从联邦德国赔偿问题看以色列国内务实主义和民族主义之争

发布时间：2018-06-13 22:28

本文选题：德国赔偿问题 + 务实主义　；参考：《上海外国语大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：二战期间，纳粹德国对犹太人进行了残酷的迫害，纳粹政府的大屠杀给犹太民族造成了深远的影响。首先将近600万犹太人在二战期间死去。其次，大屠杀造成了严重的犹太难民问题，成为以色列建国后的重大负担。再次，纳粹排犹在犹太民族的精神层面上造成了双重影响。犹太人从二战期间的恐慌心理解放出来，进一步推进了犹太复国主义的发展，同时也强化了对于德意志民族的敌视心理。既然以色列国民在当时的民族情绪如此高昂，又是什么力量最终推动以色列政府选择与联邦德国政府就赔款问题进行直接谈判呢？从以色列的决策机构设置和决策机制来看，以色列总统权力式微，实体权力主要在以色列总理手中。与联邦德国谈判赔款的决策程序如下：外交部长向总理建言——总理首肯——提交内阁讨论并取得合议——议会讨论，讨论议题为“授予外交事务与安全委员会权利决定在适宜的条件下与德国进行直接谈判”——由议会下属安全与外交事务委员会决定实施直接谈判的决策。直接谈判的主要倡导者巴勒斯坦工人党控制着内阁的关键职务包括总理，外交部长，财政部长等。占据了内阁份额的60%以上，因此巴勒斯坦工人党取得内阁合议的难度不大。谈判派在安全与外交事务委员会中占有50%以上的席位，因此只要议会通过授权安全与外交事务委员会进行决策的权力便意味着同意直接谈判。因此对于与联邦德国的直接谈判决策，谈判派与反对派主要争夺的战场在议会讨论审议的阶段，此阶段决定了以色列在这一问题上的最终决策。务实主义者最终能够主导国内决策的主要动因源于3个方面。首先，务实主义阵营的势力控制了内阁，对外与安全事务委员会等关键决策环节。其次，务实主义者为争取国内民众的支持采取了差异化的双轨道外交。最后，务实主义者大棒加胡萝卜的手段一方面赢得了中间派别的好感，另一方面打击了激进民族主义的扩散，，同时让中间派别看清形势。最终赢得了政府决策的主导权，实现了以色列与联邦德国的直接对话。
[Abstract]:During World War II, Nazi Germany brutally persecuted Jews, and the Holocaust of the Nazi government had a profound impact on the Jewish people. First, nearly 6 million Jews died during World War II. Second, the Holocaust created a serious Jewish refugee problem and became a major burden after Israel's founding. Thirdly, the Nazi anti-Semitism had a double influence on the spirit of the Jewish people. The liberation of Jews from the panic during World War II further promoted the development of Zionism and strengthened their hostility to the German nation. Since the national mood of the people of Israel was so high at that time, what forces ultimately drove the Israeli Government to choose direct negotiations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the issue of reparations? From the point of view of the establishment and decision-making mechanism of Israeli decision-making organs, the power of the Israeli President is declining, and the substantive power is mainly in the hands of the Israeli Prime Minister. The decision-making process for negotiating reparations with the Federal Republic of Germany is as follows: the Minister for Foreign Affairs advises the Prime Minister, with the consent of the Chancellor, to submit it to the Cabinet for discussion and to obtain a collegial-parliamentary discussion, The topic of discussion was "granting the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee the power to decide on direct negotiations with Germany under appropriate conditions"-a decision taken by the Parliamentary Committee on Security and Foreign Affairs to implement direct negotiations. The main proponents of direct negotiations, the PKK, control key cabinet positions, including Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Finance Minister. With a cabinet share of more than 60%, the PKK has little difficulty in getting the cabinet. Negotiators hold more than 50 percent of the seats on the Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, so as long as Parliament has the power to authorize the Security and Foreign Affairs Committee to make decisions, it means agreeing to direct negotiations. Therefore, for direct negotiation decisions with the Federal Republic of Germany, the main battlefields between the negotiators and the opposition are discussed and deliberated by the Knesset, which determines Israel's final decision on this issue. The main motivation for pragmatists to ultimately dominate intra-country decision-making comes from three aspects. First, pragmatic forces control key decision-making processes such as the Cabinet, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Security Committee. Second, pragmatists adopted differential dual-track diplomacy to win the support of the domestic people. In the end, pragmatists, with sticks and carrots, won favor among the centrist factions, on the one hand, and the spread of radical nationalism, on the other, while giving them a clear picture of the situation. In the end, he won the leading position of the government and realized the direct dialogue between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany.
【学位授予单位】：上海外国语大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D81

【相似文献】