我们的爱

在以军大规模集结，准备对拉法发起地面进攻之际，以色列内讧开始公开化，防长加兰特直接跟总理内塔尼亚胡吵起来了。         Liberia-flagged vessel Front Eagle Photo: Courtesy of China's Supreme People's Court Guangzhou Maritime Court recently successfully mediated a 180 million yuan ($25 million) dispute arising from a collision between two oil tankers in waters near the Strait of Hormuz, with both parties agreeing to apply Chinese law and submit their dispute to the Chinese court, the Global Times learned from the court on Sunday.
In 2025, two crude oil tankers collided at the eastern entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, 24 nautical miles off Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, media reported.
Owned by oil tanker operator Frontline, the Liberia-flagged vessel Front Eagle collided with the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged vessel Adalynn on the morning of June 17, 2025.
The Adalynn was damaged in the fire. While the Front Eagle was undergoing repairs in Shenzhen, South China's Guangdong Province, Global Shipping Holding Ltd., which owns the Adalynn, applied to Guangzhou Maritime Court for its arrest. Frontline provided a cash security of 203 million yuan to release the arrest and applied to establish a limitation fund for maritime claims.
The court approved the application and allowed Frontline to establish the limitation fund, setting the amount of the fund at 168 million yuan.
Guangzhou Maritime Court held four pretrial conferences on October 11, 2025, January 12, May 6 and July 13, 2026 to complete preparations for evidence examination, technical investigations and reported the relevant pretrial arrangements to the provincial high court, the Global Times learned from the court. 
The court held a public hearing for the case on July 14, 2026.
No government agency had conducted an investigation into the collision, and no official findings were issued after the accident. Taking into account the unique burden-of-proof challenges in maritime collision disputes, Guangzhou Maritime Court took measures to preserve key evidence when handling the vessel arrest, including navigation logs, AIS data, voyage data recorder (VDR) records and CCTV footage, the court told the Global Times in a statement on Sunday.
Under a process that involves exchanging evidence inventories, sealing materials simultaneously and jointly reviewing them after evidence submissions, the court helped ensure the authenticity of critical records and laid the groundwork for determining the facts of the case.
As the two sides and their respective maritime experts reached sharply different conclusions over liability, the court introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism, with the consent of both parties, allowing technical experts to participate throughout the proceedings. Drawing on the preserved evidence, investigators reconstructed the collision, assessed the vessels' encounter situation and clarified the parties' respective responsibilities.
Following the hearing, the court facilitated mediation, and the two parties reached a settlement agreement on July 27, 2026. On July 31, the court organized the distribution of the maritime liability limitation fund among creditors involved in the foreign vessel collision dispute and related charter-party disputes. 
Representatives of the Adalynn traveled from overseas to the court to present a letter of appreciation and a commemorative banner in recognition of the court's efforts, according to the court statement. 
After the Guangzhou Maritime Court accepted the case, both parties agreed to apply Chinese law to establish a maritime liability limitation fund and resolve their substantive dispute, breaking away from the long-standing reliance of international shipping disputes on European and US courts and legal systems.
Choice of justice 
Bilov Viacheslav, a representative of Global Shipping Holding Ltd., told the Global Times that the main reason they chose a Chinese court to mediate the case is that "we want absolutely fair, unbiased approach to this issue. Because nowadays in this world, there are some countries which believe that they are authorized to give instruction to all others, which definitely is having influence on the decisions of the judge on the approach to the case."
Viacheslav gave the Chinese court's handling of the case a five-star rating, saying he had expected the dispute to take at least three years to resolve, but the Chinese court settled it within just one year. He also praised the judges and lawyers for their commitment to advancing the case throughout the proceedings.
"The judges and lawyers worked to advance the case with the same level of commitment as I did, even though the case directly concerned my own interests. This left a deep impression on me about litigation in China," Viacheslav said.
The case involved two foreign parties and a collision that occurred near the Strait of Hormuz, with no direct connection to China or Guangzhou Maritime Court initially. The fact that the parties chose to seek vessel arrest in China and agreed to apply Chinese law demonstrates the credibility and appeal of China's maritime judicial system, Wu Guining, vice president of the Guangzhou Maritime Court, who served as the presiding judge of the case, told the Global Times. 
The court also introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism in the case, an innovation aimed at addressing complex technical issues arising from vessel collision accidents, Wu said, noting that through technical investigations, the court was able to establish the facts of the case more efficiently, highlighting the integration of professional maritime investigation capabilities with China's specialized maritime adjudication system.
The case demonstrates China's ability to handle major, complex and cross-border maritime disputes with professional expertise, Wu said.
The handling of the collision between the two vessels is just one example of how Chinese courts have been dealing with a growing number of foreign-related maritime cases in recent years.
The Global Times learned from China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) in October last year that over the past 40 years, Chinese courts have handled a total of 88,000 foreign-related maritime cases involving parties from 146 countries and regions.
At a lecture held by the SPC on Friday, Shen Hongyu, director of the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC, told the Global Times that in recent years, Chinese courts have become more influential in participating in and promoting global ocean governance reform. Maritime justice serves as an important instrument for practicing the vision of a maritime community with a shared future and for advancing the reform of the global ocean governance system. 
。

