Gaza: Losing was the plan
I'm beginning to think that Martin Indyk is right: Conceding Gaza to Hamas was Mahmoud Abbas's strategy all along. Indyk observes in today's Washington Post: Abbas and Fatah have in effect conceded Gaza to Hamas while they hold on to the West Bank. Hamastan and Fatahstine: a "two-state solution" — just not the one that ...
I'm beginning to think that Martin Indyk is right: Conceding Gaza to Hamas was Mahmoud Abbas's strategy all along. Indyk observes in today's Washington Post:
Abbas and Fatah have in effect conceded Gaza to Hamas while they hold on to the West Bank. Hamastan and Fatahstine: a "two-state solution" -- just not the one that George W. Bush had in mind.
Consider:
I'm beginning to think that Martin Indyk is right: Conceding Gaza to Hamas was Mahmoud Abbas's strategy all along. Indyk observes in today's Washington Post:
Abbas and Fatah have in effect conceded Gaza to Hamas while they hold on to the West Bank. Hamastan and Fatahstine: a "two-state solution" — just not the one that George W. Bush had in mind.
Consider:
- Mohammed Dahlan, Fatah's feared security chief, stayed in Cairo for knee surgery and only returned to the Palestinian territories on Thursday—but to the West Bank, not to Gaza.
- Abbas apparently gave no orders to Fatah fighters to attack, and they largely melted away without a fight.
- Abbas called for no international intervention to stop Hamas.
Indyk seems to think this is Abbas's best bet, and so, apparently, does the Bush administration:
Bush administration officials said Thursday that they had been discussing the idea of largely acquiescing in the takeover of Gaza by the militant Islamic group Hamas and trying instead to help the Fatah party of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, retain its stronghold in the West Bank.
Indyk observes that "Gaza has become Hamas's problem." Now, Abbas may be able to open up the Western funding spigots while Hamas is left to stew in its brand new hellhole. The Islamic movement will have to provide for the nearly 1.5 million impoverished, fenced-in residents of Gaza, and faces the threat of Israeli cutoffs of electricity and possibly more. And Palestinians outside of Gaza will observe what it truly means to have a Hamas government, and they may see Fatah as the better option.
Indyk may be right: This may well be good for Abbas and Fatah. They'll get their money. And it's good for Israeli settlers in the West Bank. With unilateral disengagement discredited, they won't be evicted anytime soon. But is this "two-state solution" good for the Palestinian people? Is it good for the wider U.S. strategy in the Middle East and in the war on terrorism? I'm far less confident of that. One thing I'm sure of: There is absolutely no chance of a peace settlement now.
More from Foreign Policy

What Putin Got Right
The Russian president got many things wrong about invading Ukraine—but not everything.

Russia Has Already Lost in the Long Run
Even if Moscow holds onto territory, the war has wrecked its future.

China’s Belt and Road to Nowhere
Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy is a “shadow of its former self.”

The U.S. Overreacted to the Chinese Spy Balloon. That Scares Me.
So unused to being challenged, the United States has become so filled with anxiety over China that sober responses are becoming nearly impossible.