。 把上面的“贾巴里”改成“哈尼亚”，这些话用在今天完全合适。 英文原文： Mehdi Hasan：Israel Has a History of Killing Hamas Leaders Who Are Trying To Secure Ceasefires. Benjamin Netanyahu’s reckless assassination of Ismail Haniyeh undermines the prospects for a peace deal and the release of the hostages. “Israel’s leaders killed three birds with one stone,” wrote Reuven Pedatzur, a senior military affairs analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “They assassinated the man who had the power to make a deal with Israel; they took revenge on someone who had caused more than a few Israeli casualties; and they signaled to Hamas that communications with it will be conducted only through military force.” Was Pedatzur referring to the Israeli assassination of senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the group’s political bureau, in Tehran in the early hours of Wednesday morning? No. Pedatzur died in a road traffic accident in 2014. His quote from Haaretz, above, was in response to the Israeli assassination of another senior Hamas commander, Ahmed Jabari, in November 2012, which kicked off the 2012 Gaza war. As my former colleague at The Intercept, Jon Schwarz, documented in great detail last year, “Jabari had come to believe that it was in the best interest of Palestinians for Hamas to negotiate a long-term truce” and had been in communication with the respected Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin. “Just before the assassination, [Baskin] gave Jabari a draft proposal for such a truce to review and approve. The draft was agreed to by Baskin and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, and Baskin also said he had previously shown it to Ehud Barak, then the Israeli minister of defense.” Would Jabari have signed off on a ‘hudna,’ or long-term truce, between Hamas and Israel? We’ll never know. Israel, in fact, has a long and cynical history of killing Hamas leaders who are in the midst of ceasefire negotiations or, even, proposing long-term truces with the Jewish state. Remember Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the quadriplegic co-founder and spiritual leader of Hamas? He was assassinated less than three months after he proposed a long-term truce with Israel “if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” His successor, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, was assassinated less than three months after he made a similar truce offer to Israel. Then there was the Netanyahu government’s 2012 assassination of Jabari, who, as mentioned, was reviewing a “long-term mutual cease-fire” deal just “hours before he was killed,” according to Baskin. The parallels between 2012 and 2024, between the killings of Jabari and Haniyeh, are eery. “He was in line to die, not an angel and not a righteous man of peace,” Baskin said of Jabari shortly after his killing, “but his assassination also killed the possibility of achieving a truce and also the Egyptian mediators’ ability to function.” The same could be said of Haniyeh. Mainstream Western media outlets agree that the Hamas leader was – by Hamas standards – a “pragmatist”; a key figure in the ongoing negotiations to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and free the Israeli hostages. From Reuters: “For all the tough language in public, Arab diplomats and officials had viewed [Haniyeh] as relatively pragmatic compared with more hardline voices inside Gaza, where the military wing of Hamas planned the October 7 attack. While telling Israel’s military they would find themselves ‘drowning in the sands of Gaza,’ he and his predecessor as Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, had shuttled around the region for talks over a Qatari-brokered cease-fire deal with Israel that would include exchanging hostages for Palestinians in Israeli jails as well as more aid for Gaza.” From Sky News: “Haniyeh was the pragmatic face of Hamas. He was less hard-line and militaristic than Yahya Sinwar, who is the head of Hamas inside Gaza and is leading the battle. Haniyeh was the public face of Hamas’s diplomacy in Arab capitals. He was leading efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza.” This was the person that the far-right Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu chose to assassinate on Iranian soil on Wednesday. Why? Put simply, Netanyahu and his coalition of fascists and bigots do not want a deal to release the hostages. They prefer to continue the war, no matter the cost to Gaza’s civilians or to their own citizens still held inside of the enclave. Despite Joe Biden’s ludicrous claims to the contrary, it is Netanyahu who has been the biggest obstacle to a deal to free Israel’s hostages in Gaza. The former spokesperson for the hostages’ families says Netanyahu rejected a deal. Benny Gantz, a former member of Israel’s war cabinet, says Netanyahu blocked a deal. Israeli defense officials tell Haaretz that “Netanyahu systematically foiled the negotiations to free the hostages.” There is nothing new here. To misquote Winston Churchill, Israel has always preferred “war-war” over “jaw-jaw.” Israeli governments – especially those led by Netanyahu – have preferred having Hamas as the permanent enemy – or as an “asset,” to quote the current Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – rather than trying to do a permanent deal with Hamas. As the late Israeli journalist Pedatzur wrote, in his analysis of the disastrous Jabari assassination in 2012: “Our decision makers, including the defense minister and perhaps also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knew about Jabari’s role in advancing a permanent cease-fire agreement. … Thus the decision to kill Jabari shows that our decision makers decided a cease-fire would be undesirable for Israel at this time, and that attacking Hamas would be preferable.” Change the name ‘Jabari’ to ‘Haniyeh’ above, and those words could have been written today. 来源：加美财经lg...
北美站
