四大强国都承诺支持犹太复国主义。无论犹太复国主义是对是错、是善是恶，它都植根于由来已久的传统、当下的需要和未来的希望，其重要性远超过现今居住在这片古老土地上的70万[巴勒斯坦]阿拉伯人的愿望与偏见。（阿瑟·詹姆斯·贝尔福，引自Nutting 2013）

The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestine] Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. (Arthur James Balfour, cited in Nutting 2013)

犹太复国主义的定居者殖民主义是巴勒斯坦冲突的核心；定居者殖民主义是一种结构，而非一段历史插曲（Wolfe 2006）。犹太复国主义的定居者殖民主义深深植根于欧洲殖民主义之中。英国殖民者往往无视原住民的存在与权利，把世界上的大片土地视为 terra nullius，即“无主之地”。这一表述（最初源自罗马法）用来指称不受任何欧洲国家主权管辖的领土；对于无主之地的主权，可以通过占领和/或定居者殖民而取得。

Zionist settler-colonialism is at the heart of the conflict in Palestine; settler-colonialism is a structure not an episode (Wolfe 2006). Zionist settler-colonialism is deeply rooted in European colonialism. Ignoring the existence and rights of indigenous peoples, British colonialists often saw large parts of the earth as terra nullius, ‘nobody’s land’. This (originally Roman legal) expression was used to describe territory which was not subject to the sovereignty of any European state – sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation and/ or settler-colonisation.

当19世纪末欧洲的“犹太复国主义民族主义”作为一股政治力量兴起，呼吁对巴勒斯坦进行移民殖民并“聚集所有犹太人”时，人们几乎没有注意到巴勒斯坦早已有人居住。事实上，1897年发起政治犹太复国主义运动的第一届犹太复国主义大会所通过的《巴塞尔纲领》，在阐明该运动的目标时，只字未提巴勒斯坦的本土居民，其表述为：“在巴勒斯坦为犹太民族建立一个受公法保障的家园”。

When in the late 19th century European ‘Zionism nationalism’ arose as a political force calling for the settler-colonisation of Palestine and the ‘gathering of all Jews’, little attention was paid to the fact that Palestine was already populated. Indeed, the Basel Programme adopted at the First Zionist Congress, which launched political Zionism in 1897, made no mention of a Palestinian indigenous population when it spelled out the movement’s objective: ‘the establishment of a publicly and legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people’.

此外,在争取支持其事业的早期,犹太复国主义者在西方宣扬"无人之地待有地之民"这一种族主义神话。这一口号由以色列·赞格威尔推广,他是一位杰出的英裔犹太作家,常被英国媒体引用为犹太复国主义的发言人,也是英国最早组织犹太复国运动的人之一。直到1914年,哈伊姆·魏茨曼仍表示:他后来成为以色列首任总统,并与西奥多·赫茨尔和大卫·本-古里安一道,被视为最应为将犹太复国主义的梦想变为现实而负责的三人之一。

Moreover, in the early years of their efforts to secure support for their enterprise, the Zionists propagated in the West the racist myth of ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’, a slogan popularised by Israel Zangwill, a prominent Anglo-Jewish writer often quoted in the British press as a spokesman for Zionism and one of the earliest organisers of the Zionist movement in Britain. Even as late as 1914, Chaim Weizmann, who was to become the first President of Israel and who, along with Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion, was one of the three men most responsible for turning the Zionist dream into reality, stated:

在其初始阶段，犹太复国主义被其先驱者构想为一场完全依赖于机械性因素的运动：有一个恰好被称为巴勒斯坦的国家，一个没有人民的国家；另一方面，存在着犹太人民，而他们没有国家。那么，还需要什么呢？只需把宝石镶进戒指，把这个民族与这片土地结合起来。因此，这片土地的主人［土耳其人］必须被说服、被确信，这桩婚姻不仅对［犹太］民族和这片土地有利，对他们自己也有利。1

In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Turks] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves.1

Zangwill和Weizmann都没有将这些人口评估当作字面意思来理解。他们的意思并不是巴勒斯坦没有人，而是说，在当时盛行的欧洲种族优越论框架之内，那里的人不被视为值得考虑的人。在这一点上，Weizmann对犹太机构殖民部负责人Arthur Ruppin所作的一句评论尤其能说明问题。

Neither Zangwill nor Weizmann intended these demographic assessments in a literal fashion. They did not mean that there were no people in Palestine, but that there were no people worth considering within the framework of the notions of racist European supremacy that then held sway. In this connection, a comment by Weizmann to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonisation department of the Jewish Agency, is particularly revealing.

当鲁平询问关于巴勒斯坦本土阿拉伯人的情况时,魏兹曼回答说:"英国人告诉我们,那里大约有十万个黑鬼[希伯来语:kushim,即黑人],对这些人而言没有价值。"2

When asked by Ruppin about the indigenous Palestinian Arabs, Weizmann replied: ‘The British told us that there are there some hundred thousand niggers [Hebrew: kushim, negroes] and for those there is no value.’2

在英语中，nigger一词是白人对黑人和非洲人的种族主义蔑称。它的贬义内涵与另一个英语贬义词philistine相呼应，后者是英国白人从圣经中的偏见借来并在日常用语中普及的。然而，在魏茨曼及其同伴所处的白人种族主义殖民文化中，把巴勒斯坦原住民称为nigger，会是本能而自然的。与魏茨曼的人口种族主义和沙夫茨伯里的圣经东方主义相呼应，赞格维尔在1920年以令人钦佩的清晰度阐明了他那句口号的真实含义。

