Jackson’s cagey

Jackson Diehl writes in today’s Fuses in Gaza

The Islamic Hamas movement, which won the 2006 legislative elections and took sole control of Gaza in June, spent the week of Annapolis quietly doing what it has been doing every week for the past six months: smuggling tons of explosives, rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-aircraft missiles and Katyusha rockets through tunnels from the Sinai peninsula in Egypt. The explosives are used to make the crude Qassam rockets that are aimed mostly at the southern Israeli towns of Sderot and Ashkelon. The Katyushas, new to Gaza, are being saved for the all-out war for which both Hamas and the Israeli army are vigorously preparing.Already, Israel is staging near-daily raids and airstrikes that have killed more than 200 Gazans this year. The power, fuel and water supplies it controls are being dialed back, with the aim of creating suffering just short of a humanitarian crisis. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has pronounced the same warning repeatedly in recent weeks: “Every day brings us closer to a broad operation in Gaza.”

First of all the Qassams have been fired at Israel for a lot longer than six months. Elder of Ziyon started his Qassam calendar in February when it became clear that the media wasn’t going to report on the regular attacks on Israel. So the regular Qassam attacks have been going on for at least a year.

Diehl may play up the Hamas election and downplay its attacks on Israel (as if Hamas wasn’t responsible for many of the suicide bombers we’ve seen since 1994) but doesn’t it tell you something about the legitimacy of Hamas if one of its primary qualities is that it is waging war against Israel where no occupation exists?

Israel, by the way, is not attempting to create “suffering” but to disrupt the ability of the rocket makers and shooters to attack civilian targets. Its humanitarian concern is why it keeps the level of suffering “short of a humanitarian crisis.”

The Bush administration, characteristically, favors a policy of continued “isolation” — it would keep Gaza on ice and turn the rival West Bank administration of Abbas into a showcase. In a few months — maybe even before a peace deal is reached — Gaza’s population could be asked in an election to choose between continued misery and Abbas’s promise of statehood. That might work as long as the Qassams keep missing and Hamas doesn’t try something larger. And if it does? Senior administration officials have told Olmert that he should prepare his public to absorb some terrorism without giving up on the talks.

How much of this is coming from the administration and how much from the Olmert government, is uncertain. But this is very disturbing. And if the terror is coming from Fatah no doubt the administration would also advocate Israel’s absorbing terrorism instead of stopping talks. To the degree that this is true this is unconscionable meddling in Israeli security. (And it doesn’t bode well for the tenure of Gen. Jones.)

However Diehl also writes

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a different strategy — one that directly undercuts Bush’s. Both Israelis and Americans believe that the Egyptian government has chosen to tolerate the smuggling from Sinai into Gaza. President Hosni Mubarak, they say, is hedging his bet on Abbas and avoiding a complete break with Hamas. Both Egyptian and Saudi officials are quietly pushing for renewed negotiations between the two Palestinian factions, in parallel with the peace talks. The problem is that Abbas, so far, hasn’t been interested in striking a bargain with Hamas.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s action is only described as undermining the administration’s not as inimical to peace efforts. (“[C]hosen to tolerate?!?” How much more delicate could Diehl have been?)

The one option that doesn’t seem to be getting serious consideration is perhaps the only one that Hamas itself might accept: a cease-fire with Israel that would end attacks by both sides, open Gaza to normal commerce and allow the peace negotiations to go forward without interference. Such a deal, which is favored by the out-of-power Israeli left, doesn’t fit with the Bush administration’s vision of a polarized Middle East in which Iran and its allies are irreconcilable. Hamas might indeed be unyielding in its opposition to peace. But if there is no cease-fire, prepare for war.

Perhaps dealing with Hamas is off the table, perhaps not. But Diehl, in his sloppiness, before ignored the length of time that Hamas has been encouraging the Qassams. Elder of Ziyon started keeping the calendar because the Qassams persisted despite a Hamas ceasefire.

So the question is why in the world is Diehl advocating a policy of continuing to tolerate the intolerable? Is his vision of peace so warped that peace can only be achieved by Israel absorbing terror?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.