THE victory of Israel over the Arab armies that encircled it in 1967 was so swift and absolute that, many Jews thought, the divine hand must have tipped the scales. Before the six-day war Israel had feared another Holocaust; thereafter it became an empire of sorts. Awestruck, the Jews took the holy sites of Jerusalem and the places of their biblical stories. But the land came with many Palestinians whom Israel could neither expel nor absorb. Was Providence smiling on Israel, or testing it?

encircle : 둘러싸다, 포위하다

Jack's arms encircled her waist.  잭의 두 팔은 그녀의 허리를 감고 있다.

encircle an army 군대를 포위하다

encircle him and attach him from the rear. 그를 포위해서 후방에서 그를 공격하라

It's no use trying to encircle and intimidate it. 그것을 둘러싸고 위협해도 아무 소용이 없다

tip the scales :  정세를 일변시키다

For the past 50 years, Israel has tried to have it both ways: taking the land by planting Jewish settlements on it; and keeping the Palestinians unenfranchised under military occupation, denied either their own state or political equality within Israel (see our special report in this issue). Palestinians have damaged their cause through decades of indiscriminate violence. Yet their dispossession is a reproach to Israel, which is by far the stronger party and claims to be a model democracy.

unenfranchised :  정치적 자유가 주어지지 않은

indiscriminate : 무분별한

dispossession: 몰아내기; 강탈, 탈취; [법] 부동산 불법 점유

reproach : 비난, 치욕

by far: 훨씬, 단연코

Israel’s “temporary” occupation has endured for half a century. The peace process that created “interim” Palestinian autonomy, due to last just five years before a final deal, has dragged on for more than 20. A Palestinian state is long overdue. Rather than resist it, Israel should be the foremost champion of the future Palestine that will be its neighbour. This is not because the intractable conflict is the worst in the Middle East or, as many once thought, the central cause of regional instability: the carnage of the civil wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere disproves such notions. The reason Israel must let the Palestinian people go is to preserve its own democracy.

occupation : 점유, 점령

endure:  자동사 (격식) 오래가다[지속되다]

interim: 임시의

drag on:  (너무 오랫동안) 질질 끌다[계속되다]

- The dispute has dragged on for months. 그 분규는 여러 달 질질 끌어 왔다.

long overdue: 오래 미뤄졌다. 한참 전에 행해졌어야 하

intractable :  (격식) 문제, 사람이 아주 다르기 힘든

carnage: 대학살

The Trump card

Unexpectedly, there may be a new opportunity to make peace: Donald Trump wants to secure “the ultimate deal” and is due to visit the Holy Land on May 22nd, during his first foreign trip. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appears as nervous as the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seems upbeat. Mr Trump has, rightly, urged Israel to curb settlement-building. Israel wants him to keep his promise to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. He should hold off until he is ready to go really big: recognise Palestine at the same time and open a second embassy in Jerusalem to talk to it.

unexpectedly:  뜻밖에, 예상외로

the ultimate deal :  이-팔 평화의 궁극적인 합의

upbeat : (형) (비격식) 긍정적인, 낙관적인

rightly: 당연히, 마땅히

curb: 억제하다

He needs to learn to curb his temper. 그는 성질을 죽이는 법을 배워야 한다. 

hold off: 미루다[연기하다]

We could get a new computer now or hold off until prices are lower.

우리가 지금 새 컴퓨터를 살 수 도 있고 가격이 더 내릴 때가지 미룰 수도 있다.

Could you hold off making your decision for a few days?

결정을 며칠 연기해 주시겠어요?

The outlines of peace are well known. Palestinians would accept the Jewish state born from the war of 1947-48 (made up of about three-quarters of the British mandate of Palestine). In return, Israel would allow the creation of a Palestinian state in the remaining lands it occupied in 1967 (about one-quarter). Parcels could be swapped to take in the main settlements, and Jerusalem would have to be shared. Palestinian refugees would return mostly to their new state, not Israel.

The fact that such a deal is familiar does not make it likely. Mr Netanyahu and Mr Abbas will probably string out the process—and try to ensure the other gets blamed for failure. Distracted by scandals, Mr Trump may lose interest; Mr Netanyahu may lose power (he faces several police investigations); and Mr Abbas may die (he is 82 and a smoker). The limbo of semi-war and semi-peace is, sadly, a tolerable option for both.

string something out ~을 질질끌다

They seem determined to string the talks out for an indefinite period.

그들이 그 회담을 무기한으로 질질 끌고 가기로 작정한 모양이다.

I don't want to string out the argument.

distracted by ~ 으로 산만해진 가운데

limbo :  (특히 다른 사람의 결정을 기다리는) 불확실한[어중간한] 상태

His life seemed stuck in limbo; he could not go forward and he could not go back.

그의 삶은 이도 저도 아닌 상태에 갇혀 있는 것 같았다. 그는 앞으로 나아갈 수도 없고 뒤로 돌아갈 수도 없었다.