In the English language, the word nigger is a White racist slur directed at Black and African people. Its derogatory connotations echo another pejorative English word, philistine, which White Britain borrowed from biblical prejudices and popularised in daily parlance. However, in the White racist colonial culture within which Weizmann and co. operated, the reference to the indigenous people of Palestine as nigger would have been instinctive and natural. Echoing Weizmann’s demographic racism and Shaftesbury’s biblical Orientalism, Zangwill himself spelled out the actual meaning of his slogan with admirable clarity in 1920:

如果沙夫茨伯里勋爵对巴勒斯坦是“没有人民的国家”的描述在字面上并不精确，那么他的说法在实质上基本是正确的，因为并不存在与这片土地紧密交融、利用其资源并赋予其鲜明特征的阿拉伯人民：充其量只是一些阿拉伯人的营地。（Zangwill 1920: 104；另见 Kamel 2015）

If Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilising its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress: there is at best an Arab encampment. (Zangwill 1920: 104; see also Kamel 2015)

英国国内与帝国层面的考量、犹太复国主义游说者（尤其是柴姆·魏茨曼，1874‒1952）以及基督教复国主义的预言政治相互交织，最终促成了1917年的《贝尔福宣言》，该宣言承诺在巴勒斯坦建立“犹太民族家园”（Anderson, I. 2005: 1, 57‒58）。作为一个帝国世界强国，英国首次公开支持犹太复国主义者对巴勒斯坦的占有图谋。这份极具争议的文件以11月2日为日期，由外交大臣阿瑟·詹姆斯·贝尔福（后封贝尔福勋爵）以书信形式发出，写给英国著名的犹太复国运动支持者莱昂内尔·沃尔特（罗斯柴尔德勋爵），宣布英国支持政治犹太复国主义。

The interplay between British domestic and imperial considerations, Jewish Zionist lobbyists (especially Chaim Weizmann, 1874‒1952) and Christian Zionist prophetic politics would lead to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which promised a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine (Anderson, I. 2005: 1, 57‒58). Then an imperial world power, Britain gave sanction for the first time to the Zionist campaign for possession of Palestine. This highly controversial document, dated 2 November, was issued by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour (later Lord Balfour), in the form of a letter to a prominent British Jewish supporter of the Zionist movement, Lionel Walter (Lord) Rothschild, declaring British support for political Zionism:

英国政府赞同在巴勒斯坦建立犹太民族的民族之家，并将竭尽全力促成这一目标的实现，同时明确理解：不得采取任何损害巴勒斯坦现有非犹太社群的公民权利和宗教权利，或犹太人在其他任何国家所享有的权利和政治地位的行动。（转引自 Said 1980: 3）

Her Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. (Quoted in Said 1980: 3)

尽管二十世纪初，犹太复国主义运动已经发起了一系列国际代表大会，并在巴勒斯坦建立了一些小型犹太人定居点，但真正使犹太复国主义计划转变为巴勒斯坦境内一项重大欧洲殖民定居项目的，是当时的头号帝国强国对犹太复国主义的扶持。

Although the Zionist Jewish movement had already initiated a series of international congresses and established small Jewish colonies in the early 20th century Palestine, it was the sponsorship of Zionism by the leading imperial power of the age that would transform the Zionist project into a major European settler-colonial project in Palestine.

贝尔福的遗产与他在1917年发表的亲犹太复国主义宣言密不可分。该宣言的动机十分复杂。贝尔福所持的基督教犹太复国主义立场，很大程度上源于对犹太人的仇视、对所谓"犹太复国主义犹太人权势"的夸大想象，以及对东欧犹太人大规模移民英国的恐惧。作为首相，贝尔福曾推动通过了1905年《外侨法》，其主要目的是限制东欧犹太人进入英国。布赖恩·克鲁格以颇为怀疑的口吻写道："把犹太人挡在英国之外，与把他们送往巴勒斯坦，不过是同一枚反犹硬币的两面。"在这一问题上，犹太复国主义史学家往往刻意回避动机与理由之间的区别，转而援引贝尔福战后的基督教犹太复国主义言论，为其宣言辩护。然而，在评估该宣言背后的动机，以及贝尔福承诺给巴勒斯坦带来的长期灾难性后果时，必须考虑贝尔福出于战略和民族主义国内考量所作的努力，尤其是他为阻止东欧犹太人涌入英国而采取的、有充分记载的举措与政策。

Balfour’s legacy became inseparable from the pro-Zionist Declaration he issued in 1917. The reasons for the declaration were complex. Balfour’s brand of Christian Zionism was driven by a great deal of Judeophobia, hyped perceptions of ‘Zionist Jewish power’ and of fears of mass immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe to Britain. As Prime Minister, Balfour had passed the 1905 Aliens Act, the main object of which was to restrict the entry into Britain of Jews from Eastern Europe. Brian Klug put it rather sceptically: ‘Keeping Jews out of Britain and packing them off to Palestine were just two sides of the same antisemitic coin’.3 Here Zionist historians often chose to ignore the distinction between drivers/motives and justification and seize upon Balfour’s own post-war Christian Zionist rhetoric to justify his Declaration. Yet Balfour’s strategic and nationalist domestic motives and concerns, especially his well-documented efforts and policies to stop the influx of Eastern European Jewry into the UK, must be taken into consideration in any attempt to assess the motives behind the Declaration as well as the long-term catastrophic consequences for Palestine of that Balfour commitment.

