2021.08.31 國際新聞導讀-美軍30日午夜完全撤離阿富汗、黎巴嫩燃油危機暴力紛傳、敘利亞發電站油料外洩海洋污染環境、以色列國防部長與阿巴斯見面討論規避哈瑪斯援助迦薩巴人的方法

蘇老師講解國際新聞、中東與中亞歷史、中國事務、太空知識的頻道。 Diplomat's daily news review and history research on Middle East and Central Asia, China Affairs and Space Exploration

2021.08.31 國際新聞導讀-美軍30日午夜完全撤離阿富汗、黎巴嫩燃油危機暴力紛傳、敘利亞發電站油料外洩海洋污染環境、以色列國防部長與阿巴斯見面討論規避哈瑪斯援助迦薩巴人的方法

美國最後一次撤離航班起飛，結束美國長達 20 年的阿富汗戰爭

當最後的軍用運輸機在午夜前啟程時，數百名美國公民被拋在後面；一般希望他們仍然能夠離開塔利班統治的國家

作者：ROBERT BURNS和LOLITA C. BALDOR2021 年 8 月 31 日，上午 12:34

2021 年 8 月 30 日晚，在喀布爾機場的停機坪上可以看到飛機，比美國完成從阿富汗瘋狂撤軍的最後期限提前了幾個小時。(法新社)

華盛頓（美聯社）——美國在周一晚些時候完成了從阿富汗的撤軍，結束了美國最長的戰爭，並結束了軍事歷史上的一個篇章，該篇章可能會因巨大的失敗、未兌現的承諾和最終導致 180 多人喪生的瘋狂退出而被人們銘記。阿富汗人和 13 名美國軍人，其中一些年齡僅比戰爭年齡大。

在美國總統喬·拜登 (Joe Biden) 週二要求關閉最後一次空運、從而結束美國戰爭的最後期限前幾個小時，空軍運輸機從喀布爾機場運送了剩餘的部隊。數以萬計的阿富汗人、美國人和其他尋求逃離再次被塔利班武裝分子統治的國家的阿富汗人、美國人和其他人匆匆而冒險地空運，數千名士兵花了兩週的時間來保護他們的緊急空運。

在宣布撤離和戰爭工作完成時。美國中央司令部司令弗蘭克·麥肯齊將軍說，最後一架飛機於華盛頓時間下午 3 點 29 分或喀布爾午夜前一分鐘從喀布爾機場起飛。他說，許多美國公民，可能是“非常少的數百人”，被甩在了後面，他相信他們仍然能夠離開這個國家。

該機場已成為美國控制的島嶼，這是一場奪去了 2,400 多名美國人生命的 20 年戰爭的最後一站。

撤離的結束時間以非凡的戲劇性為標誌。美國軍隊面臨著將最後撤離人員送上飛機的艱鉅任務，同時還要讓他們自己和他們的一些裝備撤離，即使他們監視著伊斯蘭國家組織阿富汗分支機構的反复威脅——以及至少兩次實際襲擊。8 月 26 日發生的自殺式爆炸造成 13 名美國軍人和約 169 名阿富汗人死亡。

最後的撤軍履行了拜登的承諾，即結束他所謂的“永遠的戰爭”，這場戰爭是對 2001 年 9 月 11 日襲擊事件的回應，這場襲擊在紐約、華盛頓和賓夕法尼亞州農村造成近 3,000 人死亡。他於 4 月宣布的決定反映了全國對阿富汗衝突的厭倦。現在他面臨國內外的譴責，與其說是結束戰爭，不如說是他處理了在混亂中展開的最後撤離，並引發了對美國信譽的懷疑。

在國防部提供的這張圖片中，82 空降師第 82 戰鬥航空旅的 CH-47 Chinook 被裝載到美國空軍的 C-17 Globemaster III 上，在阿富汗喀布爾的哈米德卡爾扎伊國際機場，星期六，8 月, 28, 2021. (國防部通過 AP)

有時，美國的戰爭努力似乎沒有結束，勝利的希望渺茫，國會對數百億美元花費了二十年的方式幾乎沒有關心。人力成本堆積如山——數以萬計的美國人除了死者之外還受傷，無數的人遭受著他們所忍受的或尚未意識到他們將忍受的心理創傷。

根據布朗大學的戰爭成本項目，來自聯軍國家的 1,100 多名士兵和 100,000 多名阿富汗軍隊和平民喪生。

廣告

在拜登看來，戰爭本可以在 10 年前隨著美國殺死奧薩馬·本·拉登而結束，他的基地組織極端主義網絡在阿富汗避難所策劃並執行了 9/11 陰謀。基地組織已被大大削弱，迄今已阻止其再次襲擊美國。

多年來對戰爭的興趣減弱的國會委員會預計將就美國撤軍最後幾個月的問題舉行公開聽證會。例如，為什麼政府沒有更早開始疏散美國公民以及幫助美國戰爭努力並感到容易受到塔利班報復的阿富汗人？目前尚不清楚是否有任何想要離開的美國公民被拋在後面，但數以千計的處於危險之中的阿富汗人被拋在了後面。

它不應該以這種方式結束。在宣布打算撤出所有作戰部隊後，政府的計劃是讓美國駐喀布爾大使館保持開放，並由大約 650 名美軍保護，其中包括一個與夥伴國一起保護機場的特遣隊。華盛頓計劃再給現已解散的阿富汗政府數十億美元來支持其軍隊。

拜登現在面臨著對他阻止基地組織在阿富汗重生的計劃以及壓制其他極端組織構成的威脅的懷疑，例如伊斯蘭國家組織的阿富汗分支機構。塔利班是伊斯蘭國集團的敵人，但仍與削弱的基地組織有聯繫。

美國的最終退出包括其外交官的撤出，儘管國務院已經保留了與塔利班恢復某種程度外交的可能性，這取決於他們在建立政府和遵守國際保護人權訴求方面的表現.

2021 年 8 月 23 日星期一，從阿富汗喀布爾撤離的家庭在抵達弗吉尼亞州尚蒂伊的華盛頓杜勒斯國際機場後，步行穿過航站樓，然後登上巴士。（美聯社照片 / Jose Luis Magana）

塔利班 8 月 15 日攻占喀布爾的速度之快讓拜登政府大吃一驚。它迫使美國清空其大使館，並瘋狂地加速疏散行動，其特點是一次非凡的空運，主要由美國空軍執行，美國地面部隊保護機場。空運在如此混亂的情況下開始，以至於一些阿富汗人在機場死亡，其中至少有一個在 C-17 運輸機沿著跑道加速時試圖抓住它的機身。

廣告

到撤離結束時，已經有超過 100,000 人（主要是阿富汗人）被安全送往安全地帶。8 月 26 日，一名伊斯蘭國自殺式炸彈襲擊者在機場門口引爆自己，造成至少 169 名阿富汗人和 13 人死亡，在被新勝利的塔利班包圍並面臨伊斯蘭國襲擊的情況下執行此類任務的危險成為悲慘的焦點。美國人。

2021 年 8 月 27 日，一名塔利班戰士在喀布爾機場的 8 月 26 日雙胞胎自殺炸彈現場守衛，該炸彈炸死了包括 13 名美軍在內的數十人。（攝影：WAKIL KOHSAR/法新社）

在那次襲擊發生後不久，拜登堅持認為結束戰爭是正確的舉動。他說，美國已經是時候關注來自世界其他地方的威脅了。

“女士們，先生們，”他說，“是時候結束一場長達 20 年的戰爭了。”

戰爭的開始是對喬治·W·布什總統在被劫持的客機撞上世界貿易中心的雙子塔三天后站在紐約市瓦礫上時做出的承諾的回應。

“那些把這些建築物推倒的人很快就會聽到我們所有人的聲音！” 他通過擴音器宣布。

在這張 2001 年 9 月 11 日的檔案照片中，在被劫持的飛機撞向紐約市的世貿中心雙塔後，燃燒的世貿中心雙塔冒出濃煙。（美聯社照片/理查德德魯，檔案）

不到一個月後，即 10 月 7 日，布什發動了戰爭。塔利班的軍隊不堪重負，喀布爾在幾週內就陷落了。由哈米德卡爾扎伊領導的美國政府接管了本拉登和他的基地組織同夥越過邊境逃到巴基斯坦。美國建立一個穩定的阿富汗的努力最終是徒勞的，該阿富汗可以與美國合作以防止再次發生 9/11。

最初的計劃是消滅本·拉登的基地組織，該組織利用阿富汗作為攻擊美國的中轉站。更大的野心是打一場“全球反恐戰爭”，相信軍事力量可以以某種方式擊敗伊斯蘭極端主義。阿富汗只是那場戰鬥的第一輪。布什選擇讓伊拉克成為下一個，在 2003 年入侵並陷入更致命的衝突，使阿富汗成為次要優先事項，直到巴拉克奧巴馬於 2009 年上任白宮，並於當年晚些時候決定在阿富汗升級。

奧巴馬將美軍人數推至 100,000 人，但在塔利班將巴基斯坦用作避難所時，戰爭仍在繼續。

在 2017 年 8 月 2 日星期三的檔案照片中，一架美國軍用直升機飛越阿富汗喀布爾南部坎大哈的一個自殺式炸彈襲擊地點。（美聯社照片）

當唐納德特朗普於 2017 年進入白宮時，他想從阿富汗撤軍，但被說服不僅留下，而且增加數千名美軍，併升級對塔利班的襲擊。兩年後，他的政府正在尋求與塔利班達成協議，2020 年 2 月，雙方簽署了一項協議，要求美國在 2021 年 5 月之前完全撤軍。作為交換，塔利班做出了多項承諾，包括承諾不攻擊美軍。

廣告

拜登權衡了他的國家安全團隊成員的建議，他們主張在他 1 月上任時保留在阿富汗的 2,500 名士兵。但在 4 月中旬，他宣布決定完全退出，並最初將 9 月定為退出的最後期限。

塔利班隨後發動了一場攻勢，到 8 月初推翻了包括省會在內的主要城市。阿富汗軍隊基本崩潰，有時投降而不是採取最後立場，在總統阿什拉夫加尼逃離首都後不久，塔利班於 8 月 15 日進入喀布爾並獲得控制權。

Final US evacuation flights leave, ending America’s 20-year Afghanistan war

A few hundred US citizens are left behind when final military transports depart just before midnight; General hopes they will still be able to leave Taliban-ruled country

By ROBERT BURNS and LOLITA C. BALDOR31 August 2021, 12:34 am

Planes are seen on the tarmac at the airport in Kabul late on August 30, 2021, hours ahead of a US deadline to complete its frenzied withdrawal from Afghanistan. (AFP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan late Monday, ending America’s longest war and closing a chapter in military history likely to be remembered for colossal failures, unfulfilled promises and a frantic final exit that cost the lives of more than 180 Afghans and 13 US service members, some barely older than the war.