Nevertheless, the creation of a Palestinian state is the second half of the world’s promise, still unredeemed, to split British-era Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. Since the six-day war, Israel has been willing to swap land for peace, notably when it returned Sinai to Egypt in 1982. But the conquests of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were different. They lie at the heart of Israelis’ and Palestinians’ rival histories, and add the intransigence of religion to a nationalist conflict. Early Zionist leaders accepted partition grudgingly; Arab ones tragically rejected it outright. In 1988 the Palestine Liberation Organisation accepted a state on part of the land, but Israeli leaders resisted the idea until 2000. Mr Netanyahu himself spoke of a (limited) Palestinian state only in 2009.

unredeemed: <결점 등이> 완화[보상]되지 않은 

swap: (어떤 것을 주고 그 대신 다른 것으로) 바꾸다, (이야기 등을) 나누다

notably: 특히

intransigence : (정치상의) 비타협적인 태도, 타협[양보]하지 않음

The talks broke down because of North Korea's intransigence.  

북한의 비타협적인 태도로 인해 회담이 결렬되었다.

 I hope we don't lose lives because of the intransigence of the U.N.

나는 우리가  UN의 비타협적인 태도로 인해 인명을 잃지 않기를 바란다. 

partition:  분할

grudgingly: 마지못해, 억지로

outright: 완전한, 전면적인, 노골적인, 명백한, 노골적으로, 드러내 놓고

Another reason for the failure to get two states is violence. Extremists on both sides set out to destroy the Oslo accords of 1993, the first step to a deal. The Palestinian uprising in 2000-05 was searing. Wars after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 made everything worse. As blood flowed, the vital ingredient of peace—trust—died.

Oslo accords : 오슬로 협정

(국제) 오슬로협정, 1993년 이스라엘의 라빈 총리와 팔레스타인해방기구(PLO)의 아라파트 의장이 만나 팔레스타인 독립국가와 이스라엘이 평화적으로 공존하는 방법을 모색한 합의. 팔레스타인 임시 자치정부 출범의 계기가 됨

uprising: 봉기, 반란, 폭동

searing:  타는[태울] 듯한

The searing heat of a tropical summer

열대 지방 여름의 타는 듯한 더위

unilateral : 일방적인, 단독의

a unilateral decision : 일방적인 [단독] 결정

flowed:  흘러 내리다, 넘쳐 나다

Most Israelis are in no rush to try offering land for peace again. Their security has improved, the economy is booming and Arab states are courting Israel for intelligence on terrorists and an alliance against Iran. The Palestinians are weak and divided, and might not be able to make a deal. Mr Abbas, though moderate, is unpopular; and he lost Gaza to his Islamist rivals, Hamas. What if Hamas also takes over the West Bank?

in no rush: 성급하지 않게

court:  ~ 의 환심을 사려고 하다

Both candidates have spent the last month courting the media. 

두 후보 모두 지난 한 달은 언론의 환심을 사는 데 보냈다.

All this makes for a dangerous complacency: that, although the conflict cannot be solved, it can be managed indefinitely. Yet the never-ending subjugation of Palestinians will erode Israel’s standing abroad and damage its democracy at home. Its politics are turning towards ethno-religious chauvinism, seeking to marginalise Arabs and Jewish leftists, including human-rights groups. The government objected even to a novel about a Jewish-Arab love affair. As Israel grows wealthier, the immiseration of Palestinians becomes more disturbing. Its predicament grows more acute as the number of Palestinians between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean catches up with that of Jews. Israel cannot hold on to all of the “Land of Israel”, keep its predominantly Jewish identity and remain a proper democracy. To save democracy, and prevent a slide to racism or even apartheid, it has to give up the occupied lands.

complacency: (보통 못마땅함) 현 상태에 만족함, 안주

Despite signs of an improvement in the economy, there is no room for complacency.

경제가 개선되는 조짐들이 있긴 하지만 안주하고 있을 여지는 없다.

There is no time for complacency.

안주하고 있을 때가 아니야.

Co-operation, not collaboration

Thus, if Mr Abbas’s Palestinian Authority (PA) is weak, then Israel needs to build it up, not undermine it. Without progress to a state, the PA cannot maintain security co-operation with Israel for ever; nor can it regain its credibility. Israel should let Palestinians move more freely and remove all barriers to their goods (a freer market would make Israel richer, too). It should let the PA expand beyond its ink-spots. Israel should voluntarily halt all settlements, at least beyond its security barrier.

Israel is too strong for a Palestinian state to threaten its existence. In fact, such a state is vital to its future. Only when Palestine is born will Israel complete the victory of 1967.

IN 1662 a London haberdasher with an eye for numbers published the first quantitative account of death. John Graunt tallied causes such as “the King’s Evil”, a tubercular disease believed to be cured by the monarch’s touch. Others seem uncanny, even poetic. In 1632, 15 Londoners “made away themselves”, 11 died of “grief” and a pair fell to “lethargy”.