这一英国亲以色列立场的宗教与政治根源,可以追溯到19世纪30年代在伦敦成立的新教基督教シオ主义游说团体,其创立者是沙夫茨伯里勋爵(安东尼·阿什利·库珀;1801‒1885)。沙夫茨伯里出身于英国贵族统治精英阶层,数十年间处于维多利亚时代统治集团的核心。他在维多利亚时代鼎盛时期还因倡导社会改革政策而闻名。沙夫茨伯里曾任下议院的托利党议员,后来成为上议院议员,上议院是英国议会的上院。他是梅尔本勋爵的姻侄,梅尔本在1834至1841年间的大部分时期担任首相;他也是帕麦斯顿勋爵的继子女的姻亲,帕麦斯顿在19世纪40年代至50年代初的大部分时间担任外交大臣,随后在1855至1865年间的大部分时期担任首相(Merkley 1998:

The religio-political roots of this British pro-Zionist commitment go all the way back to the Protestant Christian Zionist lobby which was established in London in the 1830s by Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper; 1801‒1885). Shaftesbury came from the British aristocratic ruling elite and was for decades at the heart of the Victorian establishment. He also became well known for advocating socially reformist policies at the height of the Victorian era. Shaftesbury was a Tory member of the Commons, and later a member of the Lords, the upper house of Parliament in the United Kingdom. He was the nephew-in-law of Lord Melbourne (Prime Minister through most of the period from 1834 to 1841), and the stepson-in-law of Lord Palmerston (Foreign Minister for most of the 1840s and early 1850s, and then Prime Minister for most of the period 1855‒1865) (Merkley 1998:

13）帕默斯顿（1784–1865）在19世纪中叶两度出任首相。从1830年到1865年间，他在英国外交政策中占据主导地位，那时英国正处于帝国主义权力的顶峰。沙夫茨伯里多次获得历届英国政府授予的权力职位，帕默斯顿鼓励并在经济上支持他，两人都在1838年英国驻耶路撒冷领事馆的设立中发挥了关键作用。这一领事馆在19世纪由基督教シオ�主义者主导，并处于英国帝国主义计划的核心，这些计划最终导致了巴勒斯坦的《贝尔福宣言》政策（Schölch 1992）。

13). Palmerston (1784–1865) served twice as Prime Minister in the mid-19th century. For most of 1830 to 1865 he dominated British foreign policy when Britain was at the height of its imperialist power. Shaftesbury was offered positions of power by successive British governments, Palmerston encouraged and financially supported him and both men were instrumental in the establishment of the British Consulate in Jerusalem in 1838 – a Consulate which in the 19th century was dominated by Christian Zionists and was at the centre of British imperial schemes which led to the Balfour policy in Palestine (Schölch 1992).

特别是虔诚热烈的新教基督教复国主义者沙夫茨伯里，他是“上帝古老子民”（他如此称呼犹太人）复归的最狂热宣传者和游说者（Tuchman 1982）。他和他所主导的那个有影响力的圈子深受“末世”预言政治的影响——这种以《旧约·但以理书》为基础的布道式政治，他们相信犹太人将通过“字面意义上的回归”和向巴勒斯坦的“复归”而得到应验。随着奥斯曼帝国的覆灭似乎迫在眉睫，英国境内新教对“犹太复国主义式复归”以及对巴勒斯坦殖民定居的倡导日益增多，并被视为对扩张中的大英帝国在中东极为有利的举措。19世纪中后期，沙夫茨伯里领导了英国基督教复国主义游说集团，其成员包括林赛勋爵（Crawford 1847: 71）、曼彻斯特勋爵、乔治·艾略特、霍尔曼·亨特和霍尔·凯恩等体制内人物。

In particular, crusading Protestant Christian Zionist Shaftesbury was the most ardent propagator and lobbyist of the restoration of ‘God’s ancient people’, as he styled the Jews (Tuchman 1982). He and the influential circle he dominated were under the influence of the ‘End of Times’ prophetic politics – evangelising politics based on the Old Testament’s Book of Daniel – which they believed would be fulfilled by the ‘literal return’ and ‘Restoration’ of the Jews to Palestine. As the demise of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be approaching, the Protestant advocacy of ‘Jewish restorationism’ and settler-colonisation of Palestine increased in the UK and was seen as highly beneficial to the expanding British Empire in the Middle East. In the mid-to-late 19th century Shaftesbury led the British Christian Zionist lobby which included establishment figures such as Lord Lindsay (Crawford 1847: 71), Lord Manchester, George Eliot, Holman Hunt and Hall Caine.

集维多利亚时代新教帝国主义之大成的沙夫茨伯里，既是热衷圣经辩论的人，也是神话的制造者。他狂热地宣扬一种神话，即犹太人遍布各地、历久不衰地渴望“回归”，并于1840年11月4日……

Epitomising Victorian Protestant imperialism, Bible-bashing Shaftesbury was also a myth-maker. He pushed zealously the myth of ubiquitous and perennial Jewish diaspora longing to ‘return’, and on 4 November 1840

他在《泰晤士报》（伦敦）上刊登了一则广告：

he placed an advertisement in the Times (London):

犹太人的复国：有一份备忘录已致函欧洲的新教君主，主题是犹太民族重返巴勒斯坦地。该文件的起因是东方事务的某种特殊巧合，以及其他引人注目的“时代迹象”，它重提那项将该土地赐予亚伯拉罕后裔的原始盟约。（引自Wagner 1995: 91）

RESTORATION OF THE JEWS: A memorandum has been addressed to the Protestant monarchs of Europe on the subject of the restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine. The document in question, dictated by a peculiar conjunction of affairs in the East, and other striking ‘signs of the times’, reverts to the original covenant which secures that land to the [Jewish] descendant of Abraham. (Quoted in Wagner 1995: 91)

沙夫茨伯里（Shaftesbury）直接促成了一句宣传口号："一个没有国家的国家，给没有国土的民族"（"A country without a nation for a nation without a country"），这句口号后来成为犹太复国主义的一个核心神话："一片没有人民的土地，给没有土地的人民"（"A land without a people for a people without a land"）（Masalha 1997；Hyamson 1950：10、12；Kamel 2015）。

Shaftesbury was directly responsible for the propagandistic slogan ‘A country without a nation for a nation without a country’,4 later to be become a key Zionist Jewish myth: ‘A land without a people for a people without a land’ (Masalha 1997; Hyamson 1950: 10, 12; Kamel 2015).

