伊德和他的巴勒斯坦哥倫比亞大學教授，也是美國對巴勒斯坦政策重要評論家的薩伊德（Edward W.Said），於2003年9月25日於紐約市的一家醫院病逝。從1990年代初期，薩伊德一直遭受白血症之苦。

出生於耶路撒冷（部分由英國統治的巴勒斯坦），薩伊德成年後的大部分時光都是在美國度過的。薩伊德熱情地書寫他對巴勒斯坦建國的關切，但除此之外，也有各種主題的著作出版，從學術專長、音樂到文化都有。

他的著作包括1979年的《對巴勒斯坦的疑問》（The Question of Palestine），1986年的《After the Last Sky》到1991年的《音樂的精緻》（Musical Elaborations）以及1993年的《文化帝國主義》（Cultural Imperialism）。

薩伊德生前不斷對以色列的所作所為，也就是他所認為對巴勒斯坦人的虐待（mistreatment），發出批評之聲。

兩年前，在拜訪耶路撒冷和西方銀行後，薩伊德予以英語發行的《Al-Ahram Weekly》寫下：「以色列對阿拉伯人的排他性與仇視，實際上已經加深巴勒斯坦人的決心。

有趣的是，薩伊德在台灣學術界所留下的印象，和西方學界、美國媒體對他的解讀大不相同。在此地，薩伊德積極投入巴勒斯坦建國運動的形象並不鮮明，他的後殖民主義及東方主義論述，反而更為受到學術界的注意與吸收。

1994年問世，於1997年在台推出的《知識分子論》，更在台灣與中國的高等教育界產生相當大的回響。中國人「士大夫」文化傳統，恰巧與薩伊德對知識分子的論述產生巧妙的連結，甚至加深學者投身政治，「學而優則仕」的現象。薩伊德在書中提到：「其實，知識分子既不該是沒有爭議的、安全的角色，以致只是成為友善的技術人員，也不該是猶如希臘神話的女先知卡桑德拉，成為雖能預言卻不能見信於人的專業人士，不但正直得令人不悅，而且無人理睬。」取悅媒體及大眾，絕非知識分子該做的事。

更進一步來講，促使學者以實際行動闡述理念的，是薩伊德有關知識分子所強調的「選擇問題」，對公共空間的直接參與。

薩伊德深信：「知識分子總是要有所抉擇，不是站在較為弱勢、代表不足、被遺忘或被忽視的一方，就是站在較強勢的一邊。」如何在整個實踐過程中，忠實於自己的理念，及承受日後的被判，才是知識分子參與公共空間之苦。Palestinian intellectual Edward Said, a prolific author and literary critic who wanted Israelis and Palestinians to live in an integrated democratic nation, died on Thursday after battling leukemia. He was 67.

"Over the past three decades he was the most eloquent spokesman for the plight of the Palestinians," said Hamid Dabashi, chairman of the Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures Department at Columbia University, where Said worked.

Said died in a New York hospital, Dabashi said.

A comparative literature professor at Columbia, Said was a literary critic and theoretician and a prominent Palestinian activist. Arab commentators said he would be remembered as a Palestinian patriot and a towering intellectual who broke ground in the theory of literature and Orientalist studies.

While Israel and its supporters attribute the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Arabs' refusal to accept the Jewish state, Said portrayed the problem in terms of atrocities by that state against Palestinian victims.

A longtime Palestinian National Council member, Said broke with Yasser Arafat, believing the 1993 Oslo peace accords were "a Palestinian Versailles" that further eroded Palestinian human and national rights. He opposed a segregated two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, proposing an integrated, democratic country instead.

"I see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, and sharing it in a truly democratic way, with equal rights for each citizen," Said wrote in The New York Times in 1999.

Arafat said in a statement his people "mourn with grief and pain the international intellectual and son of the Palestinian people, Professor Edward Said."

The Palestinian Authority representative in the United States, Hassan Abdel Rahman, told Reuters that Said's attacks on Arafat did "not in any shape or form take away from his place in Palestinian history and society."

Said's books include "Orientalism," "A Question of Palestine" and "The End of the Peace Process." His theory of Orientalism said that false and romanticized images of the Middle East and Asia were used to justify Western colonialism and imperialism there.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan "always enjoyed his company, savored his wit, and admired the passion with which he pursued his vision of peace between Israelis and Palestinians," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.

Friends recalled Said saying in recent months he was "not dead and not alive" as doctors increased his chemotherapy.

"We lost a peak of Arab intellect," said Abdelwahab al-Badrakhan, deputy editor of the leading pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat in London. "He articulated the basis for Palestinian patriotism and added to his fundamental rejection of Zionism the idea of Palestinian-Israeli coexistence."