Hours ahead of US President Joe Biden’s Tuesday deadline for shutting down a final airlift, and thus ending the US war, Air Force transport planes carried a remaining contingent of troops from Kabul airport. Thousands of troops had spent a harrowing two weeks protecting a hurried and risky airlift of tens of thousands of Afghans, Americans and others seeking to escape a country once again ruled by Taliban militants.

In announcing the completion of the evacuation and war effort. Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, said the last planes took off from Kabul airport at 3:29 p.m. Washington time, or one minute before midnight in Kabul. He said a number of American citizens, likely numbering in “the very low hundreds,” were left behind, and that he believes they will still be able to leave the country.

The airport had become a US-controlled island, a last stand in a 20-year war that claimed more than 2,400 American lives.

The closing hours of the evacuation were marked by extraordinary drama. American troops faced the daunting task of getting final evacuees onto planes while also getting themselves and some of their equipment out, even as they monitored repeated threats — and at least two actual attacks — by the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate. A suicide bombing on Aug. 26 killed 13 American service members and some 169 Afghans.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Editionby email and never miss our top stories

Newsletter email addressGET IT

By signing up, you agree to the terms

The final pullout fulfilled Biden’s pledge to end what he called a “forever war” that began in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and rural Pennsylvania. His decision, announced in April, reflected a national weariness of the Afghanistan conflict. Now he faces condemnation at home and abroad, not so much for ending the war as for his handling of a final evacuation that unfolded in chaos and raised doubts about US credibility.

In this image provided by the Department of Defense, a CH-47 Chinook from the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division is loaded onto a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, Aug, 28, 2021. (Department of Defense via AP)

The US war effort at times seemed to grind on with no endgame in mind, little hope for victory and minimal care by Congress for the way tens of billions of dollars were spent for two decades. The human cost piled up — tens of thousands of Americans injured in addition to the dead, and untold numbers suffering psychological wounds they live with or have not yet recognized they will live with.

More than 1,100 troops from coalition countries and more than 100,000 Afghan forces and civilians died, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Biden’s view the war could have ended 10 years ago with the US killing of Osama bin Laden, whose al-Qaida extremist network planned and executed the 9/11 plot from an Afghanistan sanctuary. Al-Qaida has been vastly diminished, preventing it thus far from again attacking the United States.

Congressional committees, whose interest in the war waned over the years, are expected to hold public hearings on what went wrong in the final months of the US withdrawal. Why, for example, did the administration not begin earlier the evacuation of American citizens as well as Afghans who had helped the US war effort and felt vulnerable to retribution by the Taliban? It wasn’t clear whether any American citizens who wanted to get out were left behind, but untold thousands of at-risk Afghans were.

It was not supposed to end this way. The administration’s plan, after declaring its intention to withdraw all combat troops, was to keep the US Embassy in Kabul open, protected by a force of about 650 US troops, including a contingent that would secure the airport along with partner countries. Washington planned to give the now-defunct Afghan government billions more to prop up its army.

Biden now faces doubts about his plan to prevent al-Qaida from regenerating in Afghanistan and of suppressing threats posed by other extremist groups such as the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate. The Taliban are enemies of the Islamic State group but retain links to a diminished al-Qaida.

The final US exit included the withdrawal of its diplomats, although the State Department has left open the possibility of resuming some level of diplomacy with the Taliban depending on how they conduct themselves in establishing a government and adhering to international pleas for the protection of human rights.

Families evacuated from Kabul, Afghanistan, walk through the terminal before boarding a bus after they arrived at Washington Dulles International Airport, in Chantilly, Va., on Monday, Aug. 23, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

The speed with which the Taliban captured Kabul on Aug. 15 caught the Biden administration by surprise. It forced the US to empty its embassy and frantically accelerate an evacuation effort that featured an extraordinary airlift executed mainly by the US Air Force, with American ground forces protecting the airfield. The airlift began in such chaos that a number of Afghans died on the airfield, including at least one who attempted to cling to the airframe of a C-17 transport plane as it sped down the runway.

ADVERTISEMENT

By the evacuation’s conclusion, well over 100,000 people, mostly Afghans, had been flown to safety. The dangers of carrying out such a mission while surrounded by the newly victorious Taliban and faced with attacks by the Islamic State came into tragic focus on Aug. 26 when an IS suicide bomber detonated himself at an airport gate, killing at least 169 Afghans and 13 Americans.

A Taliban fighter stands guard at the site of the August 26 twin suicide bombs, which killed scores of people including 13 US troops, at Kabul airport on August 27, 2021. (Photo by WAKIL KOHSAR / AFP)

Speaking shortly after that attack, Biden stuck to his view that ending the war was the right move. He said it was past time for the United States to focus on threats emanating from elsewhere in the world.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “It was time to end a 20-year war.”

The war’s start was an echo of a promise President George W. Bush made while standing atop of the rubble in New York City three days after hijacked airliners slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

“The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” he declared through a bullhorn.

In this Sept. 11, 2001 file photo smoke rises from the burning twin towers of the World Trade Center after hijacked planes crashed into the towers, in New York City.(AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

Less than a month later, on Oct. 7, Bush launched the war. The Taliban’s forces were overwhelmed and Kabul fell in a matter of weeks. A US-installed government led by Hamid Karzai took over and bin Laden and his al-Qaida cohort escaped across the border into Pakistan. The stage was set for an ultimately futile US effort to build a stable Afghanistan that could partner with the United States to prevent another 9/11.

The initial plan was to extinguish bin Laden’s al-Qaida, which had used Afghanistan as a staging base for its attack on the United States. The grander ambition was to fight a “Global War on Terrorism” based on the belief that military force could somehow defeat Islamic extremism. Afghanistan was but the first round of that fight. Bush chose to make Iraq the next, invading in 2003 and getting mired in an even deadlier conflict that made Afghanistan a secondary priority until Barack Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and later that year decided to escalate in Afghanistan.

Obama pushed US troop levels to 100,000, but the war dragged on while the Taliban used Pakistan as a sanctuary.

In this Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2017 file photo, A US military helicopter flies over the site of a suicide bomb that struck a NATO convoy in Kandahar south of Kabul, Afghanistan. (AP Photo)

When Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017 he wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan but was persuaded not only to stay but to add several thousand US troops and escalate attacks on the Taliban. Two years later his administration was looking for a deal with the Taliban, and in February 2020 the two sides signed an agreement that called for a complete US withdrawal by May 2021. In exchange, the Taliban made a number of promises including a pledge not to attack US troops.

ADVERTISEMENT

Biden weighed advice from members of his national security team who argued for retaining the 2,500 troops who were in Afghanistan by the time he took office in January. But in mid-April he announced his decision to fully withdraw and initially set September as a deadline for getting out.

The Taliban then pushed an offensive that by early August toppled key cities, including provincial capitals. The Afghan army largely collapsed, sometimes surrendering rather than taking a final stand, and shortly after President Ashraf Ghani fled the capital, the Taliban rolled into Kabul and assumed control on Aug. 15.

Taliban fighters pose for a photograph in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 19, 2021. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)

Some parts of their country modernized during the US war years, but Afghanistan remains a tragedy, poor, unstable and with many of its people fearing a return to the brutality the country — especially women and girls — endured when the Taliban ruled from 1996 to 2001.

The US failures were numerous. It degraded but never defeated the Taliban and ultimately failed to build an Afghan army that could hold off the insurgents, despite $83 billion in U.S. spending to train and equip the army. Among the unfulfilled promises: an enduring partnership with a US-friendly Afghan government that could ensure the country would not again become a breeding ground for extremists bent on attacking the United States.

Final US evacuation flights leave, ending America’s 20-year Afghanistan war

A few hundred US citizens are left behind when final military transports depart just before midnight; General hopes they will still be able to leave Taliban-ruled country

By ROBERT BURNS and LOLITA C. BALDOR31 August 2021, 12:34 am

·

·

·

·

·

Planes are seen on the tarmac at the airport in Kabul late on August 30, 2021, hours ahead of a US deadline to complete its frenzied withdrawal from Afghanistan. (AFP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan late Monday, ending America’s longest war and closing a chapter in military history likely to be remembered for colossal failures, unfulfilled promises and a frantic final exit that cost the lives of more than 180 Afghans and 13 US service members, some barely older than the war.

Hours ahead of US President Joe Biden’s Tuesday deadline for shutting down a final airlift, and thus ending the US war, Air Force transport planes carried a remaining contingent of troops from Kabul airport. Thousands of troops had spent a harrowing two weeks protecting a hurried and risky airlift of tens of thousands of Afghans, Americans and others seeking to escape a country once again ruled by Taliban militants.

In announcing the completion of the evacuation and war effort. Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, said the last planes took off from Kabul airport at 3:29 p.m. Washington time, or one minute before midnight in Kabul. He said a number of American citizens, likely numbering in “the very low hundreds,” were left behind, and that he believes they will still be able to leave the country.

The airport had become a US-controlled island, a last stand in a 20-year war that claimed more than 2,400 American lives.

The closing hours of the evacuation were marked by extraordinary drama. American troops faced the daunting task of getting final evacuees onto planes while also getting themselves and some of their equipment out, even as they monitored repeated threats — and at least two actual attacks — by the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate. A suicide bombing on Aug. 26 killed 13 American service members and some 169 Afghans.

The final pullout fulfilled Biden’s pledge to end what he called a “forever war” that began in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and rural Pennsylvania. His decision, announced in April, reflected a national weariness of the Afghanistan conflict. Now he faces condemnation at home and abroad, not so much for ending the war as for his handling of a final evacuation that unfolded in chaos and raised doubts about US credibility.

In this image provided by the Department of Defense, a CH-47 Chinook from the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division is loaded onto a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, Aug, 28, 2021. (Department of Defense via AP)

The US war effort at times seemed to grind on with no endgame in mind, little hope for victory and minimal care by Congress for the way tens of billions of dollars were spent for two decades. The human cost piled up — tens of thousands of Americans injured in addition to the dead, and untold numbers suffering psychological wounds they live with or have not yet recognized they will live with.

