and "illegal settlements"

和「非法的屯墾區」

And the story we usually hear sounds very simple:

通常我們所聽到的故事好像很簡單

“During the Six Day War, Israel captured the West Bank from the Palestinians; refused the United Nation's demand to retreat;

「六日戰爭的時候，以色列從巴勒斯坦手中奪取了(約旦河)西岸、拒絕聯合國的撤軍要求，

and illegally built settlements"

而且還在上面非法興建屯墾區」

But, is that really the case?

但是，事實果真如此嗎?

Let's try to understand the situation a little bit better.

讓我們試著更恰當的了解這個情況

We'll start with a simple, but extremely important, question:

我們從一個簡單卻十分重要的問題開始:

From whom did Israel capture the West Bank?

以色列從誰手中奪取了西岸?

…From the Palestinians?

… 從巴勒斯坦嗎?

No.. in 1967, there was no Arab nation or state by the name of "Palestine".

不.. 在1967年，並沒有一個阿拉伯國家叫「巴勒斯坦」

…Actually, was there ever?

...事實上，歷史上曾經有過嗎?

Israel took over the West Bank from Jordan in an act of self-defense, after Jordan joined a war launched by Egypt and Syria to destroy Israel.

當約旦加入了埃及和敘利亞的陣線要摧毀以色列之後，為了自衛，以色列從約旦手中接收了西岸

Oh… by the way, destroying countries IS rather illegal.

喔... 附帶一提，消滅國家乃是相當不合法的

The United Nations, back in 1967, rejected repeated Arab and Soviet attempts to declare Israel as the aggressor.

在1967年當時，聯合國拒絕阿拉伯國家及蘇聯再三想宣布以色列是侵略者的要求

Security Council resolution 242 did not demand a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Rather, the United Nations called for negotiating a solution which would leave Israel with “secure and recognized boundaries” in effect: defensible borders

安理會第242號決議案並未要求以色列單方面撤出。相反地，聯合國要求協商出一個能讓以色列具有「安全而獲認可的邊界」的解決之道；也就是實際上能防守的邊界

But wait a second, what was Jordan doing in the West Bank in the first place? What was its legal justification?

可是且慢，約旦一開始在西岸作什麼? 他有什麼法律依據?

Well Jordan had the... you know what? It had no legal justification!

嗯約旦有... 你知道嗎? 他並沒有法律依據

Jordan simply occupied it during its previous attempt to destroy the newly established State of Israel in 1948, changing the commonly accepted name “Judea and Samaria” to “the West Bank".

約旦在1948年企圖摧毀剛成立的以色列國時，就佔據了它，還把普遍接受的名稱「猶大和撒瑪利亞」改成了「西岸」

But that did not really convince anybody; and–almost no one recognized the legality ofJordan’s occupation.

但這麼作並沒有使任何人信服，而且幾乎沒有人承認約旦對這塊占領地的合法性

Not even any of the other Arab states.

甚至沒有任何阿拉伯國家承認

So if Jordan had no legal claim to the land, and a "Palestine" did not exist–whose territory is it?

所以若約旦對這塊土地沒有合法的權利，而巴勒斯坦國也不存在，那麼這塊土地是誰的?

Let's go a little further back in time. Don't worry, not to the days of the Bible, only about 100 years.

讓我們回到稍久以前的時代。別擔心，不是回到聖經時代，而只回到大約一百年前

Until 1917, the Ottoman Empire occupied the whole region.

到1917年為止，鄂圖曼帝國佔領了整個地區

After losing in World War One the Ottoman's relinquished their 500-year control to the Allied Forces, which decided to divide the old empire into countries.

在第一次世界大戰打輸之後，鄂圖曼帝國放棄了500年來所控制的土地，聯軍就決定把舊帝國分成不同的國家

Britain’s Foreign Minister, Lord Balfour, recognized the Jewish people's historical right to their homeland. A small area, equivalent to about half of 1% of the Middle East was designated for this purpose.

英國外長巴爾福承認猶太人對其祖國的歷史權利。一小塊地區一全中東面積的0.5%就基於這目的而被指定

Britain received a mandate from the League of Nations to promote the establishment of a Jewish Homeland.

英國接受國際聯盟的委託，以促進猶太人建國

But, wait a second. Do you realize what happened?