Abdullah Schleifer, head of the Adham Center for TV Journalism at the American University in Cairo, praised Said for denouncing suicide bombings but said he failed to highlight Arab suffering elsewhere in places like Iraq: "He was unable to see problems in other parts of the Arab world, such as the massacre of Kurds and Shias."

In 2000, Said visited southern Lebanon and in keeping with custom, tossed "stones of celebration" across the border with Israel. When a photographer captured the moment, the widely published picture was used by opponents to paint Said as a rock-throwing militant.

Said was born in Jerusalem, a Palestinian Christian, but spent most of his childhood in Cairo. Even that brought Said controversy when an Israeli scholar accused him in 1999 of falsifying his biography.

Educated at Princeton University and Harvard University, he also taught at Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Yale University.

在我而言，最痛苦、最弔詭的特徵，莫過於許許多多移位失所，使我從一個國家到另一個國家，一個城市到另一城市，一種語言到另一語言，一個環境到另一環境流動，從無繫泊。 　

　　　　　　 －薩伊德《鄉關何處》（Out of Place）

出生於1935年受到英國統治的巴勒斯坦，爾後在埃及長大，薩伊德來到美國這塊土地上的時候，是個學生。最後，他成為哥倫比亞大學的英語系教授，並因為在文學、音樂、文化和第國主義方面的著作而受到國際性地讚揚。薩伊德於1978年完成的初啼之作「東方主義」（Orientalism），迫使學術界對西方有關伊斯蘭的觀點作出長期且尚未結束的爭辯。他對伊斯蘭教、阿拉伯國家，特別是他在美國所發現的巴勒斯坦遭到無知的解讀與懷疑，感到驚懼。薩伊德坦言：「我的生命中的一個基本分裂，是阿拉伯語和英語之間的分裂。」

薩伊德為美國「盲目的帝國傲慢」（blind imperial arrogance）感到哀嘆，並且認為：「構成這個觀點的基礎，是個存在已久的觀點，那就是東方學者的觀點（Orientalist view）。這種觀點否認了阿拉伯人的國家自決權，因為，阿拉伯人被視為沒有邏輯能力、無法說實話，而且根本是殘忍危險的一群人。」原鄉的記憶與連結，薩伊德的一生面臨的是不曾停息的分裂與拉扯。

魯西迪（Salman Rushdie）曾經說過：「薩伊德閱讀這個世界的方式，如同他閱讀書籍那樣的仔細。」美國左派雜誌《國家》（The Nation）指出，沒有人比薩伊德更努力、花更久的時間來喚醒美國人，去注意他們政府的政策已經對中東的和平和正義帶來什麼樣的傷害。我們無法說薩伊德已經成功地完成這項任務，但是，也無法斷言他已經失敗。如果相繼的總統拒絕聽取薩伊德智慧的忠告，數以百萬的公民可以直接地或間接地受到他的演講、著作和不停呼籲的影響。就某個程度而言，最近這幾年，已經在巴勒斯坦以及美國的巴勒斯坦人之間出現更為寬大的同情心，特別是在年輕的美國人之間，這可以說是薩伊德這位舉世聞名的學者、作家、批評家和行動主義者（activist）的成就。

把薩伊德當成激進主義份子解讀（譯按，activist一字又可做激進主義分子解），未免過於表象化，也有失真之處。在西方，特別是美國，薩伊德之所以被認為是個一味支持阿拉伯的激進主義分子，可能是受到薩伊德對以色列使館扔石頭的照片被披露的影響。哥倫比亞大學兩名教授投書校刊批評薩伊德的行為「粗魯、野蠻」、「不負責任」。對薩依德採取敵對態度的人批評，薩伊德扔石頭的舉動，被認為和以巴衝突中那些向以色列軍人扔石頭、崇尚暴力的巴勒斯坦人沒有兩樣；但也有人認為，薩依德只是表達他的憤怒和情緒。最後，哥大校方為此發表公開信，強調薩伊德扔石頭沒有針對具體個人，也沒人提起公訴，它是一種言論表達，這種自由權利不應受到懲罰。積極介入巴勒斯坦建國運動，使得薩伊德毀譽交加。

今天的知識分子應該是個業餘者，認為身為社會中思想和關切的一員，有權對於甚至最具有技術性、專業化行動的核心提出道德的議題，因為這個行動涉及他的國家、國家的權力、國家與其公民和其他社會互動的模式。

--薩伊德《知識分子論》（Representations of the Intellectual）

薩伊德並非暴力崇尚者，光憑一張照片的解讀，或是盲目將其貼上「暴力」的標籤，是種粗糙且毫無意義的指控。「知識份子的責任感要求我們對於現實抱持更強烈的批判意識。」911恐怖攻擊事件發生後，薩伊德在《Islam and the West Are Inadequate Banners》一文表明他的立場，他認為：復仇無法消滅恐怖主義。

