This +972 mag piece by Larry Derfner is a bit dated now (Aug. 15), when negotiations were still going on. He and those he quotes (including Meretz leader Gal-On) make the point that the war has boosted Hamas politically:
. . . Meretz leader Zahava Gal-On gave an accurate reading of the situation:
This is what Netanyahu promised during Operation Protective Edge: Demilitarization of Gaza, bringing Hamas to its knees, and achieving long-term deterrence. And this is what we now have: Israel is holding direct talks with Hamas in Cairo, has agreed not to demand Gaza’s demilitarization, and is discussing a series of steps such as opening the crossings, bringing in goods and expanding fishing zones, which will be credited to Hamas and to those who side with violence.
Also, the emerging truce calls for talks on construction of an airport and seaport for Gaza to begin within a month of the document’s signing.
Personally, I’m in favor of Gaza getting all those things [as is Gal-On]. But Netanyahu could have offered them to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during the Kerry talks, or to the Fatah-Hamas unity government that Abbas forged, and the Palestinian benefactor would have been the non-violent, moderate PA instead of the violent, immoderate Hamas. Oh, one other thing: There wouldn’t have been a war that killed 2,000 people, . . . and traumatized hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the south. Gal-On again:
Netanyahu dragged us to a war of choice and a war of folly, gave Hamas a lifeline to climb out of the biggest hole it was ever in, strongly reinforced the organization’s understanding that it pays to keep digging deeper tunnels and stockpiling deadlier rockets, and it has proved to the Palestinians once again that Israel only understands the language of force.
For those of you who are concerned about human rights and who have following these issues, including Israel’s now seven-year siege on Gaza, and perhaps for some of you who have not, a few of these sentences below may express quite a lot by themselves about those asking them – Partners for Progressive Israel, ex-Meretz USA:
“We at Partners for Progressive Israel are trying to learn more about the nature of Israel’s blockade of Gaza. We know it’s not a complete siege or else people would be dying of hunger in huge numbers. What it does, however, is to severely limit the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza.”
“Israel has a legitimate security interest in monitoring and limiting what goes into Gaza, but we need to know more. For example, has Hamas used the cement and other building materials, reluctantly allowed in, to build its complex of attack tunnels, rather than civilian housing and public infrastructure?”
Apologies, I had intended to post this comment above under the previous post:
My mistake, made in haste,