A month ago, Elder of Ziyon had strung together a number of reports from different sources (and different levels of credibility) that suggested that Hamas was losing its grip on Gaza.
The items listed by Elder of Ziyon, with Hamas’s increased oppression of Gaza through executions, house demolitions and general thuggery, have lead to a decline in Hamas’s popularity.
(Another indication that Hamas’s popularity had been declining is that we’ve stopped seeing stories in the media claiming that the blockade was counterproductive because it was boosting Hamas’s popularity.)
Given indications that Hamas is losing the support of its citizens, it’s disappointing that it’s apparently getting support elsewhere.
I know that Elder of Ziyon got to this first, but Khaled Abu Toameh quotes Moussa Abu Marzuk in the Jerusalem Post:
A number of Hamas leaders have hinted over the past few days that the US administration has begun talking to the Islamist movement through both official and non-official channels.
Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, was quoted on Sunday as saying that Washington was talking to the movement despite its declared policy of boycotting it.
“Their official policy states that there are no contacts with Hamas,” Abu Marzouk said during a visit to Algeria. “However, they are engaging Hamas for objective reasons.”
He added: “There are several open channels [between Hamas and the US]. Some are official and some are unofficial. All those who are talking to us receive permission from the US State Department and the White House. The US administration tells them to talk to Hamas but without causing a big fuss.”
Abu Marzouk claimed that the US administration had reached the conclusion that Hamas is a factor that can’t be ignored.
So is it any surprise that Hamas felt it had nothing to lose with this effort to break the blockade? In the end Hamas is convinced that the United States recognizes its importance, and wouldn’t pay a political price for challenging Israel. (Or having its stooges challenge Israel.)
This is the complete opposite of the Glenn Kessler’s presentation, Israeli assault complicates efforts to improve relationship with U.S. in the Washington Post (via memeorandum):
The worldwide condemnation of the deadly Israeli assault on the Gaza aid flotilla will complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to improve its tense relations with Jerusalem and likely will distract from the push to sanction Iran over its nuclear program.
This “analysis” is from the school of “I don’t understand why Israel defends itself” thought, carefully taking only statements that reinforce the idea that Israel must not upset the Muslim world. Were the Israeli soldiers supposed to have courteously surrendered themselves to be beaten and thrown to the water?
And to suggest that Israel’s actions alienate Turkey are absurd. Turkey organized this stunt. Turkey, that has recently publicly snubbed the Obama administration and declared its fealty to Iran and Syria, is the problem. But not a single one of Kessler’s sources point this out. I guess for balance, he included a comment from Daniel Levy, who is Israeli, but not a single one of his sources could be considered pro-Israel.
By his choice of sources, Kessler demonstrated that this was a blatantly anti-Israel hit piece rather than any sort of objective analysis. If it belonged anyplace, it belonged as an op-ed, not in the news section.
The Obama administration, while seemingly criticized by Kessler for not being more forceful in its condemnation of Israel, could manage only to say that it is “working to understand” Israel’s reasons for fighting back. It is this sort of equivocation along with its fruitless outreach to our enemies that emboldens them.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