薩伊德說：「大家都說這是一場對抗恐怖主義的戰爭，但是恐怖主義在哪裡？要選擇哪一條戰線？具體目標為何？這些問題都沒有答案，只有模糊的暗示：『我們』要對付中東地區與伊斯蘭教，而且恐怖主義必須摧毀。」與其用一種膚淺的方式說薩伊德反對美國用武，到不如說是薩伊德要的是，點出情勢氛圍的盲目。薩伊德更直接指出美國的傲慢，他認為，當前需要的是對於情勢進行理性的瞭解，而不是更多的聲討撻伐；但是布希與其團隊顯然只對後者有興趣。一針見血地直指問題所在，也顯示出911恐怖攻擊事件發生後，美國媒體所建構出來的虛假性。

Orientalism is very much a book tied to the tumultuous dynamics of contemporary history. Its first page opens with a 1975 description of the Lebanese Civil War that ended in 1990, but the violence and the ugly shedding of human blood continues up to this minute. We have had the failure of the Oslo peace process, the outbreak of the second intifada, and the awful suffering of the Palestinians on the reinvaded West Bank and Gaza. The suicide bombing phenomenon has appeared with all its hideous damage, none more lurid and apocalyptic of course than the events of September 11 2001 and their aftermath in the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. As I write these lines, the illegal imperial occupation of Iraq by Britain and the United States proceeds. Its aftermath is truly awful to contemplate. This is all part of what is supposed to be a clash of civilizations, unending, implacable, irremediable. Nevertheless, I think not.

I wish I could say that general understanding of the Middle East, the Arabs and Islam in the United States has improved somewhat, but alas, it really hasn't. For all kinds of reasons, the situation in Europe seems to be considerably better. In the US, the hardening of attitudes, the tightening of the grip of demeaning generalization and triumphalist cliche, the dominance of crude power allied with simplistic contempt for dissenters and "others" has found a fitting correlative in the looting and destruction of Iraq's libraries and museums. What our leaders and their intellectual lackeys seem incapable of understanding is that history cannot be swept clean like a blackboard, clean so that "we" might inscribe our own future there and impose our own forms of life for these lesser people to follow. It is quite common to hear high officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of changing the map of the Middle East, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar. But this has often happened with the "Orient," that semi-mythical construct which since Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in the late eighteenth century has been made and re-made countless times. In the process the uncountable sediments of history, that include innumerable histories and a dizzying variety of peoples, languages, experiences, and cultures, all these are swept aside or ignored, relegated to the sand heap along with the treasures ground into meaningless fragments that were taken out of Baghdad.

My argument is that history is made by men and women, just as it can also be unmade and re-written, so that "our" East, "our" Orient becomes "ours" to possess and direct. And I have a very high regard for the powers and gifts of the peoples of that region to struggle on for their vision of what they are and want to be. There's been so massive and calculatedly aggressive an attack on the contemporary societies of the Arab and Muslim for their backwardness, lack of democracy, and abrogation of women's rights that we simply forget that such notions as modernity, enlightenment, and democracy are by no means simple, and agreed-upon concepts that one either does or does not find like Easter eggs in the living-room. The breathtaking insouciance of jejune publicists who speak in the name of foreign policy and who have no knowledge at all of the language real people actually speak, has fabricated an arid landscape ready for American power to construct there an ersatz model of free market "democracy". You don't need Arabic or Persian or even French to pontificate about how the democracy domino effect is just what the Arab world needs.

But there is a difference between knowledge of other peoples and other times that is the result of understanding, compassion, careful study and analysis for their own sakes, and on the other hand knowledge that is part of an overall campaign of self-affirmation. There is, after all, a profound difference between the will to understand for purposes of co-existence and enlargement of horizons, and the will to dominate for the purposes of control. It is surely one of the intellectual catastrophes of history that an imperialist war confected by a small group of unelected US officials was waged against a devastated Third World dictatorship on thoroughly ideological grounds having to do with world dominance, security control, and scarce resources, but disguised for its true intent, hastened, and reasoned for by Orientalists who betrayed their calling as scholars.

The major influences on George W. Bush's Pentagon and National Security Council were men such as Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, experts on the Arab and Islamic world who helped the American hawks to think about such preposterous phenomena as the Arab mind and centuries-old Islamic decline which only American power could reverse. Today bookstores in the US are filled with shabby screeds bearing screaming headlines about Islam and terror, Islam exposed, the Arab threat and the Muslim menace, all of them written by political polemicists pretending to knowledge imparted to them and others by experts who have supposedly penetrated to the heart of these strange Oriental peoples. Accompanying such war-mongering expertise have been CNN and Fox, plus myriad evangelical and right-wing radio hosts, innumerable tabloids and even middle-brow journals, all of them re-cycling the same unverifiable fictions and vast generalizations so as to stir up "America" against the foreign devil.