二 |

据观察者网报道，15日，加兰特高调召开新闻发布会，公开质疑内塔尼亚胡的加沙战后计划，反对以色列战后军事“控制”加沙，希望建立一个非敌对的巴勒斯坦人政府的替代方案，以取代哈马斯。对此，内塔尼亚胡强硬回应，不会考虑加兰特的方案，称这位退役海军上将，是在为自己无能“借口”。防长和总理“开火”后，以色列政坛已进入“选边站队”状态，似乎忘记了要进攻拉法。对此，我们聊三个话题。

作为总理，内塔尼亚胡曾长期执政以色列，拿美国总统来作比，奥巴马时期时是他，特朗普时期时也是他，如今到了拜登时期，仍是他。在以色列政坛，内塔尼亚胡是绝对的“老资格”，只不过，这一次上台，他的执政地位不再像此前那样稳固，即便在本届政府内部，对他感到不满的人也有不少，比如防长加兰特。

实际上，早在去年的“司法改革风波”中，两人就已经“对抗”过一次。当时，加兰特跟这次一样，也是通过电视讲话发出“重磅警告”，称内塔尼亚胡推行的司法改革，正在威胁以色列军队的凝聚力。

三 | 之后，盛怒之下的内塔尼亚胡下令，解除加兰特的防长职务。但是，以色列国内随后爆发大型示威游行，司法改革成为众矢之的，在这样的背景下，加兰特撤职的事内塔尼亚胡没有重提。

但没想到，仅仅不到一年的时间，两人再次爆发激烈争吵。

四 | 这一次，争吵的话题是“加沙战后到底由谁来管理”。值得关注的是，在以色列战时内阁“三人小组”中，除内塔尼亚胡和加兰特之外，另外一个拥有表决权的前防长甘茨也认为，加兰特“说了实话”。

这也表明，在这个“三人小组”中，总理内塔尼亚胡已经被另外两人孤立了，因为另两人都是军方的，军方对内塔尼亚胡的不满，已经达到了顶点。与此同时，以军总参谋长哈莱维也指责内塔尼亚胡，未能制定加沙地带战后管理方案，导致以军不知为何而战。以色列国家安全总局（辛贝特）负责人巴尔，也曾与内塔尼亚胡发生过争执。

但是，在“三人小组”之外，内塔尼亚胡却并不孤单，一些右翼议员则支持他，希望他立即解除加兰特的职务。

五 | 也就是说，以色列内部如今已分为两派，开始选边站队了，内讧已摆到了桌面上。

以色列媒体披露，内塔尼亚胡目前的考虑是，将哈马斯甚至加沙民众全部赶走，以色列占领加沙后，迁入自己许可的新移民，然后成立一个亲以色列的政权，来替以色列“打理”加沙，一方面让自己永远没有安全担忧；另一方面，又为以色列增加了“领土”。如果能获得这样的战争红利，内塔尼亚胡争取连任，将基本上没有什么阻力。

六 |

如今，以色列坚持打加沙最后一个城市拉法，就暗含“将难民赶到埃及”的意思，因为拉法与埃及西奈半岛不过“一墙之隔”，战火一起，不用以色列驱赶，难民自己就逃到埃及那边去了。

为达到占领目的，此前以色列方面还对外披露过两个方案，一个是在地中海建人工岛，将加沙民众迁移上去；另一个，是将加沙民众整体迁移到非洲国家刚果（金），以色列甚至与该国已经进行过协商。

七 |

但是，对于内塔尼亚胡这一计划，哈马斯方面坚决不同意，称只要哈马斯还有一个人活着，就不会任由以色列统治加沙地带，在这样的背景下，内塔尼亚胡坚持继续开火。但他也知道，完全消灭哈马斯是不可能的，比如土耳其总统埃尔多安最近就明确表示，土耳其收治了1000多名哈马斯，为他们疗伤，摆明了是跟以色列唱反调，而在中东，类似土耳其这种做法的国家，还有不少。

所以，如果占领加沙，只能以色列军队出面控制，以保证在安全上不出问题，这也是内塔尼亚胡希望做到的，但军方基本上都不同意，他们认为内塔尼亚胡这样的想法，是在为他个人谋利，为他连任争取选票，因为以军在加沙跟哈马斯拼命，成了给内塔尼亚胡争取政绩。

冲突总有停火的那一天，那么，对于加沙的战后治理，国际社会都是怎么考虑的？最近，联大以143：9的压倒性优势，通过了“巴勒斯坦入联”决议，也就是说，国际社会希望巴勒斯坦加入联合国，在建立一个属于巴勒斯坦人的国家后，真正实施“两国方案”。

但是，虽然决议通过，美国和以色列却投了反对票，这也表明，在巴勒斯坦建国一事上，美以有另外的考虑。

以色列常驻联合国代表埃尔丹已明确表态，称以方不会同意巴勒斯坦建国，这是“在奖励恐怖主义”，哈马斯来管理不行，法塔赫也不行。

八 | 美国拜登政府则在内部会谈中呼吁阿拉伯国家，在本轮巴以冲突结束后，向加沙地带部署维和部队，埃及、阿联酋和摩洛哥正在考虑这一建议。

对此，以色列方面恐怕不会配合，阿拉伯联军有能力抗衡以色列吗？这个真不好说。

九 | 那么，如今以色列坚持在加沙不停火怎么办？哥伦比亚总统提议，由联合国派出维和部队，强硬阻止以色列的军事行动。但一来，美国不会同意；二来，若以色列坚持行动，加沙岂不是越来越乱？