Aaron David Miller has been saying extremely sensible things about the conflict in Gaza, and he continues that streak over at Foreign Policy's new blog The Argument:
Without a unified Palestinian house, what Israeli Prime Minister would make existential concessions to a Palestinian leader who doesn't control all the guns? And what Palestinian leader could even begin to make the kinds of concessions that peace with Israel will require without the authority and legitimacy that derives from the support of most Palestinians? At present, if Israel wants peace and quiet for its southern towns and cities or the return of its kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, it goes to Hamas not to Abbas. And yet Israel and the United States look to Abbas to deliver a political settlement.Pressing Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist and abandon terror and violence are reasonable and legitimate. But Israel should have no illusions here. It took Israel and Fatah, the secular manifestation of Palestinian nationalism, almost thirty years to work out a modus vivendi, which is still only in its preliminary phase. Indeed, many in Fatah still question Israel's identity as a Jewish state and support armed struggle. So how long might it take Israel and Hamas, the religious manifestation of Palestinian nationalism?
Hey, I said it was sensible, not uplifting. Miller goes on to argue that Israel's strikes in Gaza have only underscored this reality. When Israel goes to war with the Palestinians, they go to war with Hamas. They go to war with Hamas to destroy it, so they can negotiate with Fatah. But the strikes have strengthened Hamas politically, and harmed Fatah's standing. They have made Fatah less relevant even as their point was to make Hamas less necessary. So it's now even more obvious that Israel and Hamas need to move towards negotiations and acceptance, and even less likely to happen. It's almost as if there's no strategy here at all.
