So according to this article in yesterday's Jerusalem Post, "the Israeli defense establishment" is worried about what it perceives to be a "split" in the Hamas leadership. Now one of the authors of this article is Khaled Abu Toameh, and that carries a lot of weight with me, but the piece is more interesting for its commentary on the state of Hamas's union, so to speak, than it is for any bearing its analysis may have on the chances for Gilad Shalit's release. (The fact is that I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever, because ... well, I hope I'm wrong. Anyway...)
As negotiations over the release of Cpl. Gilad Schalit appeared to enter their final lap this week, grave concern was expressed within the Israeli defense establishment on Wednesday over the growing rift within Hamas, which officials warned could jeopardize the deal and future contacts with the Palestinian Authority.
It seems, according to one unidentified Israeli official, that there are now three separate elements fighting for control of Hamas: 1) the ones who want to pretend to think about conceding a few points re: Israel's right to exist in order to appear moderate and thus gain concrete concessions of their own from Israel, the US and the EU; 2) the ones who want to stand firm on their "principles" and continue to reject every possibility of co-existence with Israel; and 3) the "most radical" ones, who were behind Cpl. Shalit's kidnapping in the first place and have no intention of allowing any agenda other than their own to dictate his destiny.
Thus we can see how easily the veneer of a palestinian Arab "moderate" is concocted. That first group now looks pretty good in comparison to the second and third groups, although the distinction between the goals of the latter two is somewhat unclear. But what does this have to do with Shalit?
According to a senior Israeli defense official, the current rift within Hamas could serve as an obstacle for Israel in advancing Schalit's release. Hamas's agreement to the deal was essential for its implementation. He said Hamas was also trying to copy Hizbullah war tactics and draw the IDF into a fight where Hamas would have the upper hand.
All of which begs the question: who is making the rules in this game? While it may sound insensitive and callous to call it a "game," it's beyond clear that to one side (i.e., Hamas et al.) that's exactly what it is. And as long as the other side (i.e., Israel) agrees to play, and to play by the rules that Hamas (and particularly that "most radical" element of Hamas) is setting, that's exactly what it becomes. It isn't rocket science. It isn't complex military strategy. It's just common sense.
Time to sweep all the pieces off the table. Time to turn over the board. In the immortal words of William Harrison: This wasn't meant to be a game.
Shabbat Shalom.