在评估他的游说活动对英国新教シ�ionist运动命运的影响时，唐纳德·瓦格纳写道： Wait, I made an error: I wrote "シ�ionist" by mistake. Corrected translation: 在评估他的游说活动对英国基督教新教シオニスト运动命运的影响时，唐纳德·瓦格纳写道： Correction: the proper Chinese term is 锡安主义. Final: 在评估他的游说活动对英国新教锡安主义运动命运的影响时，唐纳德·瓦格纳写道：

Assessing the significance of his lobbying efforts on the fortunes of the Protestant Zionist movement in Britain, Donald Wagner writes:

不能夸大沙夫茨伯里勋爵对英国政治精英、教会领袖以及普通基督徒平信徒的影响。他的努力和宗教政治思想,或许为英国在此后一百年间对近东,特别是圣地的殖民政策定下了基调。他独树一帜地将布赖特曼、亨利·芬奇和约翰·内尔森·达比[现代前千禧年主义分期论之父]的神学立场转化为政治战略:5 见下文]5。他的高层政治人脉与敏锐的政治直觉相结合,共同推动了基督教复国主义的愿景。(Wagner 1995: 92)

One cannot overstate the influence of Lord Shaftesbury on the British political elites, church leaders, and the average Christian layperson. His efforts and religious political thought may have set the tone for England’s colonial approach to the Near East and in particular the holy land during the next one hundred years. He singularly translated the theological positions of Brightman, Henry Finch, and John Nelson Darby [the father of modern premillennial dispensationalism]:5 see below]5 into a political strategy. His high political connections, matched by his uncanny instincts, combined to advance the Christian Zionist vision. (Wagner 1995: 92)

1880年,国会议员、小说家、福音派基督徒、沙夫茨伯里的追随者F. 劳伦斯·奥利芬特(1829‒1888)出版了一本名为《基列之地》的书(书名取自圣经中的"基列之地"),书中提出了一项"犹太人复国"的计划,并详细规划了约旦河东岸的犹太人定居点。他敦促英国议会协助犹太人从俄国和东欧移民至巴勒斯坦。不出所料,他还主张将巴勒斯坦本地的阿拉伯人迁入保留地,就像北美原住民那样。7

In 1880 F. Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888), MP, novelist and evangelical Christian, a follower of Shaftesbury, published a book entitled The Land of Gilead (named after the biblical ‘land of Gilead’),6 in which he presented a plan of ‘Jewish restoration’ and a detailed project for Jewish settlement east of the River Jordan. He urged the British parliament to assist Jewish immigration from Russia and Eastern Europe to Palestine. Not surprisingly he also advocated that indigenous Palestinian Arabs be removed to reservations like those of the indigenous inhabitants of North America7

(Sharif 1983: 68),或暗示南非后来发展出的班图斯坦意识形态(Sharif 1983: 68;Wagner 1995: 93)。

(Sharif 1983: 68), or hinting at the Bantustan ideology later developed by South Africa (Sharif 1983: 68; Wagner 1995: 93).

由于新教的宗教考量与帝国主义考量交织在一起,一些英国人开始撰写基督教复国主义小说,成立探险协会,并在公开场合和私下里倡导"让犹太人重返巴勒斯坦"。此外,近东地区接连不断的考古发现、军事冒险活动以及日益增多的游记,激起了新教传教士、欧洲官员和阿拉伯学者的想象,并促使欧洲列强直接介入圣地事务(Shepherd 1987; Osband 1989)。这种欧洲人对考古过去的痴迷,明显伴随着对巴勒斯坦本土民众以及现代巴勒斯坦村镇生活的轻蔑。 在大英帝国鼎盛、维多利亚时代,"圣经复国主义"的预言式政治与英国在"东方"日益加深的殖民介入齐头并进。19世纪的圣地,对于当时正在全球范围内展示殖民实力的几个欧洲国家而言,是颇具吸引力的目标。奥斯曼帝国呈现出政治和经济解体的迹象,使该地区已准备好接受西方的渗透。欧洲各国争夺在东方、尤其是在圣地的国家存在和殖民商业利益,却以学术活动和东方学研究为掩饰(Said 1978)。与欧洲对"巴勒斯坦的争夺"同步,西方学术界的各个领域以及西方大多数基督教教会,对巴勒斯坦的兴趣与日俱增。外国的这种兴趣几乎总是以设立基督教机构的形式出现:克里米亚战争(1853—1856年)之后的奥斯曼改革赋予非穆斯林平等权利,包括财产权,由此将基督教传教事业与国家影响力结合在一起。上帝的利益与国家的利益并行不悖。英国人行动较早,随后很快被俄国人效仿。10

A combination of Protestant religious and imperialist considerations drove some Britons to produce Christian Zionist novels, to set up exploration societies and to advocate the ‘restoration of the Jews to Palestine’ in public and in private.8 Furthermore, a succession of archaeological discoveries in the Near East, military adventurism and the growing number of travelogues fired the imagination of Protestant missionaries, European officials and Arabist scholars and led to the direct involvement European powers in the Holy Land (Shepherd 1987; Osband 1989). This European obsession with the archaeological past was marked by a decided contempt for the indigenous people of Palestine and life in modern Palestinian villages and towns At the height of the British Empire and the Victorian era prophetic politics of ‘biblical restorationism’ went hand in hand with increasing British colonial involvement in the ‘Orient’. The Holy Land in the 19th century was an attractive target for several European nations which were flexing their colonial muscles around the globe. The region was ready for Western penetration, particularly while the Ottoman Empire was showing signs of political and economic disintegration. The race for a European national presence and colonial commercial interests in the East, and in the Holy Land in particular, was masked by scholarly activities and Oriental Studies (Said 1978). Coinciding with the European ‘scramble for Palestine’, various sectors of the Western academy, and most of the Western Christian churches, displayed an increasing interest in Palestine. Invariably foreign interest took the form of establishing Christian institutions – the Ottoman reforms after the Crimean War (1853‒1856) granted equal rights, including property rights, to non-Muslims – thereby uniting Christian missionary endeavour with national influence. The interests of God and country ran in parallel. The British moved early,9 and were soon emulated by the Russians,10

