自2023年10月7日哈马斯对以色列发动致命袭击，以及以色列随后对加沙巴勒斯坦人实施毁灭性报复行动以来，其后果已远远超出中东地区。
Three years after the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and Israel’s ensuing devastating retaliation on Palestinians in Gaza the consequences have extended far beyond the Middle East.
这场始于暴行、继而演变为毁灭性战争的冲突，已成为对西方民主国家长期声称具有普适性的原则的一次严峻考验：言论自由、新闻自由、学术自由、抗议权、国际法与人权。自10月7日以来，当巴勒斯坦人援引这些原则，或当以色列被要求遵守这些原则时，它们似乎已远非普适。
What began as an atrocity followed by a devastating war has become a stress test for principles Western democracies have long said are universal: free speech, a free press, academic freedom, the right to protest, international law and human rights. Since Oct. 7, those principles have appeared far less universal when Palestinians invoke them — or when Israel is asked to abide by them.
当一个政府可以威胁削减资金、要求大学作出妥协，并因争议性政治言论而施压高校时，这种寒蝉效应便会蔓延开来。
When a government can threaten funding, demand settlements and pressure universities over contested political speech, the chilling effect spreads.
据报道，加沙已有约7.4万名巴勒斯坦人丧生。大片地区被毁，大量人口多次被迫流离失所。2025年9月，联合国独立国际调查委员会得出结论称，以色列当局和安全部队在加沙对巴勒斯坦人实施了种族灭绝。以色列坚决否认这一指控，并表示其军事行动的目标是哈马斯。然而，这个曾被美国政治和媒体机构所抵制的词语——“种族灭绝”——如今已不再仅仅是亲巴勒斯坦抗议者的用语。
Roughly 74,000 Palestinians have been reported killed in Gaza. Vast areas have been destroyed, and much of the population has been repeatedly displaced. In September 2025, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israeli authorities and security forces had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel emphatically has rejected that accusation and said its military campaign has targeted Hamas. But that word that American political and media institutions have resisted — genocide — is no longer simply the language of pro-Palestinian protesters.
当然，对于如此严重的发现，应当有空间进行讨论。但不可接受的是那种认为仅仅提出这些问题就是不合法的论调——以色列以及许多坚定的以色列盟友（包括美国政府中的许多人）正是这样主张的。围绕以色列的特殊智力豁免——即我们对几乎任何其他政府都会提出的疑问，一旦针对以色列就变得具有争议性——在美国的言论自由辩论中表现得尤为明显。自10月7日以来，反犹主义确实存在。犹太学生面临威胁和骚扰，这些问题必须得到正视。但打击反犹主义并不意味着要将以色列政府免于批评。
There should, of course, be room to discuss such grave findings. What should not be acceptable is the suggestion that merely raising them is illegitimate, as Israel and many staunch Israel allies, including many in the U.S. government have argued That intellectual exception around Israel — in which questions we would ask about almost any other government become controversial simply because they are asked about this one — has been especially visible in America’s free speech debate. Antisemitism since Oct. 7 has been real. Jewish students have faced threats and harassment. That must be confronted. But combating antisemitism cannot mean insulating the Israeli government from criticism.
加沙停火协议受到 scrutiny，特朗普与内塔尼亚胡会晤前杀戮仍在继续 2026年2月8日 以图夫茨大学的土耳其博士生吕梅萨·厄兹蒂尔克为例：2025年3月，她在前往上课途中，于马萨诸塞州的一条街道上被蒙面的移民官员包围。官员们给她戴上手铐并将其拘留。
Gaza ceasefire scrutinized as killings continue ahead of Trump-Netanyahu meeting February 8, 2026 Consider Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University who in March 2025 was surrounded by masked immigration agents on a Massachusetts street on her way to class. Agents handcuffed her and took her into custody.
政府针对厄兹蒂尔克的指控集中在她与人合写的一篇评论文章上，该文章批评了图夫茨大学对学生有关以色列和加沙诉求的回应。她的签证被撤销，并在拘留中度过数周。美国国务院的一份内部备忘录发现，没有证据表明厄兹蒂尔克曾参与反犹主义活动或公开支持恐怖组织。
The government’s case against Öztürk focused on an op-ed she had co-written criticizing Tufts’ response to student demands concerning Israel and Gaza. Her visa was revoked and she spent weeks in detention. An internal State Department memo found no evidence that Öztürk had engaged in antisemitic activity or publicly supported a terrorist organization.
