巴勒斯坦人为何选择哈马斯
那么为什么巴勒斯坦人并没有同样的放松感呢？一方面，旧政府是民选的；如今它已经遭到主席法令否决。还有一个问题是，阿巴斯任命的新总理法亚德（Salam Fayyad）得到西方的支持，但在那场哈马斯大胜的选举中他只赢得了2%的选票。法亚德和阿巴斯都得到以色列的支持，但他们缺乏自己人民的支持并非什么秘密。
去年，人们把阿巴斯的法塔赫扔出选举，这是有原因的。巴勒斯坦人认为法特赫的政治家没意思、自私自利而且腐败，满足于权力的报酬。
更糟的是，巴勒斯坦人开始意识到阿巴斯所拥护的所谓和平进程已经导致以色列对他们土地的四十年军事占领永久制度化，而不是终结。他们怎么还会有别的感觉呢？如今在被占领的领土上，移民的数量比拉宾和阿拉法特首次在白宫玫瑰园握手时多了一倍。以色列已经把西岸分裂为被包围的区域，不断地增加东耶路撒冷的犹太移民人数，同时剥夺巴勒斯坦耶路撒冷人在这座城市的居住权，把加沙变成事实上的监狱。
去年，人们投票给哈马斯不是因为他们支持哈马斯的口号，不是因为他们想生活在伊斯兰国家，不是因为他们支持袭击以色列平民，不是因为哈马斯比法塔赫的安于现状与腐败干净，比法塔赫继续勾搭以色列的意愿干净。法塔赫领袖被视为仅仅是永久占领的警察，而巴勒斯坦权力机构愿意代表以色列人担当管理角色。哈马斯则是不同的选项。
在美国，哈马斯通常被妖魔化，以袭击平民著称。把哈马斯的“拒绝”描述成它自身的目的，而不是拒绝顺从一个给这片土地的巴勒斯坦人带来灾难的政治进程。
哈马斯做了什么坏透了的事吗？没错，但法塔赫也是，以色列也是。以色列－巴勒斯坦冲突中没有圣人。
巴勒斯坦人看到了西方反哈马斯姿态中的许多伪善。例如，自从去年选举以来，西方就拒绝援助哈马斯政府，辩称种种原因，包括哈马斯拒绝承认以色列。但这是荒谬的；毕竟，以色列也并不承认巴勒斯坦。
让我们老实承认吧。哈马斯并不是因为它的伊斯兰意识形态而遭到西方反对的，而是因为它反对（并反抗）以色列的占领。
拥抱“温和的”阿巴斯，让巴勒斯坦权力机构重新代表以色列为占领服务。从长期来讲，两国制解决方案就完蛋了，因为法塔赫没有能力也没有意愿制止这片一度意图成立一个巴勒斯坦国家的土地的支解。
唯一现实的选项将是在一个单独的、民主的、世俗的、为以色列和巴勒斯坦人提供平等权利的国家和永久性种族隔离之间作出选择。（原标题：西方选择了法塔赫，但巴勒斯坦人不买帐；作者：Saree Makdisi）
West chooses Fatah, but Palestinians don't
They prefer Hamas, which represents an alternative to Fatah's acceptance of the Israeli occupation.
By Saree Makdisi, SAREE MAKDISI, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, writes often about the Middle East.
June 20, 2007
IN THE WEST, there's a huge sense of relief. The Hamas-led government that has been causing everyone so much trouble has been isolated in Gaza, and a new government has been appointed in the West Bank by the "moderate," peace-loving Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.
So why then do Palestinians not share in the relief? Well, for one thing, the old government had been democratically elected; now it has been dismissed out of hand by presidential fiat. There's also the fact that the new prime minister appointed by Abbas — Salam Fayyad — has the support of the West, but his election list won only 2% of the votes in the same election that swept Hamas to victory. Fayyad and Abbas have the support of Israel, but it is no secret that they lack the backing of their own people.
There is a reason the people threw out Abbas' Fatah party in last year's election. Palestinians see the leading Fatah politicians as unimaginative, self-serving and corrupt, satisfied with the emoluments of power.
Worse yet, Palestinians came to realize that the so-called peace process championed by Abbas (and by Yasser Arafat before him) had led to the permanent institutionalization — rather than the termination — of Israel's 4-decade-old military occupation of their land. Why should they feel otherwise? There are today twice as many settlers in the occupied territories as there were when Yitzhak Rabin and Arafat first shook hands in the White House Rose Garden. Israel has divided the West Bank into besieged cantons, worked diligently to increase the number of Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem (while stripping Palestinian Jerusalemites of their residency rights in the city) and turned Gaza into a virtual prison.
People voted for Hamas last year not because they approved of the party's sloganeering, not because they wanted to live in an Islamic state, not because they support attacks on Israeli civilians, but because Hamas was untainted by Fatah's complacency and corruption, untainted by its willingness to continue pandering to Israel. Fatah leaders were viewed as mere policemen of the perpetual occupation, and the Palestinian Authority had willingly taken on the role of administering the population on behalf of the Israelis. Hamas offered an alternative.
Here in the U.S., Hamas is routinely demonized, known primarily for its attacks on civilians. Depictions of Hamas portray its "rejectionism" as an end in itself rather than as a refusal to go along with a political process that has proved catastrophic for Palestinians on the ground.
Has Hamas done unspeakable things? Yes, but so has Fatah, and so too has Israel (on a much larger scale). There are no saints in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Palestinians, frankly, see a lot of hypocrisy in the West's anti-Hamas stance. Since last year's election, for example, the West has denied aid to the Hamas government, arguing, among other things, that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel. But that's absurd; after all, Israel does not recognize Palestine either. Hamas is accused of not abiding by previous agreements. But Israel's suspension of tax revenue transfers to the Palestinian Authority, and its refusal to implement a Gaza-West Bank road link agreement brokered by the U.S. in November 2005, are practical, rather than merely rhetorical, violations of previous agreements, causing infinitely more damage to ordinary people. Hamas is accused of mixing religion and politics, but no one has explained why its version of that mixture is any worse than Israel's — or why a Jewish state is acceptable but a Muslim one is not.
I am a secular humanist, and I personally find religiously identified political movements — and states — unappealing, to say the least.
But let's be honest. Hamas did not run into Western opposition because of its Islamic ideology but because of its opposition to (and resistance to) the Israeli occupation.
A genuine peace based on the two-state solution would require an end to the Israeli occupation and the creation of a territorially contiguous, truly independent Palestinian state.
But that is not happening. Fatah seems to have given up, its leaders preferring to rest comfortably with the power they already have. Ironically, it is Hamas that is taking the stands that would be prerequisites for a true two-state peace plan: refusing to go along with the permanent breakup of Palestine and not accepting the sacrifice of control over borders, airspace, water, taxes and even the population registry to Israel.
Embracing the "moderation" of Abbas allows the Palestinian Authority to resume servicing the occupation on Israel's behalf, for now. In the long run, though, the two-state solution is finished because Fatah is either unable or unwilling to stop the ongoing dismemberment of the territory once intended for a Palestinian state.
The only realistic choice remaining will be the one between a single democratic, secular state offering equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians — or permanent apartheid