More than 1,100 troops from coalition countries and more than 100,000 Afghan forces and civilians died, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Biden’s view the war could have ended 10 years ago with the US killing of Osama bin Laden, whose al-Qaida extremist network planned and executed the 9/11 plot from an Afghanistan sanctuary. Al-Qaida has been vastly diminished, preventing it thus far from again attacking the United States.

Congressional committees, whose interest in the war waned over the years, are expected to hold public hearings on what went wrong in the final months of the US withdrawal. Why, for example, did the administration not begin earlier the evacuation of American citizens as well as Afghans who had helped the US war effort and felt vulnerable to retribution by the Taliban? It wasn’t clear whether any American citizens who wanted to get out were left behind, but untold thousands of at-risk Afghans were.

It was not supposed to end this way. The administration’s plan, after declaring its intention to withdraw all combat troops, was to keep the US Embassy in Kabul open, protected by a force of about 650 US troops, including a contingent that would secure the airport along with partner countries. Washington planned to give the now-defunct Afghan government billions more to prop up its army.

Biden now faces doubts about his plan to prevent al-Qaida from regenerating in Afghanistan and of suppressing threats posed by other extremist groups such as the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate. The Taliban are enemies of the Islamic State group but retain links to a diminished al-Qaida.

The final US exit included the withdrawal of its diplomats, although the State Department has left open the possibility of resuming some level of diplomacy with the Taliban depending on how they conduct themselves in establishing a government and adhering to international pleas for the protection of human rights.

Families evacuated from Kabul, Afghanistan, walk through the terminal before boarding a bus after they arrived at Washington Dulles International Airport, in Chantilly, Va., on Monday, Aug. 23, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

The speed with which the Taliban captured Kabul on Aug. 15 caught the Biden administration by surprise. It forced the US to empty its embassy and frantically accelerate an evacuation effort that featured an extraordinary airlift executed mainly by the US Air Force, with American ground forces protecting the airfield. The airlift began in such chaos that a number of Afghans died on the airfield, including at least one who attempted to cling to the airframe of a C-17 transport plane as it sped down the runway.

ADVERTISEMENT

By the evacuation’s conclusion, well over 100,000 people, mostly Afghans, had been flown to safety. The dangers of carrying out such a mission while surrounded by the newly victorious Taliban and faced with attacks by the Islamic State came into tragic focus on Aug. 26 when an IS suicide bomber detonated himself at an airport gate, killing at least 169 Afghans and 13 Americans.

A Taliban fighter stands guard at the site of the August 26 twin suicide bombs, which killed scores of people including 13 US troops, at Kabul airport on August 27, 2021. (Photo by WAKIL KOHSAR / AFP)

Speaking shortly after that attack, Biden stuck to his view that ending the war was the right move. He said it was past time for the United States to focus on threats emanating from elsewhere in the world.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “It was time to end a 20-year war.”

The war’s start was an echo of a promise President George W. Bush made while standing atop of the rubble in New York City three days after hijacked airliners slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

“The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” he declared through a bullhorn.

In this Sept. 11, 2001 file photo smoke rises from the burning twin towers of the World Trade Center after hijacked planes crashed into the towers, in New York City.(AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

Less than a month later, on Oct. 7, Bush launched the war. The Taliban’s forces were overwhelmed and Kabul fell in a matter of weeks. A US-installed government led by Hamid Karzai took over and bin Laden and his al-Qaida cohort escaped across the border into Pakistan. The stage was set for an ultimately futile US effort to build a stable Afghanistan that could partner with the United States to prevent another 9/11.

The initial plan was to extinguish bin Laden’s al-Qaida, which had used Afghanistan as a staging base for its attack on the United States. The grander ambition was to fight a “Global War on Terrorism” based on the belief that military force could somehow defeat Islamic extremism. Afghanistan was but the first round of that fight. Bush chose to make Iraq the next, invading in 2003 and getting mired in an even deadlier conflict that made Afghanistan a secondary priority until Barack Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and later that year decided to escalate in Afghanistan.

Obama pushed US troop levels to 100,000, but the war dragged on while the Taliban used Pakistan as a sanctuary.

In this Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2017 file photo, A US military helicopter flies over the site of a suicide bomb that struck a NATO convoy in Kandahar south of Kabul, Afghanistan. (AP Photo)

When Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017 he wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan but was persuaded not only to stay but to add several thousand US troops and escalate attacks on the Taliban. Two years later his administration was looking for a deal with the Taliban, and in February 2020 the two sides signed an agreement that called for a complete US withdrawal by May 2021. In exchange, the Taliban made a number of promises including a pledge not to attack US troops.

ADVERTISEMENT

Biden weighed advice from members of his national security team who argued for retaining the 2,500 troops who were in Afghanistan by the time he took office in January. But in mid-April he announced his decision to fully withdraw and initially set September as a deadline for getting out.

The Taliban then pushed an offensive that by early August toppled key cities, including provincial capitals. The Afghan army largely collapsed, sometimes surrendering rather than taking a final stand, and shortly after President Ashraf Ghani fled the capital, the Taliban rolled into Kabul and assumed control on Aug. 15.

Taliban fighters pose for a photograph in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 19, 2021. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)

Some parts of their country modernized during the US war years, but Afghanistan remains a tragedy, poor, unstable and with many of its people fearing a return to the brutality the country — especially women and girls — endured when the Taliban ruled from 1996 to 2001.

The US failures were numerous. It degraded but never defeated the Taliban and ultimately failed to build an Afghan army that could hold off the insurgents, despite $83 billion in U.S. spending to train and equip the army. Among the unfulfilled promises: an enduring partnership with a US-friendly Afghan government that could ensure the country would not again become a breeding ground for extremists bent on attacking the United States.

近 20 年後美軍最後一批離開阿富汗

在塔利班重新掌權後，美國最後一支軍隊被派往撤離處於危險中的美國人和阿富汗人後，美國官員在不願透露姓名的情況下接受了路透社的採訪。

通過路透

2021 年 8 月 31 日 00:20

11 月 2 日，唐納德·特朗普總統在對阿富汗巴格拉姆空軍基地的暗訪中向軍事人員發表講話時，美國軍隊高舉美國國旗

（圖片來源：路透社）

廣告

美國官員周一告訴路透社，在 2001 年 9 月 11 日襲擊美國後入侵阿富汗近 20 年後，美國已經完成了從阿富汗撤軍的任務。

自 8 月 14 日以來，已有超過 122,000 人被空運出喀布爾，也就是塔利班在 2001 年以美國為首的入侵下台二十年後重新控制該國的前一天。

在塔利班重新掌權後，美國最後一支軍隊從首都喀布爾撤離，撤離處於危險之中的美國人和阿富汗人，美國官員在不願透露姓名的情況下向路透社發表了講話。

由於沒有預料到塔利班會如此迅速地佔上風，華盛頓及其北約盟國被迫倉促撤離，留下了數千名幫助他們並可能有資格撤離的阿富汗人和其他感到危險的人。

美國中央司令部司令、海軍陸戰隊將軍弗蘭克·麥肯齊 (Frank McKenzie) 在五角大樓的新聞發布會上說：“這次離開讓人心碎。我們沒有讓我們想離開的每個人都離開。”

“但我認為，如果我們再多呆 10 天，我們就不會讓所有人都出去，”麥肯齊說，並補充說美國駐阿富汗首席外交官羅斯威爾遜正在最後一次起飛的 C-17 航班上。

美國士兵走近巴格達巴斯馬亞軍事基地的一枚火箭發射導彈（圖片來源：REUTERS/MOHAMMED AMEEN）

美國及其西方盟友爭先恐後地拯救本國公民以及翻譯、當地大使館工作人員、民權活動人士、記者和其他容易受到報復的阿富汗人。

週四，西方和塔利班的敵人伊斯蘭國聲稱發動自殺式炸彈襲擊，造成 13 名美國軍人和數十名在機場門口等候的阿富汗人喪生，撤離變得更加危險。

該行動在總統喬拜登設定的周二截止日期前結束，拜登繼承了他的前任唐納德特朗普與塔利班達成的撤軍協議，並於今年早些時候決定完成撤軍。

拜登因自己的決定而在國內外受到強烈批評，他承諾在喀布爾機場發生血腥襲擊後追捕肇事者。

拜登能克服他在阿富汗的錯誤嗎？- 觀點

喬拜登總統對阿富汗危機的處理可能使他與其他從未從重大失誤中恢復過來的歷史領導人處於平等地位。

作者：SHMULEY BOTECH

2021 年 8 月 30 日 21:40

2021 年 8 月 16 日，美國總統喬·拜登 (Joe Biden) 在返回白宮的途中抵達麥克奈爾堡，就阿富汗問題發表聲明時回敬了禮。

（圖片來源：LEAH Millis/REUTERS）

廣告

我一生中從未見過美國士兵像上週四 13 名海軍陸戰隊員和服役人員那樣死去。

一整天，我們都聽說襲擊即將來臨。美國情報部門對此發出警告。英國情報部門對此發出警告。那麼喬拜登總統在做什麼，帶領我們的士兵像羔羊一樣被屠殺？

哦，你說，但他同意塔利班保護機場，如果不是那麼悲慘的話，這個說法會很可笑。是的，拜登將我們海軍陸戰隊的安全交給了那些 30 年來一心要謀殺他們的人。

地球上最有權勢的人可以做很多事情來讓我們的海軍陸戰隊員和服務人員活著。知道威脅非常可信，他本可以簡單地停止所有空運，直到確定並發現 ISIS 恐怖分子，並將美國的撤軍推遲幾天以彌補損失的時間。他本可以派出更多的軍隊來保護機場。最重要的是，他本可以堅守比機場安全得多的巴格拉姆空軍基地，並從那裡進行難民空運。

但拜登讓任意撤軍的最後期限比他指揮下的部隊的生命更重要，這背叛了他作為總司令的角色。關閉巴格拉姆的不負責任幾乎是不可原諒的。

看到這 11 名男性和兩名女性（幾乎都是 20 多歲）的無謂死亡基本上成為一個新聞周期，我感到非常困擾。到週五，我們已經在談論拜登的“報復”，一次無人機襲擊殺死了兩名可能參與或可能沒有參與計劃襲擊的 ISIS-K 恐怖分子。