Germans,11 Austrians (Wrba 1996) and others, marking the beginning of extensive Western influence in Palestine, an influence which the Ottomans feared might be a prelude to attempting to recover Palestine as a Christian state.12 Such was the degree of Western penetration that the Austrian consul, the Count de Caboga, reported in 1880 that Jerusalem had become a European city, and Captain (later General Sir) Charles Warren (1840‒1927) of the British Royal Engineers and one of the key officers of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, who was sent to map the Old Testament topography of Jerusalem and investigate ‘the site of the temple’, noted: ‘[British] King Consul [James Finn] rules supreme, not over the natives of the city, but over strangers; but yet these strangers for the most part are the rightful owners, the natives, for the most part, are usurpers’ (Shepherd 1987: 127‒128).

Germans,11 Austrians (Wrba 1996) and others, marking the beginning of extensive Western influence in Palestine, an influence which the Ottomans feared might be a prelude to attempting to recover Palestine as a Christian state.12 Such was the degree of Western penetration that the Austrian consul, the Count de Caboga, reported in 1880 that Jerusalem had become a European city, and Captain (later General Sir) Charles Warren (1840‒1927) of the British Royal Engineers and one of the key officers of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, who was sent to map the Old Testament topography of Jerusalem and investigate ‘the site of the temple’, noted: ‘[British] King Consul [James Finn] rules supreme, not over the natives of the city, but over strangers; but yet these strangers for the most part are the rightful owners, the natives, for the most part, are usurpers’ (Shepherd 1987: 127‒128).

新教シオニスト和英国帝国主义者认为，一个“犹太人的巴勒斯坦”将便于英国在那里设立保护国，以控制通往印度的主要通道。从19世纪末到20世纪中叶，英国有三位著名首相与英国的“外邦人锡安主义”密切相关：本杰明·迪斯雷利（1804‒1881），他成功地为帝国英国取得了苏伊士运河的控制权；大卫·劳合·乔治（1863‒1945），其政府于1917年颁布了《贝尔福宣言》；以及温斯顿·丘吉尔爵士，他在近半个世纪的任职内外，始终致力于政治锡安主义和大英帝国（Sykes 1973: 45, 52, 207）。迪斯雷利和劳合·乔治都痴迷于基督教与犹太教融合或相通的理论（Anderson, I.

Protestant Zionists and British imperialists believed that a ‘Jewish Palestine’ would be convenient for a British protectorate there along the main route to India. From the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th century three famous British prime ministers were closely associated with ‘Gentile Zionism’ in Britain: Benjamin Disraeli (1804‒1881), who was successful in securing for imperial Britain control of the Suez Canal, David Lloyd George (1863‒1945), whose government issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and Sir Winston Churchill, who for nearly half a century in and out of office was devoted to political Zionism and the British Empire (Sykes 1973: 45, 52, 207). Both Disraeli and Lloyd George were fascinated by the theories of amalgamation or affinity between Christianity and Judaism (Anderson, I.

2005: 60)。劳合·乔治是一位新教徒身份的犹太复国主义者,据称曾这样说道:

2005: 60). Lloyd George, a Protestant Zionist, was once quoted as saying:

“我所接受的关于犹太人的历史教育，远比关于我本民族历史的教育要多得多”（Stein 1961: 142引）；迪斯雷利受洗为新教徒，但他始终对自己的犹太出身怀有浓厚兴趣。他将新教基督教描述为“完成了的犹太教”，并与许多基督教シ僧シ主义者一样，乐于把自己称作旧约与新约之间“缺失的一页”（Johnson, P. 1993: 324）。迪斯雷利那种“教化式”的基督教帝国主义，一方面对犹太人抱有居高临下的态度，另一方面又在对中东的外交政策上推行帝国主义，而这些政策的理论依据则是家长式和种族主义的理论，这些理论把帝国主义视为英国帝国诗人鲁德亚德·吉卜林所谓“白人的负担”的体现。13

‘I was taught far more history about the Jews than about the history of my own people’ (quoted by Stein 1961: 142); and Disraeli was baptised a Protestant, but he remained fascinated by his Jewish background. Describing Protestant Christianity as ‘completed Judaism’, he – like many Christian Zionists – delighted in describing himself as the ‘missing page’ between the Old and New Testaments (Johnson, P. 1993: 324). Disraeli’s civilising Christian imperialism combined patronising attitudes towards the Jews with imperialist foreign policies towards the Middle East, policies which he justified by invoking paternalistic and racist theories which saw imperialism as a manifestation of what Britain’s imperial poet, Rudyard Kipling, would refer to as ‘the white man’s burden’.13

几个世纪以来，在长达八十多年的政治犹太复国主义时期，巴勒斯坦的阿拉伯人在巴勒斯坦始终占绝对多数。1919年8月11日，贝尔福在坦率地表达其典型的殖民主义观点时，对这一事实了如指掌，他写道：

For centuries, and for more than eighty years of political Zionism, the Palestinian Arabs were an absolute majority in Palestine. Balfour was fully aware of this fact when, on 11 August 1919, he frankly expressed his typically colonialist views and wrote:

“犹太复国主义，无论对错、善恶，都根植于由来已久的传统、当下的需要和未来的希望，其分量远比那约七十万现居于这片古老土地上的阿拉伯人的愿望与偏见深刻得多……在未经征询当地多数人口意见的情况下，将一个［欧洲］外来少数群体安置于原住民多数之上，这一想法对于那些曾与塞西尔·罗德斯共事、或曾推动欧洲人在肯尼亚定居的人而言，并不会令其感到震惊。”（转引自 Talmon 1965: 248, 250）

Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land … The idea of planting a [European] minority of outsiders upon an indigenous majority population, without consulting it, was not calculated to horrify men who had worked with Cecil Rhodes or promoted European settlement in Kenya. (Quoted in Talmon 1965: 248, 250)

1925年，贝尔福访问巴勒斯坦，并作为主要贵宾出席希伯来大学耶路撒冷校区的开幕典礼。当地规模不大的欧洲犹太复国主义社群"伊舒夫"（定居点）领导层热烈欢迎了他。

In 1925 Balfour visited Palestine and was a key guest of honour at the opening of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was greeted enthusiastically by the leadership of the small European Zionist Yishuv (settlement)

在巴勒斯坦，尽管巴勒斯坦的大多数本地居民以黑旗欢迎他。

in Palestine, while the majority of indigenous inhabitants of Palestine welcomed him with black flags.

关键在于理解英国对二十世纪中叶巴勒斯坦大灾难(Nakba,即“大灾难”)所起的作用,这一点体现在某些英国基督教复临派对在巴勒斯坦建立“犹太家园”这一计划的热烈拥护上;体现在英国首相劳合·乔治及其外交大臣阿瑟·詹姆斯·贝尔福(《贝尔福宣言》的发表者)看待《圣经》以及“神圣权利与神圣应许”的方式上;也体现在政治犹太复国主义在西方普遍拥有的非凡吸引力上。尽管《贝尔福宣言》部分出于第一次世界大战中的算计,但它并非在真空的意识形态中发布的。其内容反映了十九世纪帝国主义新教英国中根深蒂固的基督教犹太复国主义预言式政治(Verete 1970)。14 这一切意味着,从一开始,巴勒斯坦的现实以及巴勒斯坦人便被排除在西方和犹太复国主义者对巴勒斯坦“犹太家园”的种种描绘之外。

The key to understanding the contribution of Britain to the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) of the mid-20th century lies in the intensity with which some British Christian restorationists embraced the project of a ‘Jewish homeland’in Palestine; the way in which the Bible and ‘divine rights and divine promises’ were seen by the likes of British Prime Minister Lloyd George and his Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour (who issued the Balfour Declaration); and generally the extraordinary appeal political Zionism had in the West. Although the Balfour Declaration was partly motivated by First World War calculations, it was not issued in an ideological vacuum. Its content reflected the Christian Zionist prophetic politics which became deeply rooted in 19th century imperialist Protestant Britain (Verete 1970).14 This all meant that, from the beginning, the reality of Palestine and the Palestinians lay outside Western and Zionist representations of the ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.

此外,正如爱德华·萨义德所论证的,"犹太复国主义斗争的场所只有一部分位于巴勒斯坦";直到1948年,犹太复国主义斗争的关键场所仍在西方的首都城市,而巴勒斯坦的现实以及"当地人对犹太复国主义者的抵抗"在西方要么被淡化,要么被忽视(Said 1980: 22‒23)。通过把这场斗争从中东移出,巴勒斯坦人(以及阿拉伯人)被剥夺了自我代表的可能,并被认为没有能力自我代表:"[他们]无法代表自己;他们必须被代表"(转引自 Said 1980)。15 在使犹太复国主义运动在西方受众中显得颇具吸引力的过程中,其领导人不仅否认了讲阿拉伯语的巴勒斯坦人的存在,还向西方把阿拉伯人呈现为某种可以按特定方式加以理解和管理的对象。在犹太复国主义与西方之间,存在并且至今仍存在着一个语言和意识形态的共同体;阿拉伯人并不属于这一共同体。在很大程度上,这一共同体依赖于西方的一种传统,即对伊斯兰教尤其是东方整体的敌视(Said 1979: 25‒26)。基督教和犹太教的犹太复国主义者的一大成功,在于他们能够占据这样一个位置:他们可以从这个位置向西方代表并解释阿拉伯人。

Furthermore, as Edward Said argued, the ‘site of the Zionist struggle was only partially in Palestine’; the crucial site of the Zionist struggle remained until 1948 in the capital cities in the West, while the reality of Palestine and ‘the native resistance to the Zionists was either played down or ignored in the West’ (Said 1980: 22‒23). By removing the struggle from the Middle East, the Palestinians (and Arabs) were prevented from representing themselves, and were deemed incapable of doing so: ‘[T]hey cannot represent themselves; they must be represented’ (quoted in Said 1980).15 In making the Zionist movement attractive to Western audiences, its leaders not only denied the existence of the Arabic-speaking people of Palestine; they represented the Arabs to the West as something that could be understood and managed in specific ways. Between Zionism and the West there was and still is a community of language and of ideology; Arabs were not part of this community. To a very great extent this community depends on a tradition in the West of enmity towards Islam in particular and the Orient in general (Said 1979: 25‒26). A major success of the Christian and Jewish Zionists has been their ability to occupy the space from which they were all to represent and explain the Arabs to the West:

犹太复国主义者自认为是一个在某种程度上属于"东方"的民族,他们已经摆脱了东方最恶劣的种种弊端,于是便担起了向西方解释阿拉伯东方人的责任,承担起表述阿拉伯人真实面貌及其状况的任务,并且绝不让阿拉伯人与他们平等地出现在巴勒斯坦。这种做法使犹太复国主义始终显得既置身于中东生存的本土现实之中,又凌驾于其上。(Said 1980: 26)