然而，等一下。你明白發生了什麼事嗎?

The Jewish Homeland originally included not only the west bank but also the east bank of the Jordan River.

猶太人原來的祖國不只包括西岸，還包括約旦河東岸

I guess you cannot say the Jewish people have not accepted some painful compromises already.

我猜你不能否認猶太人沒接受過一些痛苦的妥協

Anyway, the League of Nations' recognition of a Jewish Homeland -which includes the West Bank- was reaffirmed by the United Nations after the second World War.

無論如何，國際聯盟承認一個猶太人的祖國-包括西岸-，那是在二次世界大戰後獲聯合國再次確定的

With the British Mandate ending, United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 recommended the establishment of two states: one Jewish and one Arab.

英國託管期結束後，聯合國大會181號決議案建議在這地成立兩個國家，一個是猶太人的，另一個是阿拉伯人的國家

The Jews accepted it and went on to create the State of Israel, while the Arabs refused the compromise and launched a war to destroy the newly established Jewish State.

猶太人接受了這項決議並成立了以色列國，而阿拉伯人拒絕妥協，並發動戰爭要毀滅剛建立的猶太人國家

Resolution 181 - a non-binding recommendation in the first place- remained with no legal standing.

181號決議文-一個在一開始就沒有約束力的建議- 至今還是沒有法律地位

At the end of the war a ceasefire line was formed where the Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting. At the insistence of the Arab leaders, this line was defined as having no political significance.

戰爭結束時，在以色列和阿拉伯軍隊停火的地方劃定了一條停火線。在阿拉伯領袖的堅持下，這道線被界定為不具政治意義

So, although this line is commonly referred to as “the 1967 border”, it is not from 1967 and it was never an international border.

所以，雖然這道線普遍被稱為「1967年的邊界」，但是它並不是從1967年才開始的，而且也從來不是一道國際的邊界

This is why a more exact legal definition for the West Bank according to International Law, is really the same as in so many other areas where there are, or were, territorial disputes but which are NOT defined as "occupied" for example:

所以，根據國際法，對西岸比較精確合法的定義，其實和很多其他地區現在或過去的情況一樣。它是受爭議的領土，但不被界定為「被佔領地」。例如：

Zubarah, the Tumbs Islands, the Western Sahara amongst many others, They are not "occupied territories" but rather "disputed territories."

祖巴拉、通布群島、西撒哈拉等等 它們不是「被佔據的領土」，而是「受爭議的領土」

So let's return for a moment to our illustration and examine the complete chain of events.

所以，讓我們回到之前的說明，而檢視完整的一連串事件

Israel's presence in the West Bank is the result of a war of self defense. The West Bank should not be considered "occupied" because there was no previous legal sovereign in the area and therefore the real definition should be "disputed territory.

以色列存在於西岸乃是在一場自衛戰爭的結果。西岸不應該為視為「被佔據的」，因為之前在那區域並沒有法定的主權國家，因此它應該被界定為「受爭議的」領土

The 1947 partition plan has no current legal standing, while Israel's claim to the land was clearly recognized by the international community during the 20th century.

1947年的兩國分治計劃目前並沒有法律地位，而以色列對這塊土地的主張在20世紀明確地受到國際社會的承認

That is why the presence and construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank should not be considered illegal.

這就是為什麼以色列屯墾區在西岸的存在和興建，不應被認為是非法的

These are not just my own opinions; they are based on conclusions made by world renowned jurists, like, Professor Eugene Rostow, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Stephen Schwebel who headed the International Court of Justice.

這些並不只是我的個人意見；而是根據世界知名的法學家提出的結論。例如：尤金柔斯多教授、亞瑟哥柏格法官，以及曾任國際法庭主席的史蒂芬史威柏

So what's the solution for the dispute over the West Bank? Unfortunately, there is no magic solution.

所以，對西岸的爭議該如何解決? 不幸的是，並沒有神奇的解決方案

But the only way a solution will ever be reached, is if we base our negotiations on legal and historical facts.

但唯一可以找到解決方案的方法，就是雙方根據法律和歷史事實進行協商

So please, let's stop using the terms "occupied territories", and "'67 borders"…they're simply not 'politically correct'.

所以，請停止使用「被佔據的領土」，和「1967年的邊界」這類的字眼... 在政治上它們根本不正確