今年8月，一名联邦法官裁定，特朗普政府用以基于亲巴勒斯坦言论撤销非公民学生签证并驱逐出境的相关条款违宪。围绕以色列持续对巴勒斯坦人发动袭击的公共讨论揭示了另一个真相：当发言者所说的是所有人都认同的内容时，言论自由并未受到考验；只有当言论激怒政府时，它才真正受到考验。
This past August, a federal judge ruled that provisions the Trump administration had used to revoke visas and pursue deportations against noncitizen students based on pro-Palestinian speech were unconstitutional The public discourse around Israel’s ongoing attacks on Palestinians exposed another truth: Free speech is not tested when a speaker says something everyone agrees with. It is tested when the speech angers the government.
这种压力也蔓延到了大学。今年夏天，美国司法部民权司前律师海莉·范·埃雷姆提交了一份举报信，指控政府针对大学反犹主义问题的调查存在预设结论，并在一定程度上被用作施加经济压力的手段。司法部则驳斥了她的说法。
The pressure has also extended to universities. This summer, former Justice Department Civil Rights Division attorney Haley Van Erem filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that administration investigations into universities over antisemitism were driven by predetermined outcomes and used, in part, to exert financial leverage The Justice Department disputed her account.
重点并非反犹主义是凭空捏造的——显然并非如此。重点在于，一个真实的民权问题同样可能被工具化，成为政治武器。
The point is not that the antisemitism was imaginary. It plainly is not. The point is that a genuine civil rights problem can also be instrumentalized as a political weapon.
当政府能够威胁资金、要求和解，并就存在争议的政治言论向大学施压时，这种寒蝉效应便会扩散。教授们注意到了，学生们注意到了，大学校长们注意到了，新闻机构也注意到了。最终，人们会学会哪些话题最好不谈。
When a government can threaten funding, demand settlements and pressure universities over contested political speech, the chilling effect spreads. Professors notice. Students notice. University presidents notice. Newsrooms notice. Eventually, people learn which subjects are safer not to discuss.
最近，当我发布一段视频，提出一个简单的问题——“究竟以何种方式支持巴勒斯坦人才是被允许的？”时，我不由得想到了这一点。
I found myself thinking about that recently when I posted a video asking a simple question: What, exactly, is the approved way to support Palestinians?
在大学校园内举行抗议，你可能会被指责让学生面临危险；发起抵制，你可能会被指责歧视；走上街头游行，人们的关注点又会变成游行是否给他人带来了不便；使用具有挑衅性的口号，口号本身就会成为新闻焦点，而非其背后的诉求。一位艺术家在舞台上发表言论，结果却突然有人要求将他驱逐。
View this post on Protest on a college campus, and you may be accused of making students unsafe. Boycott, and you may be accused of discrimination. March in the streets, and attention turns to whether the march inconvenienced somebody. Use a provocative slogan, and the slogan becomes the story rather than the cause behind it.
三年来，巴勒斯坦人及其支持者反复被告知：他们确实有自由抗议——只是不能在这里，不能以这种方式，不能用言语，而且显然也不能以任何让我们其他人不得不注意的方式。
An artist speaks from a stage, and suddenly there are calls to remove him. For three years, Palestinians and their supporters have repeatedly been told they are free to protest — just not here, not like this, not with words and apparently not in any way that forces the rest of us to notice.
到了某个阶段，反对的焦点就不再是抗议手段本身，而是异议本身。
At some point, the objection is no longer to the tactic but to the dissent itself.
这种收窄也影响了西方的新闻业。以色列在很大程度上阻止独立国际记者进入加沙，而巴勒斯坦记者为从内部记录战争付出了惨痛代价。保护记者委员会表示，2025年是该组织自1992年开始收集数据以来记者死亡最致命的一年，以色列应对其记录在案的全球记者死亡人数中约三分之二负责。以色列表示，它并不蓄意针对记者。但来自巴勒斯坦的记者的许多叙述表明情况并非如此。但以色列对巴勒斯坦人的战争或许最深远的裂痕，在于“基于规则的国际秩序”本身。
That narrowing has affected journalism in the West, too. Israel has largely prevented independent international journalists from entering Gaza, while Palestinian journalists have paid an extraordinary price for documenting the war from inside. The Committee to Protect Journalists said 2025 was the deadliest year for journalists since it began collecting data in 1992, with Israel responsible for roughly two-thirds of the journalist deaths it recorded worldwide that year. Israel has sad it does not deliberately target journalists. Many accounts from and from journalists in Palestine, indicate otherwise But perhaps the most consequential rupture of Israel’s war on Palestinians is in the “rules-based international order” itself.
二战后，世界试图——尽管不完美且往往虚伪——围绕某些规则超越国家权力这一理念建立机构。平民受到保护。人道主义工作者和医院受到特殊保护。战争罪行应当接受调查。政治领导人至少在理论上可以被追究责任。
After World War II, the world attempted, albeit imperfectly and often hypocritically, to build institutions around the idea that certain rules transcend national power. Civilians receive protection. Humanitarian workers and hospitals receive special protections. War crimes should be investigated. Political leaders can, at least theoretically, be held accountable.