[The] Zionists took it upon themselves as a partially ‘Eastern’ people who had emancipated themselves from the worst Eastern excesses, to explain the Oriental Arabs to the West, to assume responsibility for expressing what the Arabs were really like and about, never to let the Arabs appear equally with them as existing in Palestine. This method allowed Zionism always to seem both involved in and superior to the native realties of Middle Eastern existence. (Said 1980: 26)

尽管有这些基督教徒与犹太复国主义者的言论,但犹太复国主义领导人从一开始就十分清楚,这片土地上不仅有人居住,而且人口众多。赞格威尔曾于1897年访问巴勒斯坦,亲眼目睹了人口现实。1905年,他在曼彻斯特一个犹太复国主义团体的演讲中承认:“巴勒斯坦本土已有居民。耶路撒冷行政区的人口密度已是美国的两倍,每平方英里有五十二人,而其中犹太人不到25%”(赞格威尔 1937: 210)。早期犹太复国主义文献中大量提及巴勒斯坦人口,清楚表明:从犹太复国主义者在巴勒斯坦定居之初起——犹太复国主义史学将其起点定在1882年俄国“比鲁”协会成员的到来——巴勒斯坦阿拉伯人远非“看不见”或“隐形”的存在。此外,近期研究表明,犹太复国主义领导人十分关注他们所称的“阿拉伯问题”(希伯来语:Habe’ayah Ha’arvit)或“阿拉伯问题”(希伯来语:

Despite such Christian and Jewish Zionist statements, however, the Zionist leaders from the outset were well aware that not only were there people on the land, but that people were there in large numbers. Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and come face to face with the demographic reality, acknowledged in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that ‘Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews’ (Zangwill 1937: 210). Abundant references to the Palestinian population in early Zionist texts show clearly that from the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine, which Zionist historiography dates to the arrival of the members of the Russian Bilu Society in 1882, the Palestinian Arabs were far from being an ‘unseen’ or ‘hidden’ presence. Moreover, recent studies have shown that Zionist leaders were concerned with what they termed the ‘Arab problem’ (Hebrew: Habe’ayah Ha’arvit) or the ‘Arab Question’ (Hebrew:

Hashelah Ha'arvit)。从他们的著作中可以看出,多数犹太复国主义团体和定居者对当地巴勒斯坦原住民的态度,从漠不关心、无视,到居高临下的优越感,不一而足。一个典型的例子见于摩西·斯米兰斯基(Moshe Smilansky)的作品。斯米兰斯基是一位犹太复国主义作家和工党领袖,1890年移居巴勒斯坦:

Hashelah Ha’arvit). As seen in their writings, the attitudes prevailing among the majority of the Zionist groups and settlers concerning the indigenous Palestinian population ranged from indifference and disregard to patronising superiority. A typical example can be found in the works of Moshe Smilansky, a Zionist writer and Labour leader who immigrated to Palestine in 1890:

不要与阿拉伯农民过于亲近，以免我们的孩子效仿他们的做法，学到他们丑陋的行为。凡忠于《讨拉特》的人，都应避免丑陋之事及与之相似的行为，与农民及其卑劣的品性保持距离。

Let us not be too familiar with the Arab fellahin lest our children adopt their ways and learn from their ugly deeds. Let all those who are loyal to the Torah avoid ugliness and that which resembles it and keep their distance from the fellahin and their base attributes.

当然，也有人对这种态度表示反对。

There were, certainly, those who took exception to such attitudes.

阿哈德·哈姆（阿舍尔·兹维·金斯伯格），一位俄罗斯犹太自由派思想家，于1891年访问巴勒斯坦。他在希伯来语期刊《哈梅利兹》上发表了一系列文章，尖锐批评政治犹太复国主义的种族中心主义，以及犹太复国主义殖民定居者对巴勒斯坦农民的剥削。

Ahad Ha’Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist settlercolonists.

阿哈德·哈姆(Ahad Ha’Am)曾提醒人们注意,巴勒斯坦并非一片空旷的土地,土地上另有一个民族的存在会带来问题。他观察到,犹太复国主义的"先驱者"认为,阿拉伯人唯一能理解的语言是武力……他们对阿拉伯人怀有敌意和残忍,不公正地侵犯其边界,无故地羞辱殴打他们,甚至以此为荣,而无人站出来制止这种可鄙而危险的倾向。(转引自Masalha 1992: 7)

Ahad Ha’Am, who sought to draw attention to the fact that Palestine was not an empty territory and that the presence of another people on the land posed problems, observed that the Zionist ‘pioneers’ believed that the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force ... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency. (Cited in Masalha 1992: 7)

他直击问题的要害,他提出,殖民者对当地农民的侵略性态度,源于他们对"那些提醒他们以色列地上还有另一个民族一直生活在那里、且无意离开的人"的愤怒。

He cut to the heart of the matter when he ventured that the colonists’ aggressive attitude towards the native peasants stemmed from their anger ‘towards those who reminded them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave’.

另一位早期定居者伊扎克·爱泼斯坦(Yitzhak Epstein)于1886年从俄国来到巴勒斯坦,他不仅警告了犹太复国主义殖民活动的道德含义,还指出了这一事业内在的政治危险。1907年,当时犹太复国主义者在加利利购买土地,引发了被不在村的地主出售土地而被迫离开土地的巴勒斯坦农民的反对。就在这一时期,爱泼斯坦写了一篇颇具争议的文章,题为《隐秘的问题》,文中强烈批评了犹太复国主义者购买阿拉伯人土地的方式。在他看来,这些导致阿拉伯农民被剥夺土地的做法,必然在未来引发政治对抗。

Another early settler, Yitzhak Epstein, who arrived in Palestine from Russia in 1886, warned not only of the moral implications of Zionist colonisation but also of the political dangers inherent in the enterprise. In 1907, at a time when Zionist land purchases in the Galilee were stirring opposition among Palestinian peasants forced off land sold by absentee landlords, Epstein wrote a controversial article entitled ‘The Hidden Question’, in which he strongly criticised the methods by which Zionists had purchased Arab land. In his view, these methods entailing dispossession of Arab farmers were bound to cause political confrontation in the future.