* harberdasher:  1.(구식 英) (바늘・실・단추 등의) 바느질 도구 판매상 2.

* tubercular: 결핵의

* monarch: 군주의

* uncanny: 이상한, 묘한

I had an uncanny feeling I was being watched.

나는 누군가가 나를 지켜보고 있다는 묘한 느낌이 들었다.

Graunt’s book is a glimpse of the suddenness and terror of death before modern medicine. It came early, too: until the 20th century the average human lived about as long as a chimpanzee. Today science and economic growth mean that no land mammal lives longer. Yet an unintended consequence has been to turn dying into a medical experience.

How, when and where death happens has changed over the past century. As late as 1990 half of deaths worldwide were caused by chronic diseases; in 2015 the share was two-thirds. Most deaths in rich countries follow years of uneven deterioration. Roughly two-thirds happen in a hospital or nursing home. They often come after a crescendo of desperate treatment. Nearly a third of Americans who die after 65 will have spent time in an intensive-care unit in their final three months of life. Almost a fifth undergo surgery in their last month.

Such zealous intervention can be agonising for all concerned (see article). Cancer patients who die in hospital typically experience more pain, stress and depression than similar patients who die in a hospice or at home. Their families are more likely to argue with doctors and each other, to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and to feel prolonged grief.

What matters

Most important, these medicalised deaths do not seem to be what people want. Polls, including one carried out in four large countries by the Kaiser Family Foundation, an American think-tank, and The Economist, find that most people in good health hope that, when the time comes, they will die at home. And few, when asked about their hopes for their final days, say that their priority is to live as long as possible. Rather, they want to die free from pain, at peace, and surrounded by loved ones for whom they are not a burden.

Some deaths are unavoidably miserable. Not everyone will be in a condition to toast death’s imminence with champagne, as Anton Chekhov did. What people say they will want while they are well may change as the end nears (one reason why doctors are sceptical about the instructions set out in “living wills”). Dying at home is less appealing if all the medical kit is at the hospital. A treatment that is unbearable in the imagination can seem like the lesser of two evils when the alternative is death. Some patients will want to fight until all hope is lost.

But too often patients receive drastic treatment in spite of their dying wishes—by default, when doctors do “everything possible”, as they have been trained to, without talking through people’s preferences or ensuring that the prognosis is clearly understood. Just a third of American patients with terminal cancer are asked about their goals at the end of life, for example whether they wish to attend a special event, such as a grandchild’s wedding, even if that means leaving hospital and risking an earlier death. In many other countries, the share is even lower. Most oncologists, who see a lot of dying patients, say that they have never been taught how to talk to them.

This newspaper has called for the legalisation of doctor-assisted dying, so that mentally fit, terminally ill patients can be helped to end their lives if that is their wish. But the right to die is just one part of better care at the end of life. The evidence suggests that most people want this option, but that few would, in the end, choose to exercise it. To give people the death they say they want, medicine should take some simple steps.

More palliative care is needed. This neglected branch of medicine deals with the relief of pain and other symptoms, such as breathlessness, as well as counselling for the terminally ill. Until recently it was often dismissed as barely medicine at all: mere tea and sympathy when all hope has gone. Even in Britain, where the hospice movement began, access to palliative care is patchy. Recent studies have shown how wrongheaded that is. Providing it earlier in the course of advanced cancer alongside the usual treatments turns out not only to reduce suffering, but to prolong life, too.

Most doctors enter medicine to help people delay death, not to talk about its inevitability. But talk they must. A good start would be the wider use of the “Serious Illness Conversation Guide” drawn up by Atul Gawande, a surgeon and author. It is a short questionnaire designed to find out what terminally ill patients know about their condition and to understand what their goals are as the end nears. Early research suggests it encourages more, earlier conversations and reduces suffering.

These changes should be part of a broad shift in the way health-care systems deal with serious illness. Much care for the chronically ill needs to move out of hospitals altogether. That would mean some health-care funding being diverted to social support. The financial incentives for doctors and hospitals need to change, too. They are typically paid by insurers and governments to do things to patients, not to try to prevent disease or to make patients comfortable. Medicare, America’s public health scheme for the over-65s, has recently started paying doctors for in-depth conversations with terminally ill patients; other national health-care systems, and insurers, should follow. Cost is not an obstacle, since informed, engaged patients will be less likely to want pointless procedures. Fewer doctors may be sued, as poor communication is a common theme in malpractice claims.

One last thing before I go

Most people feel dread when they contemplate their mortality. As death has been hidden away in hospitals and nursing homes, it has become less familiar and harder to talk about. Politicians are scared to bring up end-of-life care in case they are accused of setting up “death panels”. But honest and open conversations with the dying should be as much a part of modern medicine as prescribing drugs or fixing broken bones. A better death means a better life, right until the end.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721371-death-inevitable-bad-death-not-how-have-better-death