美国在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰后强有力地援引了这些原则。随后，国际刑事法院将目光转向了以色列。
The United States invoked those principles forcefully after Russia invaded Ukraine. Then the International Criminal Court turned its attention to Israel.
国际刑事法院对以色列总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡和前国防部长约亚夫·加兰特发出了逮捕令，指控他们犯有战争罪和反人类罪。以色列拒绝接受这些指控，并质疑法院的管辖权。华盛顿的回应不仅仅是不同意这一国际机构。特朗普政府制裁了国际刑事法院人员。新闻自由必须包括见证政府宁愿隐瞒之事的权利。
The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel has rejected the allegations and has disputed the court’s jurisdiction. Washington’s response was not merely to disagree with the international body. The Trump administration sanctioned ICC personnel Press freedom must include the right to witness what governments would rather keep unseen.
双重标准再次暴露无遗：当国际正义针对美国对手时，我们援引问责；当它针对亲密盟友时，我们攻击该机构。
Again, the double standard is laid bare: When international justice targets an American adversary, we invoke accountability. When it targets a close ally, we attack the institution.
那不是一个基于规则的秩序。它是一个等级体系：对手要遵守规则，盟友却享有例外。
That is not a rules-based order. It is a hierarchy: rules for our adversaries, exceptions for our allies.
美国对待联合国的态度也暴露了同样的矛盾。联合国近东巴勒斯坦难民救济和工程处（近东救济工程处）表示，其数百名工作人员及支持其工作的人员在加沙地带丧生，其设施也屡次受冲突波及。以色列对部分近东救济工程处雇员提出严重指控，称其与哈马斯有关联。
The same contradiction is seen in America’s treatment of the U.N. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the near east said hundreds of its personnel and people supporting its work have been killed in Gaza while its facilities have repeatedly been affected by the conflict. Israel has leveled serious allegations against some UNRWA employees, including that it has ties to Hamas.
这些指控理应接受调查。但针对个人的指控不能抹杀赋予人道主义工作者和联合国设施的保护。
Those allegations deserve investigation. But allegations against individuals cannot erase the protections afforded to humanitarian workers and U.N. facilities.
这正是国际法的要旨：其提供的保护不应因遵守它们在政治上变得不便而消失。然而，这种模式已变得司空见惯。国际刑事法院调查以色列涉嫌罪行？制裁它。联合国谴责以色列行为？诋毁它。大学成为加沙抗议中心？威胁削减其经费。外国留学生撰写评论文章？吊销其签证。
That is precisely the point of international law: its protections are not supposed to disappear when honoring them becomes politically inconvenient. And yet the pattern has become all too familiar. The ICC investigates Israel for alleged crimes? Sanction it. The U.N. condemns Israeli conduct? Discredit it. A university becomes a center for Gaza protest? Threaten its funding. A foreign student writes an op-ed? Revoke her visa.
这些涉及不同机构、不同法律问题。但贯穿其中的共同本能是：批评变成威胁，异见变成危险，本应提供监督或问责的机构自身却成为攻击目标。
These are different institutions and different legal questions. But a common instinct runs through them: criticism becomes threat, dissent becomes danger and institutions created to provide scrutiny or accountability become targets themselves.
三年后，问题在于我们的原则是普世的还是选择性的。若看证据，我们政府给出的答案是错误的。
Three years later, the question is whether our principles are universal or selective. And if we look at the evidence, the answer from our government is the wrong one.
言论自由必须保护言论，即使它激怒掌权者。新闻自由必须包含见证政府意图隐瞒之事的权利。国际法必须约束盟友，也约束对手。人权必须包含巴勒斯坦人。
Free speech must protect speech even when it angers those in power. Press freedom must include the right to witness what governments would rather keep unseen. International law must constrain allies as well as adversaries. And human rights must include Palestinians.
如果我们只在方便时捍卫这些原则，我们不是在维护基于规则的秩序，而是在用例外的等级体系取而代之。
If we defend these principles only when convenient, we are not preserving a rules-based order. We are replacing it with a hierarchy of exceptions.
当美国以国际法为由对抗未来的对手时，批评者甚至无需捏造虚伪的指控。我们将自己提供了证据，也失去了领导所需的公信力。加沙事件成为对西方民主制度的一次压力测试。而西方正在失败。MS NOW
When the U.S. invokes international law against future adversaries, critics will not need to invent charges of hypocrisy. We will have supplied the evidence ourselves — and surrendered the credibility required to lead. The post Gaza became a stress test for Western democracy. And the West is failing. MS NOW