在犹太复国主义建制对爱泼斯坦文章的愤怒回应中，反映出主流犹太复国主义思想的两个主要特征：一是认为犹太人获取土地优先于道德考量，二是主张在巴勒斯坦建立一个分离主义、排他性的定居点（Yishuv，即殖民地）。

Reflected in the Zionist establishment’s angry response to Epstein’s article are two principal features of mainstream Zionist thought: the belief that Jewish acquisition of land took precedence over moral considerations, and the advocacy of a separatist and exclusionist Yishuv (colony) in Palestine.

在欧洲殖民者殖民扩张的路径之下，一战前，一些犹太复国主义领袖（尤其是西奥多·赫茨尔在其犹太复国主义小说《新故土》中）把巴勒斯坦的现实，以及欧洲犹太人殖民将为巴勒斯坦带来的物质利益，想象成类似于“白人的责任”这一至上主义意识形态。然而，在委任统治时期，犹太复国主义领导层逐渐明确认识到，系统性地驱逐和“转移”巴勒斯坦的原住民，是犹太复国主义事业的必要前提（Wiemer 1983: 26；Masalha 1992）。

Following in the footsteps of European settler-colonialists, before the First World War some Zionist leaders (notably Theodor Herzl in his Zionist novel Altneuland), conceived the reality of Palestine, and the material benefits European Jewish colonisation would bring to Palestine, to be similar to the supremacist ideology of the ‘white man’s burden’. During the Mandatory period, however, it became clear to the Zionist leadership that a systematic dislocation and ‘transfer’ of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine was the conditio sine qua non of the Zionist enterprise (Wiemer 1983: 26; Masalha 1992).

在其开创性著作《东方学》(1978)中,爱德华·萨义德(Edward W. Said)对西方的“东方学研究”进行了毁灭性的批判,揭示了该学科的潜在预设。他还得出结论:圣经研究是西方东方学话语的组成部分和延伸,这一话语的构建从未考虑过“东方”/阿拉伯/穆斯林读者。对萨义德而言,在这种圣经东方学话语中,巴勒斯坦的土著居民被描绘成无法采取一致行动、缺乏民族意识的群体。圣经学者追随西方东方学家的脚步,集中于历史和考古问题。在《巴勒斯坦问题》一书中,该书出版于《东方学》两年后,萨义德还尝试解释巴勒斯坦人从历史中被抹去的现象。在他看来,对巴勒斯坦现实的抹除主要围绕三个关键问题展开:第一,理解巴勒斯坦、巴勒斯坦人和伊斯兰教在西方的呈现方式:萨义德的著作《报道伊斯兰》(1981)应被视为包括《东方学》(1978)和《巴勒斯坦问题》(Said 1980;Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 125)在内的三部曲的一部分。对萨义德而言,伊斯兰教在西方的呈现是巴勒斯坦问题的重要组成部分,因为它们被用来使巴勒斯坦人沉默,而其中大多数人是穆斯林(Said 1980;Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 128);第二,理解“肯定与否定之间的争夺”;第三,理解西方东方学对阿拉伯人和伊斯兰教的态度;西方的种族偏见,尤其是西方所叙述的一场冲突:一方是犹太复国主义欧洲移民的“文明化”力量,另一方是“未开化”、“背信弃义”和堕落的东方阿拉伯人(Said 1980: 25‒28)。 这种以圣经为框架的话语包含两个方面:(a)对历史的塑造,"使这段历史如今看似证实了犹太复国主义对巴勒斯坦的主张,从而贬低巴勒斯坦人的主张"(Said 1980: 8);以及(b)为犹太复国主义在巴勒斯坦的定居者殖民活动所作的合法化辩护,而这一进程并未随1948年以色列的建国而结束。

In his seminal work, Orientalism (1978), Edward W. Said subjected Western ‘Oriental Studies’ to a devastating critique and exposed the underlying presumptions of the discipline. He also concluded that Biblical Studies were part of and an extension of the Western Orientalist discourse, which had been constructed without any ‘Oriental’/Arab/Muslim reader in view. For Said, in this biblical Orientalist discourse the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were presented as incapable of unified action and national consciousness. The biblical scholars, following in the footsteps of the Western Orientalists, concentrated on historical and archaeological questions. In The Question of Palestine, which came out two years after Orientalism, Said also tried to explain the erasure of Palestinians from history. For him, the deletion of the reality of Palestine centred on three key issues: first, understanding the representation of Palestine, the Palestinians and Islam in the West: Said’s book Covering Islam (1981) should be treated as part of a trilogy which includes Orientalism (1978) and The Question of Palestine (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 125). For Said, the representations of Islam in the West are an important part of the question of Palestine because they are used to silence the Palestinians, the majority of whom are Muslims (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 128); second, understanding the ‘contest between an affirmation and a denial’; third, understanding Western Orientalist attitudes towards Arabs and Islam; Western racial prejudices, and especially the Western narrative of a contest between the ‘civilising’ forces of the Zionist European settlers and the ‘uncivilised’, ‘treacherous’ and degenerate Oriental Arabs (Said 1980: 25‒28). This biblically framed discourse entails (a) the shaping of history, ‘so that this history now appears to confirm the validity of Zionist claims to Palestine, thereby denigrating Palestinians claims’ (Said 1980: 8), and (b) the Zionist legitimisation of Zionist settler-colonisation in Palestine, a process that did not end with the creation of Israel in 1948.