在阿富汗崩潰之前，我實際上認為拜登作為總統做得不錯。是的，他花的錢遠遠超出了美國的合理承受能力，是的，他的經濟贈品讓雇主很難找到工人，因為政府補貼有時比人們在高薪工作中的收入還要多。但儘管如此，拜登給人的印像是一個體面的人，對他的家人和美國人民盡心盡力，他致力於讓美國從大流行中恢復過來，並確保美國人接種疫苗，以便我們能夠完全重新開放經濟。

但很難看出他的總統職位如何從阿富汗的崩潰中恢復過來。也很難看出軍方將如何再次相信他的判斷。

領導者的弱點是致命的，尤其是在面對恐怖分子時。即便是被廣泛認為是以色列有史以來最偉大戰士的阿里爾·沙龍，也從未從加沙慘敗中恢復過來，當時他將加沙地帶交給了哈馬斯恐怖分子，哈馬斯恐怖分子從那以後一直在向以色列城市發射火箭。甚至在沙龍在任期間遭受災難性和悲慘的中風之前，他的名聲就已經破敗不堪，而且再也沒有恢復。

當然，關於吉米卡特也是如此，美國首先將他視為應對尼克松和水門事件時代精神錯亂的民間解毒劑，結果卻眼睜睜地看著他在伊朗毛拉的猛攻面前崩潰。

一群恐怖分子劫持了我們的大使館和 52 名美國人作為人質，並正確地猜測倒霉的卡特會因此而癱瘓。

是的，他發動了一場解放他們的軍事行動，但這似乎從一開始就注定了並導致另外八名美國軍事英雄的死亡。

美國陸軍第 101 空降師 1-320 野戰砲兵團的 MELVIN CABEBE 上尉站在一輛燃燒的 M-ATV 裝甲車附近，在阿富汗坎大哈北部的 Arghandab 山谷的戰鬥前哨 Nolen 附近擊中了一個簡易爆炸裝置 (IED)， 2010 年。（來源：BOB STRONG / REUTERS）

每年夏天，我都會帶我的孩子去革命戰爭和內戰戰場。今年我們去了葛底斯堡、里士滿和約克鎮。兩場戰爭的偉大英雄都是那些在不可逾越的障礙面前表現出不可動搖的決心的人。

喬治華盛頓率領著一支冰冷、赤腳的軍隊對抗世界上最偉大的超級大國，他在約克鎮逼近了英國將軍查爾斯康沃利斯，並於 1781 年 10 月 19 日接受了他的投降。

亞伯拉罕·林肯，我們最偉大的總統，在聯邦多年被羅伯特·李 (Robert E. Lee) 擊敗的背景下，表現出了擊敗邦聯並解放奴隸的堅定決心，他直到今天都應該被正確地視為美國的叛徒，他的遺產也得到了相應的對待。

尤利西斯·S·格蘭特將軍因酒鬼和失敗的商人而被解僱，他對李和北弗吉尼亞軍隊進行了猛烈抨擊，直到李於 1865 年 4 月在阿波馬托克斯法院投降。

至於像喬治·麥克萊倫這樣的北方將領，他們忐忑不安，猶豫不決，找了無數不戰的理由，他們的名聲已經被扔進了軍事史的垃圾箱。林肯本人談到麥克萊倫時說，“他有缺點。”

看來拜登也有放緩的跡象。是的，我知道，我知道。特朗普與塔利班恐怖分子談判達成和平協議。但問問自己，如果特朗普仍然是總統，塔利班是否會試圖破壞和平協議並接管整個國家，包括美國的所有軍事裝備。

我懷疑即使是特朗普最糟糕的批評者也會承認塔利班會認為特朗普瘋狂到可以做一些激烈的事情。

但拜登不是，他似乎無法採取大膽而兇猛的行動。

拜登領導下的美國勇士已經淪為英國 ITV 資深國際記者約翰·歐文 (John Irvine) 準確描述的“沸騰的屈辱”。他在離開喀布爾後立即寫下的話值得重複：

“塔利班控制的喀布爾和美國控制的機場部分之間的分界線是一卷六角手風琴線。在那個分界線上站著一排武裝的塔利班，現在穿著西方軍隊的戰鬥服。離他們只有幾步之遙的是第 82 空降師的士兵，這是美國陸軍最著名的部隊之一。美國人臉上的表情是我以前從未見過的。這是一種極度的屈辱。”

在我們試圖營救受驚的平民的同時，將地球上最強大的國家變成乞求毆打女性的恐怖分子來保護我們自負的士兵，這是一項了不起的成就。將戰士們變成一群受辱，然後被謀殺的目標，這是完全不同的成就。

當我看到這種屈辱時，我為我的國家而戰栗。當我想到他們如何被當作炮灰時，我為我們的部隊感到戰栗。當我考慮美國如何被置於如此低位的影響時，我為世界感到震驚。

Can Biden overcome his Afghanistan mistake? - opinion

President Joe Biden's handling of the Afghanistan crisis may place him on equal footing with other historical leaders who never recovered from their big missteps.

By SHMULEY BOTEACH

AUGUST 30, 2021 21:40

US President Joe Biden returns a salute as he arrives at Fort McNair on his way back to the White House to deliver a statement on Afghanistan, in Washington, U.S., August 16, 2021.

(photo credit: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS)

Advertisement

Never in my life did I witness American soldiers die the way 13 Marines and service members did last Thursday.

Throughout the day we heard that an attack was coming. American intelligence was warning it. British intelligence was warning it. So what was President Joe Biden doing, leading our soldiers like lambs to the slaughter?

Oh, you say, but he agreed with the Taliban to secure the airport, a claim that would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Yes, Biden left our Marines’ security in the hands of those who have been hell-bent on murdering them for 30 years.

There are so many things the most powerful man on earth could have done to keep our Marines and service members alive. Knowing that the threat was very credible, he could have simply halted all airlifts until the ISIS terrorists had been identified and found and delayed the American pullout a few more days to compensate for lost time. He could have sent more troops to secure the airport. Above all else, he could have held on to Bagram Air Base that was substantially more secure than the airport, and conducted the refugee airlift from there.

But Biden betrayed his role as commander in chief by making an arbitrary pullout deadline more important than the lives of the troops under his command. And the irresponsibility of having closed Bagram is nearly unforgivable.

It bothers me so much to see that the needless deaths of these 11 men and two women, nearly all of whom were in their twenties, made it essentially to a single news cycle. By Friday we were already talking about Biden’s “retaliation,” a single drone strike that killed two ISIS-K terrorists who may or may not have been involved in planning the attack.

PRIOR TO the Afghanistan debacle, I actually thought Biden was doing a decent job as president. Yes, he was spending way more money than America could reasonably afford, and yes, his economic giveaways were making it hard for employers to find workers, given that government subsidies were at times more than people would make in decent-paying jobs. But for all that, Biden came across as a decent man, committed to his family and the American people, who was dedicated to bringing America back from the pandemic and making sure that Americans got vaccinated so we could fully reopen the economy.

But it’s hard to see how his presidency recovers from the Afghanistan debacle. It’s also hard to see how the military will ever again trust his judgment.

Weakness is fatal in a leader, especially when confronting terrorists. Even Ariel Sharon, widely acknowledged to be Israel’s greatest-ever fighter, never recovered from his Gaza fiasco, when he turned over the Strip to the Hamas terrorists who have been firing rockets at Israeli cities ever since. Even before Sharon had his catastrophic and tragic stroke while he was in office, his reputation lay in tatters, and it has never recovered.

The same is true, of course, about Jimmy Carter, whom America first embraced as the civil antidote to the insanity of the Nixon and Watergate years, only to watch him crumble in the face of the Iranian mullah onslaught.

A bunch of terrorists took our embassy and 52 Americans hostage and guessed correctly that the hapless Carter would be paralyzed as a result.

Yes, he launched a military operation to free them, but it seemed doomed from the start and led to the deaths of another eight American military heroes.

CAPTAIN MELVIN CABEBE with the US Army’s 1-320 Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division stands near a burning M-ATV armored vehicle after it struck an improvised explosive device (IED) near Combat Outpost Nolen in the Arghandab Valley north of Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 2010. (credit: BOB STRONG / REUTERS)

EVERY SUMMER I try to take my children to Revolutionary War and Civil War battlefields. This year we went to Gettysburg, Richmond and Yorktown. The great heroes of both wars were those who demonstrated unshakable resolve in the face of insurmountable obstacles.

George Washington was leading a freezing, shoeless army against the world’s greatest superpower, and he cornered British Gen. Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown and accepted his surrender on October 19, 1781.

Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, showed steely resolve to defeat the Confederacy and emancipate the slaves against the backdrop of years of Union defeats at the hands of Robert E. Lee, who till today should rightly be regarded as a traitor to the United States, and his legacy treated accordingly.

And Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who was dismissed as a drunkard and a failed businessman, hammered away at Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia until Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House in April 1865.

As for the northern generals like George McClellan, who hemmed and hawed, halted and pondered, and found endless reasons not to fight, their reputations have been consigned to the dustbin of military history. Lincoln himself said of McClellan, “He has the slows.”

IT APPEARS that Biden, too, has the slows. Yes, I know, I know. Trump negotiated the peace agreement with the Taliban terrorists. But ask yourself whether the Taliban would ever have attempted to break the peace agreement and take over the entire country, including all of America’s military equipment, if Trump had still been president.

I suspect that even Trump’s worst detractors would have conceded that the Taliban would have regarded Trump as crazy enough to do something drastic.

But not Biden, who seems incapable of bold and ferocious action.

America’s warriors under Biden have been reduced to what British ITV Senior International Correspondent John Irvine accurately described as “seething humiliation.” His words, written right after his departure from Kabul, bear repeating:

“The dividing line between Taliban-held Kabul and the American-held part of the airport was a roll of concertina wire. At that divide stood a line of armed Taliban now wearing Western army combat fatigues. Just feet from them were soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the US Army’s most storied units. The look on the Americans’ faces was one I hadn’t seen before. It was seething humiliation.”

It’s quite an accomplishment to take the strongest nation on earth and reduce us to begging women-beating terrorists to protect our vaunted soldiers while we try to rescue terrified civilians. It is an altogether different accomplishment to reduce the warriors themselves to a group of humiliated, and then murdered, targets.

I shudder for my country when I watch this abasement. I shudder for our troops when I consider how they have been treated as cannon fodder. And I shudder for the world when I consider the implications of how America has been brought so low.

