Adam Garfinkle of the American Interest takes an analytical look at the geopolitical history of the Gaza Strip.
Everyone who really understands the underlying strategic realities of the present crisis knows that the best that can be achieved for now is another Hamas-Israeli ceasefire, after a suitable amount of pain and blood have been exacted. There is no possibility of a genuine reconciliation between Israel, with whatever government it may elect, and Hamas, at least as long as Hamas remains what it is: a particularly nationalized Palestinian form of the Muslim Brotherhood, itself a deeply authoritarian and atavistic movement.
The changing leadership in the Middle East has impacted on Israel's relationship with Hamas, writes Steven A. Cook in Foreign Policy.
The current hostilities between the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas, combined with the political changes across the region, belie the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a central strategic concern of the United States. Belittling the conflict's importance had been the refuge of observers bereft of ideas on how to forge a settlement in the Middle East, and it was often invoked in Washington to deride peace-process dead-enders -- analysts who saw an opportunity to "restart negotiations" where others saw nothing but hopelessness.
- Times of Israel: Explosion on a Tel Aviv bus in terror attack; rescue services report 10 casualties
- Haaretz: Neither Israel nor Hamas thinks a truce would last forever
- Jerusalem Post: Gazan gunmen execute alleged collaborators
- Ynet: Israel 'strikes' world opinion using new media
- New York Times: How Obama Can Use Pressure to Bring Peace
- Washington Post: With Hillary Clinton’s dash to Middle East, Obama signals a shift in his approach
- Wall Street Journal: Clinton Tests U.S. Influence in Mideast