The new beast slouching toward Bethlehem

What is often not stated clearly - you get at it but not to it - is that Hamas has a consistent philosophical position. It is rooted in religious fundamentalism but it operates more like Marxism under Stalin, as a theory which leads to this then that and then that with no room for argument.

So, in the Hamas philosophy, you have the complete non-acceptance of the Zionist entity. Not even the word "Israel" exists. Anyone who treats Israel as real is a traitor, much as a Trotskyite would be executed as a turncoat by a Stalinist. Fatah's relative pragmatism means it betrays not only certain Islamist ideals but that is like the worst form of cancer within the body, of the type which prevents the body from succeeding in its goals. It's sick but this is how they think.

It is in this context, not feudal clan divisions, that Fatah and Hamas hate each other. Their differences can be solved only by one giving up, by Fatah joining Hamas or by Hamas disintegrating.

Second, the Arab world turns defeats into victories on a regular basis. The Egyptians were destroyed in the 1972 War but they celebrate it as a victory because they attacked successfully in the first hours across the Suez. Hizbollah similarly created a straw man of the invincible Israeli soldier so that killing some meant victory - when even an Arab apologist (and Lebanese resident) like Robert Fisk notes that it certainly doesn't look like victory when you drive around and see Lebanon. If the game is somehow controlling how Arab masses lie to themselves about the real world so they believe they won conflicts they actually lost, then you've defined an impossible task. (This revision of loss into victory applies equally in the Arab world to other conflicts not involving Israel, but this is not the place for an extended discussion.)

A more realistic task is visible right now: anyone see rockets being fired from Lebanon into Israel to help Hamas? Anyone see Syrian tanks lined up at the border ready to invade? Anyone even see Nasrullah in public anymore as he moves from bunker to bunker to evade the IAF?

Third, to return to the first point, it has become fashionable to say that Hamas wins by resisting - and to say that Abbas has delivered nothing - but that is rhetoric. Look instead at the reality on the ground. The people of the West Bank now have restaurants, cafes, schools, jobs and a growing economy. They are taking control of their own security - which is viewed by Hamas not only as collusion but as treason for dealing with the Zionists. Think they want to trade that for the life of Gaza? There is a vast difference in the Arab world between what is said and what is actually done. The moderates are delivering peace and prosperity. The rhetoric may be about resistance and martyrdom but words are not actions, certainly not in that culture.

Fourth, to make the point about words, imagine if Israel spoke as the Arabs do. Imagine an Israeli PM speaking like Nasrullah or as Meshaal. It would be outrageous, unimaginable even for a Westerner to talk in such terms. Remember Baghdad Bob and his absurd assertions about Iraqi victories even as the US forces cut into Baghdad?

I am struck by a provcative position that was offered by former US UN Ambassador John Bolton. While I know that he is pretty much considered persona non grata by many, what do people think of his idea that:

" we should look to a "three-state" approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. Among many anomalies, today's conflict lies within the boundaries of three states nominally at peace. Having the two Arab states re-extend their prior political authority is an authentic way to extend the zone of peace and, more important, build on governments that are providing peace and stability in their own countries. "International observers" or the like cannot come close to what is necessary; we need real states with real security forces."

As Bolton states, this is not going to be something Egypt or Jordan clamors for, however, how can the Palestinians ever negotiate so long as there is the Hamas-Fatah split? How can Israel trust any Palestinian interlocuter? Stability and assemblance of an improved life would appear to be the only hope for the Palestinians. Only when rage no longer burns can peace be considered. Until then, it will continue to be a danse macabre in the Gaza Strip and maybe beyond.

I would qualify your article as of a propagandist and banal nature. It is strange to see how mainstream “scholars” or rather propagandists lacking scholarly qualities in this field in the US, who have a considerable influence on the US Middle East Policy, make the public opinion in the wrong direction by distorting all available data.

While you blame Hamas for denying “Israel's right to exist” and “abandon terror and violence”, you successfully failed to say that Israel does not recognize Palestine State or Palestinian Identity either and all its policy, whether military, political or cultural, has been directed at denying such identity and statehood within the last 60 years. You neither mention the terror, violence, war crimes, genocide and other international crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinians, the naked example of the current racist extermination of Palestinians in Gaza.

It is regrettable that Foreign Policy Magazine has been turned into an Israeli propaganda tool by your or the likes’ virtuous role.