The writer, “America’s Rabbi,” is the best-selling author most recently of Holocaust Holiday: One Family’s Descent into Genocide Memory Hell. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

甘茨如何讓每個人都心煩意亂

甘茨週日會見了巴勒斯坦民族權力機構主席馬哈茂德·阿巴斯，這讓左翼和右翼都感到不安。

通過GIL HOFFMAN

2021 年 8 月 30 日 21:57

本尼·甘茨

（圖片來源：MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/耶路撒冷郵報）

廣告

政治的藝術是試圖一直取悅所有人，或者至少讓足夠多的人有足夠的時間繼續掌權。

但更令人印象深刻的是，當一位政治家找到一種讓幾乎所有人都感到不安的方法時。

這就是周日發生的事情，當時國防部長本尼·甘茨成為自 2010 年時任總理本傑明·內塔尼亞胡以來第一位與巴勒斯坦民族權力機構主席馬哈茂德·阿巴斯會面的高級部長。

內塔尼亞胡在華盛頓會見了巴勒斯坦領導人——遠離甘茨冒險的拉馬拉——然後他阻止了包括甘茨在內的部長們與他會面。

首先，甘茨傷害了總理納夫塔利·貝內特（Naftali Bennett），後者四年前在推特上反對讓阿巴斯相關，直到他停止資助恐怖分子為止。在以色列國防軍士兵 Barel Shmueli 去世之前，Bennett 的會面時機再糟糕不過了，他在與加沙地帶接壤的邊境被一名巴勒斯坦恐怖分子殺害。

貝內特試圖淡化這次會議，稱這只是國防部長授權下的安全問題。但甘茨沒有配合淡化，說它遠不止於此。

在右翼政客開始抨擊貝內特授權會議後，總理被迫讓他的工作人員發表聲明，稱與巴勒斯坦人沒有外交進程，也不會有。

這讓貝內特的左翼聯盟夥伴感到不安，他們希望有一個和平進程，並且嫉妒甘茨獲得他們想要的與阿巴斯的會面。Bennett 的同事對這種憤怒並不感到驚訝，並私下對 Gantz 損害這些關係並危及政府表示失望，也許是為了將其打倒。

雖然貝內特事先被告知了這次會議，但其他右翼部長並沒有被告知，並且私下對貝內特批准會議表示失望。沒有與阿巴斯會面的外交部長亞伊爾·拉皮德（Yair Lapid）看起來特別多餘。

甘茨在政府中的批評者表示，即使貝內特提前批准了這次會議，甘茨也沒有信守承諾，不做大事。Gantz 的同事回應說，他們沒有發布會議的照片，也沒有播放。

6 月 28 日，國防部長本尼·甘茨、外交部長亞伊爾·拉皮德、司法部長吉迪恩·薩爾、交通部長梅拉夫·米凱利和總理納夫塔利·貝內特出席了在耶路撒冷議會舉行的全體會議。（圖片來源：OLIVER FITOUSSI/FLASH90）

在這次會議上被視為對甘茨的報復，他要求週二在以色列議會就伊朗問題發表講話的請求被貝內特的同夥拒絕。甘茨為以色列國防軍高級軍官提供高額養老金的提議也可能被擱置。

Gantz 向 Bennett 介紹的會議的理由是，有必要開會以找到一種機制，向加沙的巴勒斯坦人提供援助。財政部長阿維格多·利伯曼在新聞發布會上告訴記者，甘茨的解釋令他滿意。

“巴勒斯坦的穩定是以色列的利益，”利伯曼說。“我們將盡一切努力保持這種穩定。”

這是除甘茨本人之外的任何以色列政治家對周一會議的唯一積極聲明。

所以甘茨最終並沒有惹惱政府中的每個人，但與每個政治家的目標不同，他也沒有交到任何朋友。

How Gantz got everyone upset

Gantz met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday, upsetting both the Left and the Right.

By GIL HOFFMAN

AUGUST 30, 2021 21:57

Benny Gantz

(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

Advertisement

The art of politics is the attempt to please all people all the time, or at least enough people for enough time to stay in power.

But it is even more impressive when a politician finds a way to upset pretty much everyone.

That is what happened on Sunday, when Defense Minister Benny Gantz became the first senior minister to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas since then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2010.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz (credit: ALEX KOLOMOISKY / POOL, MOHAMAD TOROKMAN/REUTERS)

Netanyahu met the Palestinian leader in Washington – far from Ramallah, where Gantz ventured – and then he blocked his ministers, including Gantz, from meeting him.

First of all, Gantz harmed Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who tweeted four years ago against making Abbas relevant until he stops funding terrorists. The timing of the meeting could not have been worse for Bennett, just ahead of the death of IDF soldier Barel Shmueli, who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist on the border with the Gaza Strip.

Bennett tried to downplay the meeting, saying it was only about security issues under the authority of the defense minister. But Gantz didn’t cooperate with the playdown, saying it was about much more than that.

After politicians on the Right started blasting Bennett for authorizing the meeting, the prime minister was forced to have his staff release a statement saying that there is no diplomatic process with the Palestinians, nor will there be.

That upset Bennett’s coalition partners on the Left, who want there to be a peace process and who were jealous of Gantz for obtaining the meeting with Abbas that they wanted for themselves. Bennett’s associates were not surprised by that anger and privately expressed frustration with Gantz for harming those ties and jeopardizing the government, perhaps in an effort to bring it down.

While Bennett was told about the meeting in advance, other right-wing ministers were not told and privately expressed disappointment with Bennett for approving it. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, who has not met with Abbas, looked particularly redundant.

Gantz’s critics in the government said that even if Bennett approved the meeting in advance, Gantz did not keep his promise not to make a big deal about it. Gantz’s associates responded that they released no picture from the meeting and did not play it up.

DEFENSE MINISTER Benny Gantz, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar, Transportation Minister Merav Michaeli and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett attend a plenary session in the Knesset in Jerusalem on June 28. (credit: OLIVER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)

In what was seen as revenge against Gantz for the meeting, his request to speak at the Knesset about Iran on Tuesday was rejected by Bennett’s associates. Gantz’s proposal for hefty pensions for senior IDF officers may also be stalled.

The justification of the meeting that Gantz presented to Bennett was that it was necessary to meet in order to find a mechanism to deliver aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman told reporters at a press conference that Gantz’s explanation satisfied him.

“Palestinian stability is an Israeli interest,” Liberman said. “We will do everything to maintain that stability.”

That was the only positive statement about the meeting on Monday from any Israeli politician, except Gantz himself.

So Gantz did not end up upsetting everyone in the government, but unlike the goal of every politician, he also did not make any friends.

司法部長薩爾開始起草總理任期限制法案

儘管預計該法案將具有追溯力並適用於前總理本傑明·內塔尼亞胡，但接近薩爾的消息人士表示，該法案將是“前瞻性的，而不是追溯性的”。

通過GIL HOFFMAN

2021 年 8 月 30 日 21:32

新希望黨領袖 Gideon Sa'ar 在 2021 年 3 月的選舉中投票。

（照片來源：YOAV DAVIDKOVITZ）

廣告

司法部長吉迪恩·薩爾（新希望）週一指示部委官員準備一項法案，將總理的任期限制為八年。

該法案將在 10 月開始到 3 月結束的冬季會議上提交給內閣和議會。

儘管預計該法案將具有追溯力，並將適用於前總理本雅明·內塔尼亞胡，但接近薩爾的消息人士表示，該立法將是“前瞻性的，而不是追溯性的”，薩爾從未支持追溯任期限制。

“任期限制的義務是新希望平台的一部分，這就是為什麼它被包含在聯盟協議中，”薩爾說。“在任時間過長會帶來權力集中和腐敗的危險，因此我們的基本法必須包括任期限制。”

另一項阻止被起訴候選人獲得組建政府的授權的法案已經由該部起草，也將在冬季任期內進行投票。該法案具有追溯力，適用於內塔尼亞胡。

“[薩爾]沒有向[內塔尼亞胡]投降，”一位接近薩爾的消息人士說。

Justice Minister Sa'ar begins drafting prime minister's term limit bill

Despite expectations that the bill will be retroactive and apply to former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, sources close to Sa'ar said it will be "prospective, not retroactive."

By GIL HOFFMAN

AUGUST 30, 2021 21:32

New Hope leader Gideon Sa'ar votes in March 2021 elections.

(photo credit: YOAV DAVIDKOVITZ)

Advertisement

Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar (New Hope) instructed ministry officials on Monday to prepare a bill that will limit a prime minister to eight years in office.

The bill will be brought to the cabinet and the Knesset in its winter session that begins in October and ends in March.

Despite expectations that the bill would be retroactive and would apply to former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, sources close to Sa’ar said the legislation would be “prospective, not retroactive” and that Sa’ar never supported retroactive term limits.

“The obligation to term limits is part of New Hope’s platform, and that is why it was included in the coalition agreement,” Sa’ar said. “Staying in office too long brings a concentration of power and a danger of corruption, so term limits must be included in our Basic Laws.”

Another bill that would prevent a candidate under indictment from receiving a mandate to form a government is already being drafted by the ministry and will also be put to a vote in the winter term. That bill will be retroactive and would apply to Netanyahu.

“[Sa’ar] did not surrender [to Netanyahu],” a source close to Sa’ar said.

利伯曼：以色列的經濟已經學會與 COVID-19 共存

財政部長阿維格多·利伯曼 (Avigdor Liberman) 表示，經濟正開始從 COVID-19 大流行開始時的下滑中復蘇。

作者：ZEV STUB ,吉爾霍夫曼

2021 年 8 月 30 日 18:30

'如果先生。[Avigdor] Liberman 決定我不會在那裡，我不會在那裡。

（照片來源：YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90）

廣告

財政部長阿維格多·利伯曼( Avigdor Liberman)週一表示，以色列經濟正在迅速復蘇，因為它已經學會了與冠狀病毒共存。

“關閉不是控制病毒的好方法，沒有理由因此關閉學校，”利伯曼在向以色列議會提交預算以供最終批准之前的新聞發布會上說。

“綠色護照和紫色絲帶系統運作良好，”他說。“控制大流行的最佳方法是接種疫苗和戴口罩。封鎖與阻止病毒傳播之間的聯繫尚不清楚，但與其經濟損失的聯繫非常明確。冠狀病毒會伴隨我們很長一段時間，可能很多年，我們不能一直封鎖。生活就是管理風險。”

利伯曼指出，以色列的經濟復甦進展迅速。“股票市場上的公司報告了出色的業績，信用卡活動和稅收收入增長非常好，”他說。“我們看到經濟已經學會了與冠狀病毒共存。

財政部長稱新預算是“以色列歷史上最以社會為導向的預算”，為衛生、福利、教育、內部安全和貧困人口增加了創紀錄的預算。

其中，預算為衛生預算增加了 20 億新謝克爾，其中包括建造兩所新醫院，7 億新謝克爾。對於福利，NIS 1b。對於教育，NIS 1.8b。為殘疾人提供的福利，以及為大屠殺倖存者提供的福利每月增加約 1,500 新謝克爾。這也是第一個創建新公共住房選擇的預算，為有需要的人群建造了 1,700 個新單元。

關於有爭議的農業改革，旨在增加競爭並降低水果、蔬菜和雞蛋的價格，利伯曼堅持認為需要做出改變。

“農民的平均年齡是 66 歲，這個行業沒有盈利。我們無法在蔬菜價格上與第三世界國家競爭，”他說。“我們保持競爭力的唯一機會就是像一個初創國家一樣行事並進行創新。改革的第一條是針對 NIS 2b。投資於農業研發。”

利伯曼還建議，農民最好通過將農田用於其他目的來實現收入來源的多樣化，例如創建太陽能田、蜂窩天線或開發度假租賃。

8 月 2 日的內閣會議批准了預算（來源：AMOS BEN GERSHOM，GPO）

對於政府最近決定批准為以色列國防軍軍官的養老金預算增加 11 億新謝克爾的決定，利伯曼表示，有必要保持以色列國防軍的競爭優勢。“軍隊的薪水無法與私營公司的薪水競爭，我們也無法提供與私營市場相媲美的福利或工時。我們可以提供的唯一糖果讓優秀的人留在軍隊中，那就是養老金。”

由於農業改革和女性退休年齡的提高，利伯曼淡化了工黨和梅雷茨對預算附帶的安排法案投反對票的威脅。

“在批准預算時，到最後一刻總是戲劇性的。這就是它的運作方式，”他說。“到目前為止，聯盟合作良好，儘管每個人都對不同的事情感到不滿。使我們團結起來的是，在三年半沒有任何預算的情況下，我們即將通過國家歷史上最多的社會預算。”

“重要的是要了解包含有爭議的改革的經濟安排法是預算的一個組成部分，”利伯曼補充說，並指出此類法律的概念是在 1985 年引入的，目的是讓不受歡迎的法案迅速成為法律。“預算是如何實施這些改革的計劃。你不能不通過法律就批准預算。”

利伯曼將於週一晚些時候會見聯盟領導人，週二會見聯盟黨派領導人。

“我與他們所有人保持聯繫，我們將在預算和安排法案中佔多數，”他說。“將會有戲劇性、聲明和最後通牒。流派的規則不會改變：它們是內置的。我在哲學層面接受它。”

利伯曼說，在兩年半沒有預算的情況下，需要做出新的安排和艱難的決定。

“不是每個人都會開心，”他說。“在一個如此多元化的聯盟中，情況不會有什麼不同。但是有很多共同點。我相信邏輯：我們提出的建議是合乎邏輯的。”

Liberman: Israel's economy has learned to live with COVID-19

Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman said the economy is beginning to recover from the drop at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

By ZEV STUB, GIL HOFFMAN

AUGUST 30, 2021 18:30

‘IF MR. [Avigdor] Liberman decides I won’t be there, I won’t be there.’

(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)

Advertisement

The Israeli economy is recovering quickly because it has learned to live with the coronavirus, Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman said on Monday.

“A closure is not a good way to control the virus, and there is no reason to close schools because of it,” Liberman told a press conference ahead of submitting the budget to Knesset for final approvals.

“The green passport and purple ribbon systems are working well,” he said. “The best ways to manage the pandemic are with the vaccine and wearing masks. The connection between a lockdown and stemming the virus’s spread is not clear, but the connection to its economic damage is very clear. The coronavirus will be with us for a long time, probably many years, we can’t just keep locking down. Life is about managing risks.”

1

/

5

UNIFIL mandate renewed, peacekeepers to help Lebanese Army

Read More

PauseUp Next

TOP ARTICLES

Liberman noted that Israel’s economic recovery is proceeding quickly. “The companies on the stock market are reporting excellent results, and credit card activity and tax revenues are growing very nicely,” he said. “We see that the economy has learned to live with coronavirus.

The finance minister called the new budget “the most social-oriented budget in Israel’s history,” with record budget additions for health, welfare, education, internal security and needy populations.

Among other things, the budget adds NIS 2 billion for the health budget, including the construction of two new hospitals, NIS 700 million. for welfare, NIS 1b. for education, NIS 1.8b. for the disabled, and an increase of some NIS 1,500 per month in benefits for Holocaust survivors. It is also the first budget to create new public housing options, with 1,700 new units being built for needy populations.

Regarding the controversial agricultural reforms, designed to increase competition and lower the prices of fruits, vegetables and eggs, Liberman insisted that changes are needed.

“The average age among farmers is 66, and the industry is not profitable. We can’t compete with third world countries on vegetable prices,” he said. “Our only chance to be competitive is to act like a startup nation and innovate. The first clause in the reform is for NIS 2b. to be invested in agricultural research and development.”

Shift to cyber

resilience: 7 steps to a…

Sponsored by TechBeacon

Recommended by

Liberman also suggested that farmers would do well to diversify their sources of income by using their farmland for other purposes, like creating solar energy fields, cellular antennas, or developing vacation rentals.

Cabinet meeting on August 2 where the budget was approved (credit: AMOS BEN GERSHOM, GPO)

REGARDING THE government’s recent decision to approve a NIS 1.1 billion addition to the budget for pensions of IDF officers, Liberman said it was necessary to maintain the IDF’s competitive advantage. “Salaries in the army cannot compete with those in private companies, and we cannot offer benefits or hours that will equal those in the private market. The only candy we can offer to keep good people in the army is pensions.”

Liberman downplayed the threats of Labor and Meretz to vote against the budget’s accompanying arrangements bill due to its agricultural reforms and the raising of the retirement age for women.

“There is always drama up to the last minute when approving a budget. That’s how it works,” he said. “So far, the coalition is working well together, despite that everyone is unhappy about different things. What unites us is that we are about to pass the most social budget in the nation’s history, after three and a half years without any budget.”

“It is important to understand that the Economic Arrangements Law containing the controversial reforms is an integral part of the budget,” Liberman added, noting that the concept of such a law was introduced in 1985 as a way of passing unpopular bills into law quickly. “The budget is the plan for how these reforms will be implemented. You can’t approve the budget without approving the law.”

Liberman will be meeting with coalition leaders later Monday and the heads of the parties in the coalition on Tuesday.

“I am in touch with them all, and we will have a majority for both the budget and the arrangements bill,” he said. “There will be drama, declarations and ultimatums. The rules of the genre won’t change: They are built-in. I accept it on a philosophical level.”

Liberman said that after two and a half years with no budget, new arrangements and difficult decisions were needed.

“Not everyone will be happy,” he said. “It can’t be different in a coalition that is so diverse. But there is plenty of common ground. I believe in logic: What we propose is logical.”

內塔尼亞胡被要求歸還來自川普、奧巴馬、普丁的禮物

儘管總理辦公室法律顧問要求歸還外國領導人的禮物，但前總理本雅明·內塔尼亞胡仍將外國領導人的禮物陳列在他的私人住宅中。

通過GIL HOFFMAN

2021 年 8 月 30 日 17:30

2021 年 5 月 10 日，本傑明·內塔尼亞胡總理在耶路撒冷彈藥山舉行的耶路撒冷日儀式上發表講話

（照片來源：KOBI GIDEON/FLASH90）

廣告

前總理內塔尼亞胡沒有遵守由總理辦公室法律顧問Shlomit巴爾內亞法拉戈請求恢復他從外國領導人收到的狀態禮物，根據文件顯示上週日通過晚報報紙專欄作家本·Caspit。

這些禮物被允許在總理辦公室或他的官邸展示，但內塔尼亞胡應該在他的任期結束時歸還它們。

禮物清單包括美國前總統唐納德特朗普宣布美國承認對戈蘭高地的控制權的紀念品、特朗普妻子梅拉尼婭的盤子、美國前總統巴拉克奧巴馬的裝有金葉的玻璃盒和第一本聖經。俄羅斯總統普京對拉什的評論。

還有來自德國總理安格拉·默克爾和法國前總統尼古拉·薩科齊的禮物，以及一本精美的小冊子，裡面有已故 Lubavitcher Rebbe 的名言 Menachem Mendel Schneerson。

內塔尼亞胡在 1999 年大選失利後離開總理辦公室時，還被指控非法收受屬於國家的禮物。在那起案件中，警方建議對內塔尼亞胡提出指控，但總檢察長因缺乏證據和離開政界而決定不起訴。

警方調查人員抵達本傑明·內塔尼亞胡總理的住所（圖片來源：YONATHAN SINDEL/FLASH90）

內塔尼亞胡發言人表示，所有禮物都已歸還，清單上的禮物不在內塔尼亞胡手中。

發言人還稱該報告“試圖製造一個虛構的插曲，以分散公眾對 [總理納夫塔利]貝內特和 [副總理亞伊爾]拉皮德的私人住宅翻新花費 2300 萬新謝克爾的注意力。”

Netanyahu asked to return gifts from Trump, Obama, Putin

Former PM Benjamin Netanyahu has kept gifts from foreign leaders on display at his private residence despite requests by the Prime MInister's Office legal adviser to return them.

By GIL HOFFMAN

AUGUST 30, 2021 17:30

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a Jerusalem Day ceremony, Ammunition Hill, Jerusalem, May 10, 2021

(photo credit: KOBI GIDEON/FLASH90)

Advertisement

Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not heeded requests by the Prime Minister's Office legal adviser Shlomit Barnea Farago to return to the state gifts he received from foreign leaders, according to documents revealed on Sunday by Ma'ariv newspaper columnist Ben Caspit.

The gifts were allowed to be displayed at the Prime Minister's Office or his official residence, but Netanyahu was supposed to return them when his term ended.

The list of gifts includes a memento of the declaration of American recognition of control over the Golan Heights from former US president Donald Trump, a plate from Trump's wife Melania, a glass box with gold leaves from former US president Barack Obama and the first Bible with Rashi's commentary from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

There were also gifts from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, and a fancy booklet of quotes of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

When Netanyahu left the Prime Minister’s Office after losing the 1999 election, he was also accused of illegally taking gifts that belonged to the state. The police recommended charges against Netanyahu in that case but the attorney-general decided against an indictment due to a lack of evidence and because he had left politics.

Police investigators arrive at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's residence (credit: YONATHAN SINDEL/FLASH90)

A spokesman for Netanyahu said all gifts were returned and the gifts on the list are not in Netanyahu’s possession.

The spokesperson also called the report “an attempt to create a fictitious episode to distract the public from the NIS 23 million spent on renovating the private residences of [Prime Minister Naftali] Bennett and [Alternate Prime Minister Yair] Lapid.”

海藻養殖場顯著減少氮和污染 - TAU 研究

TAU 和加州大學伯克利分校的一項新研究表明，海藻養殖場對環境有顯著的好處

通過耶路撒冷郵報STAFF

2021 年 8 月 31 日 00:12

在坎昆的海灘上可以看到海藻

（圖片來源：路透社）

廣告

特拉維夫大學和加州大學伯克利分校的一項聯合研究表明，在河口建立海藻養殖場可以顯著降低河口中的氮濃度，並防止河口和海洋環境受到污染。

該研究由博士生 Meiron Zollmann 領導，在 TAU 的 Alexander Golberg 教授和 Alexander Liberzon 教授的監督下，並與加州大學伯克利分校的 Boris Rubinsky 教授合作進行。它發表在著名的通訊生物學雜誌上。

研究人員建造了一個大型海藻農場來種植石蓴屬。地中海附近以色列亞歷山大河河口的綠色大型藻類，並收集了兩年多的數據。這條河將附近上游田地和城鎮的污染氮排放到大海中，使其成為研究的理想地點。

特拉維夫大學，鮑里斯·明茨全球挑戰戰略政策解決方案研究所的所在地（來源：CHEN GALILI）

據研究人員稱，氮是農業必需的肥料，但它會帶來環境成本。當氮到達海洋時，它會隨機擴散，從而破壞各種生態系統。因此，按照限制海洋中氮含量的公約，政府花費了大量資金來降低水中的氮濃度。

“我的實驗室研究水產養殖的基本過程並開發技術，”Golberg 教授解釋說。“在這項研究中，我們表明，如果按照我們開發的模型在河流河口種植海藻，它們可以吸收氮以符合環境標準並防止其在水中擴散，從而中和環境污染。”

“我們的模型允許海洋養殖者以及政府和環境機構在建立實際的養殖場之前，提前知道將會產生什麼影響以及大型海藻養殖場的產品將是什麼，”梅倫佐爾曼補充道。“多虧了數學，我們知道如何對大型農業農場進行調整，並最大限度地提高環境效益，包括生產農業所需的蛋白質數量。”

Seaweed farms significantly reduce nitrogen, pollution - TAU study

A new study from TAU and UC Berkeley suggests seaweed farms provide significant benefits to the environment

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF

AUGUST 31, 2021 00:12

Seaweed is seen on a beach in Cancun

(photo credit: REUTERS)

Advertisement

A joint study from Tel Aviv University and the University of California, Berkeley has suggested that the establishment of seaweed farms in river estuaries significantly reduces nitrogen concentrations in the estuary and prevents pollution in estuarine and marine environments.

The study was led by doctoral student Meiron Zollmann, under the supervision of Prof. Alexander Golberg and Prof. Alexander Liberzon at TAU and conducted in collaboration with Prof. Boris Rubinsky at UC Berkeley. It was published in the prestigious journal Communications Biology.

Researchers built a large seaweed farm for growing ulva sp. green macroalgae in the Alexander River estuary in Israel, off the Mediterranean Sea, and data was collected over two years. The river discharges polluting nitrogen from nearby upstream fields and towns into the sea, making it a perfect location for the study.

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY, home of the Boris Mints Institute for Strategic Policy Solutions to Global Challenges (credit: CHEN GALILI)

Nitrogen is a necessary fertilizer for agriculture, but it comes with an environmental cost, according to researchers. When nitrogen reaches the ocean, it disperses randomly, which damages various ecosystems. As a result, governments spend a significant amount of money on reducing nitrogen concentrations in water, following conventions that limit nitrogen loading in oceans.

"My laboratory researches basic processes and develops technologies for aquaculture," explains Prof. Golberg. " In this study, we showed that if seaweed is grown according to the model we developed, in rivers’ estuaries, they can absorb the nitrogen to conform to environmental standards and prevent its dispersal in water and thus neutralize environmental pollution."

"Our model allows marine farmers, as well as government and environmental bodies, to know, in advance, what the impact will be and what the products of a large seaweed farm will be – before setting up the actual farm," adds Meiron Zollman. "Thanks to mathematics, we know how to make the adjustments also concerning large agricultural farms and maximize environmental benefits, including producing the agriculturally desired protein quantities."

黎巴嫩燃料危機引發教派暴力

黎巴嫩南部什葉派穆斯林和基督徒村民爭奪燃料供應，有 6 人受傷。黎巴嫩軍隊被部署進行干預。

通過路透

2021 年 8 月 30 日 11:31

黎巴嫩軍隊士兵和法醫檢查員在 Qaa

（圖片來源：路透社）

廣告

一名安全消息人士稱，週末因燃料供應稀缺引發的爭端引發了黎巴嫩南部鄰近什葉派穆斯林和基督教村莊之間的教派緊張局勢，迫使軍隊進行干預。

主要集中在嚴重的汽油和柴油短缺問題上的衝突在黎巴嫩每天都在發生，這引發了人們對兩年金融危機後陷入混亂的日益擔憂。

消息人士稱，大約有 6 人在涉及馬格杜什基督教村和什葉派 Ankoun 的爭端中受傷。

週五，一名馬格杜什居民在燃料糾紛中受傷後向警方報案，警方前往安昆進行調查，事件升級。

消息人士稱，村民們封鎖了道路，燒毀了樹木，並部署了軍隊。週一局勢平靜。

一名黎巴嫩陸軍士兵在黎巴嫩北部阿卡的油箱爆炸現場附近站崗（圖片來源：OMAR IBRAHIM / REUTERS）

由議會議長納比赫·貝里 (Nabih Berri) 領導的什葉派阿邁勒運動譴責暴力事件，稱其“與馬格杜什發生的事情沒有任何形式或形式的關係”，否認社交媒體上的指控。

由於燃料短缺使黎巴嫩大部分地區陷入停頓，金融危機使該貨幣在兩年內下跌了 90% 以上，並迫使一半以上的人口陷入貧困，本月進入了一個新階段。

該州最資深的遜尼派穆斯林神職人員大穆夫提謝赫·阿卜杜勒·拉蒂夫·德里安週五表示，除非採取行動解決危機，否則黎巴嫩將走向徹底崩潰。

金融危機因政治癱瘓而雪上加霜，自去年貝魯特港口爆炸事件後最後一位政府辭職以來，該國一直沒有政府。

候任總理納吉布·米卡蒂（Najib Mikati）是自上一位辭職以來第三位試圖組建內閣的人，他週五表示，這一過程存在嚴重障礙。

Lebanon fuel crisis sparks sectarian violence

Six people were wounded in Southern Lebanon when Shi'ite Muslim and Christian villagers fought over fuel supplies. Lebanese forces were deployed to intervene.

By REUTERS

AUGUST 30, 2021 11:31

Lebanese army soldiers and forensic inspectors in Qaa

(photo credit: REUTERS)

Advertisement

A dispute over scarce fuel supplies ignited sectarian tensions between neighbouring Shi'ite Muslim and Christian villages in southern Lebanon over the weekend, forcing the army to intervene, a security source said.

Clashes mostly centred on the crippling gasoline and diesel shortages have become a daily occurrence in Lebanon, prompting growing concern about a descent into chaos after two years of financial meltdown.

Around six people were wounded in a dispute involving the Christian village of Maghdouche and Shi'ite Ankoun, the source said.

The incident spiralled when a Maghdouche resident filed a complaint to police after being injured during a dispute over fuel on Friday and police visited Ankoun to investigate.

Villagers blocked roads and burnt trees and troops were deployed, the source said. The situation was calm on Monday.

A Lebanese army soldier stands guard near the site of a fuel tank explosion in Akkar, in northern Lebanon (credit: OMAR IBRAHIM / REUTERS)

The Shi'ite Amal movement, headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, condemned the violence, saying it had, "no relation in any way shape or form to what happened in Maghdouche", denying accusations on social media of involvement.

The financial meltdown, which has seen the currency sink by more than 90% in two years and forced more than half of the population into poverty, entered a new phase this month as the fuel shortages brought much of Lebanon to a standstill.

The state's most senior Sunni Muslim cleric, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Latif Derian, said on Friday Lebanon was heading towards complete collapse unless action was taken to remedy the crisis.

The financial meltdown has been compounded by political paralysis, the country being without a government since the last one resigned in the aftermath of last year's Beirut port blast.

Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati, the third to attempt to form a cabinet since the last one resigned, said on Friday there were grave hurdles complicating the process.

敘利亞石油洩漏目前不會對以色列構成風險

雖然敘利亞附近的大規模石油洩漏目前並未威脅到以色列，但環境保護部仍在繼續對其進行監控。

通過TZVI JOFFRE

2021 年 8 月 29 日 14:06

上周海上石油洩漏污染了以色列地中海海岸線的大部分地區後，大量的焦油在阿什杜德的海灘上留下了沙子。

（圖片來源：AMIR COHEN/REUTERS）

廣告

該部周一宣布，敘利亞北部沿海發生的大規模漏油事件目前並未對以色列構成威脅，但環境保護部將繼續監測情況，以防情況發生變化。

上週，巴尼亞斯熱力站的一個油箱出現裂縫，導致大量燃料流入海中。據敘利亞國家通訊社SANA報導，該油箱裝滿了15,000噸燃料。

發電總署總幹事馬哈茂德·拉馬丹告訴 SANA，該事件不是由破壞行為引起的。

截至週日，敘利亞沿海多個地點的清理工作仍在繼續。

來自 Planet 衛星圖像的衛星圖像顯示，一英里長的浮油從敘利亞海岸延伸並擴散到地中海。

截至週日，以色列環境保護部報告說，浮油正被沿海河流向北運送。

國家海洋溢油應急計劃協調員 Yoav Ratner 一直與位於馬耳他的地中海區域海洋污染應急響應中心 (REMPEC) 保持聯繫，以監測事件並跟踪它是否對以色列的海洋造成威脅。海岸。以色列也向 REMPEC 提供了援助。

週二，一名婦女在海上石油洩漏後清理帕爾馬希姆海灘上的焦油，該事件浸透了該國大部分海岸線。（來源：YOSSI ALONI/FLASH90）

最新信息顯示，以色列海岸沒有直接危險，因為污染繼續向北流動，並蔓延到約 46 平方英里（120 平方公里）的區域。然而，推動石油向北移動的海流可能會改變並向其他方向移動，包括朝向以色列，因此該部正在繼續監測浮油。

石油洩漏發生在 2 月份石油洩漏導致大量石油覆蓋以色列海岸之後幾個月，環境保護部將污染歸咎於運載伊朗石油的油輪EMERALD。

Syria oil spill does not currently pose a risk to Israel

While a large oil spill off Syria does not currently threaten Israel, the Environmental Protection Ministry continues to monitor it.

By TZVI JOFFRE

AUGUST 29, 2021 14:06

LUMPS OF tar mar the sand at a beach in Ashdod after an offshore oil spill polluted much of Israel’s Mediterranean shoreline last week.

(photo credit: AMIR COHEN/REUTERS)

Advertisement

A large oil spill off the coast of northern Syria does not currently pose a threat to Israel, but the Environmental Protection Ministry is continuing to monitor the situation in case that changes, the ministry announced on Monday.

Last week, a crack in a fuel tank at the Baniyas Thermal Station led to large quantities of fuel being poured into the sea. The tank was filled with 15,000 tons of fuel, according to the Syrian state news agency SANA.

Mahmoud Ramadan, director-general of the General Establishment for Electricity Generation, told SANA that the incident was not caused by an act of sabotage.

As of Sunday, cleanup efforts were continuing at a number of locations along the Syrian coast.

Satellite imagery from Planet satellite imagery showed a miles-long oil slick extending off the coast of Syria and spreading into the Mediterranean Sea.

As of Sunday, Israel's Environmental Protection Ministry reported that the oil slick was being carried northward by coastal streams.

Yoav Ratner, the coordinator of the National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan, is in constant contact with the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC) in Malta in order to monitor the incident and track if it poses a threat to Israel's coast. Israel has also offered its aid to REMPEC.

A WOMAN cleans tar off the Palmahim beach on Tuesday following an offshore oil spill, which drenched most of the country’s coastline. (credit: YOSSI ALONI/FLASH90)

The latest information shows that there is no direct danger to Israel's shores, as the pollution continues to flow northward and spreads over an area of about 46 square miles (120 square kilometers). However, sea currents that are pushing the oil northward could change and move in other directions, including towards Israel, so the ministry is continuing to monitor the oil slick.

The oil spill comes just months after an oil spill caused large amounts of oil to coat Israel's shores in February, with the Environmental Protection Ministry blaming the tanker EMERALD, which carried Iranian oil, for the pollution.

高等法院裁定《回歸法》適用於符合條件的寡婦

回歸法授予猶太人、猶太人的孩子和猶太人的孫子以及他們的配偶獲得以色列公民身份的權利。

作者：傑瑞米·沙龍

2021 年 8 月 30 日 21:48

在聽證會上的高等法院

（照片來源：ALEX KLOMOISKY / POOL）

廣告

高等法院週日裁定，根據《回歸法》，猶太人的子孫的寡婦和鰥夫有資格獲得以色列公民身份並移民到該國。

該裁決每年僅對幾十人產生實際影響。這意味著與非猶太人但根據回歸法有資格獲得公民身份的人結婚的男人和女人將保留自己的公民身份，即使他們的配偶已經去世。

該裁決受到以色列改革和進步猶太教運動的法律機構以色列宗教行動中心 (IRAC) 的歡迎，因為它允許家庭在以色列團聚。內政部長阿耶萊特·沙克德( Ayelet Shaked)和其他人譴責它破壞了回歸法和國家的猶太基礎。

3

/

5

Israeli experts analyze mRNA COVID vaccines long-term effects

閱讀更多

Pause下一個

熱門文章

IRAC 律師 Nicole Maor 說，這項裁決對於子女已經移居以色列但近年來在其配偶去世後被內政部阻止進入以色列的男性和女性尤其重要。

回歸法授予猶太人、猶太人的孩子和猶太人的孫子以及他們的配偶獲得以色列公民身份的權利。

法律還允許猶太人的配偶獲得公民身份，即使他們的配偶死亡。然而，法律中允許這種情況的條款並沒有明確規定，根據回歸法，死去的猶太人的子女和孫子女的配偶也可以獲得公民身份。

直到 2016 年，內政部才允許猶太人的子孫的寡婦和鰥夫獲得公民身份。但它改變了政策並開始阻止這些人的公民身份申請。

Maor 說，IRAC 隨後開始收到此類人的援助請求，包括那些在以色列有孩子的人。

由 Raid 贊助：Shadow Legends

被推薦

她說，在一個案例中，烏克蘭的一名猶太人的兒子嫁給了一個非猶太人並育有四個孩子。四個孩子中的三個移民到以色列，在軍隊服役並在以色列過著他們的生活。父親去世時，父親和母親正計劃製作 aliyah。

內政部長阿耶萊特·沙克德於 2021 年 7 月 5 日在以色列議會發表講話。（圖片來源：MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST）

這位母親隨後繼續她的 aliyah 請求，要求與她在以色列的孩子團聚，但被內政部阻止。

高等法院週日的裁決意味著她現在將被允許獲得公民身份並移民到以色列。

儘管對該決定提出了批評，但高等法院的裁決實際上加強了回歸法，因為它將“加強第三代與他們做阿利亞的願望的聯繫，因為他們知道如果他們的父母能夠加入他們，所以希望，”毛爾說。

IRAC 執行董事 Anat Hoffman 稱讚她所說的“一項影響深遠的裁決，改變了以色列家庭的生活，他們有時等待與親人團聚……與猶太人在一起，可以在猶太國家與家人一起安家。”

該裁決受到包括Shaked在內的右翼政客的強烈批評。

她寫道：“今天，高等法院再次將自己定位為最高立法機構，並侵蝕了‘以色列法律中最重要的法律’（用撰寫少數意見的明茨大法官的話）的回歸法。”

法官遴選委員會將很快任命四名新的高等法院法官，Shaked 說，“我保證，在尋找合適的候選人時，Mintz 法官的少數意見將擺在委員會面前。”

以色列現在是“所有非猶太人的國家”，利庫德集團 MK Shlomo Karhi 說，並補充說：“高等法院正在侵蝕這個猶太國家的基礎，並通過‘有目的的解釋’歪曲法律，使其符合願望其進步的法官。如果我們不結束這一切，高等法院將結束這個猶太國家。”

High Court rules Law of Return extends to widows of those eligible

The Law of Return grants a Jew, the child of a Jew, and the grandchild of a Jew the right to Israeli citizenship, along with their spouses.

By JEREMY SHARON

AUGUST 30, 2021 21:48

The High Court of Justice during a hearing

(photo credit: ALEX KOLOMOISKY / POOL)

Advertisement

Widows and widowers of the children and grandchildren of Jews are eligible to obtain Israeli citizenship and immigrate to the country under the Law of Return, the High Court of Justice ruled Sunday.

The ruling has practical implications for only a few dozen people a year. It means that men and women who married someone who was not Jewish but was eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return will retain their own eligibility for citizenship, even though their spouse has died.

The ruling was welcomed by the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC), the legal arm of the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism, for allowing families to be reunited in Israel. It was denounced by Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked and others as undermining the Law of Return and the Jewish foundations of the state.

2

/

5

COVID: Israel surpasses 7,000 deaths since start of pandemic

Read More

PauseUp Next

TOP ARTICLES

The ruling is particularly relevant for men and women whose children have already moved to Israel but who have in recent years been blocked by the Interior Ministry from entering after their spouses passed away, IRAC attorney Nicole Maor said.

The Law of Return grants a Jew, the child of a Jew and the grandchild of a Jew the right to Israeli citizenship, along with their spouses.

The law also allows the spouse of a Jew to obtain citizenship even if their spouse died. However, the clause in the law permitting this situation does not explicitly state that the spouses of the children and grandchildren of Jews who died can also get citizenship under the Law of Return.

Until 2016, the Interior Ministry allowed widows and widowers of the children and grandchildren of Jews to obtain citizenship. But it changed its policy and began blocking citizenship requests by such people.

The IRAC then began receiving requests for assistance from people in this category, including those who had children in Israel, Maor said.

Tasmania: An

Australian Island’s…

Sponsored by Mansion Global

Recommended by

In one case, a man in Ukraine who was the son of a Jew was married to a non-Jew and had four children, she said. Three of the four children immigrated to Israel, served in the army and made their lives in Israel. The father and mother were planning to make aliyah when the father died.

Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked is seen speaking at the Knesset, on July 5, 2021. (credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

The mother subsequently went ahead with her aliyah request to be reunited with her children in Israel but was blocked by the Interior Ministry.

The High Court’s ruling on Sunday means she will now be allowed to gain citizenship and immigrate to Israel.

Despite the criticism voiced against the decision, the High Court’s ruling actually strengthens the Law of Return since it will “strengthen the connection of the third generation and their desire to make aliyah, in the knowledge that their parents will be able to join them if they so wish,” Maor said.

IRAC executive director Anat Hoffman applauded what she said was a “far-reaching ruling that is life-changing for Israeli families who have waited, sometimes for years, to be reunited with their loved ones… Finally, these individuals, who are connected with the Jewish people, can make their home with their families in the Jewish state.”

The ruling was strongly criticized by right-wing politicians, including Shaked.

“The High Court has again positioned itself today as the ultimate legislature and eroded the Law of Return, the ‘most important law among Israeli laws’ (in the words of Justice Mintz who wrote the minority opinion),” she wrote.

The Selection Committee for Judges would soon appoint four new High Court justices, Shaked said, “and I promise that the minority opinion of Judge Mintz will be placed in front of the eyes of the committee when searching for suitable candidates.”

Israel was now “a state of all its non-Jews,” Likud MK Shlomo Karhi said, adding: “The High Court is eroding the foundations of the Jewish state and through ‘purposive interpretation’ distorts the law so that it will serve the wishes of its progressive judges. If we do not put an end to this, the High Court will put an end to the Jewish state.”