Morch

Maybe junior got some trouble on the home front. Hard to believe all the top brass, inner circle guys give him the same support as they gave his dad. Same goes for neighbors and rivals - got a rep to protect. Nothing like defying the world to show you're in charge.

Curious as to why the Japanese government thought they had a shot at intercepting the missile, and what was the point of making that statement.

Would human passed coffee be like cannibalism? Would you taste it? Maybe it would be great?

Very "self-sufficiency" minded, at least

The "unilateral" and the "consent" references are related to prior agreements between Israel and the PA, basically stating that a solution will be reached via bilateral negotiation and accord.

We can only assume that Thailand (and the other 137 nations that voted in favor of Palestine becoming an non-member state), knew that the people of Palestine will now have more of an opportunity to seek justice through the International Criminal Court.

Thailand voted on the side of justice.

The government of Thailand and/or members of the ruling party, actually seem to have some difficulties grasping all the details and implications concerned with this institution (referring to their bid for the 2010 demonstration investigation, under their terms).

So far, the Palestinian leadership used this option as a threat, but was somewhat cautious when referring to the possibility of going down this road. The complicated status of and situation in Gaza definitely play a factor - the PA could find itself held responsible for Hamas transgressions.

Yeah now eyes of the world community opened and with the use of social media and internet, even a farmer or shephard in the middle of nowhere know what is going on.

Indeed...

Access to information does not necessarily imply understanding or quality of information.

Islamic Jihad's military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, said it fired rockets towards the city of Ashkelon.

Israel uses it for excuse to takes out a hated Hamas.

“I would say this operation is the Israeli equivalent, Netanyahu’s equivalent, of America’s strike on Osama bin Laden,” said Avi Benayahu, a former army spokesman.

An election coming up?

Don't get me wrong--- I think factions on both sides are just plain evil.

Not quite the same.

Hamas claims to be the ruler in Gaza. In reality, the other, more radical Islamic organizations follow Hamas's lead when it suits them.

Most of the previous so-called ceasefire agreements included Hamas's commitment to curtail such rouge actions from these parties.

Sometimes Hamas followed these agreements, sometimes not - this has to do both with ability and a need to preserve their anti-Israel image among their people.

Seems like they missed Batman: "With great power comes great responsibility".

Thailand has made a mistake. It is another miscalculation that fails to take into account the impact upon the southern insurgency. It should have abstained like many western governments. The southern seperatists can offer many of the same arguments as the Palestinians with one major argument that the Palestinians cannot not make: The disputed south was at one time an autonomous region and fully separate and distinct from Thailand. The Palestinians have no characteristics of a state: There is no representative goverment or body that speaks for the combined regions of the former Egyptian territory of Gaza, nor for the former Jordanian territory of the "west bank". Hamas and the PA are at odds and loathe each other. There is no government infrastructure etc. Despite years having passed, and billions of euros/$$$ given, the palestinian arabs really do not have much to show for their "natiion" building. Neither the PA nor Hamas are legitimate governing bodies as their "elected" mandates expired. Hamas was elected in 2006 and refuses to allow a return to the polls. The PA President Abbas refuses to allow a presidential election.

Thailand's decision was predicated on its need to retain the favour of its energy suppliers and to ensure the Gulf State big wigs are kept happy. Many countries that abstained or voted in favour did so because of their perceived need to give Abbas a lifeline, to keep his political faction alive as the loss of Fatah would only leave groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc. Some countries voted in favour because they are aligned with the arab voting bloc. Fair enough as that is international politics. However, at the end of the day, nothing will have changed. The palestinian arabs are still in the same position as before, have refused the last statehood offer that saw them reject a state at that had been ageed to at the Camp David meetings, seen them reject the Oslo peace accords they signed, and seen them reject a deal offered by former PM Olmert that gave them close to 100% of the land they wanted.

Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Israeli population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for Olmert proposed the transfer of Israeli territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence. Basically, Israel would have given part of its own land to the arabs to compensate them. Think about it. The arabs rejected an agreement because of a dispute over 6.3% of the land in the proposal. Had the arabs accepted, they would have had a nation a few years ago and a starting point to negotiate the small bits and pieces of lands still disputed.

I wouldn't say that the Palestinians do not have "characteristics of a state", "government infrastructure" and the like - might not correspond to Western democratic notions, but you could say that in regard to many other nations (especially in the Middle East). Most countries went through some turbulent times in their early history, as far as ruling and governance go, not sure that having a top notch working democratic system is a feasible precondition for forming a state. Rather, these sort of things evolve, a process which is influenced by many factors.

Not intended as a praise for the Palestinian leadership, just as a longer term view.

While it is true that the Palestinian side had its share of nay saying etc., that does not mean Israel was always upfront and willing. One major problem with peace initiatives and brokered deals was (and is) that leadership on both side cannot really deliver. There was no overwhelming public support (on both sides) for any of these diplomatic moves. On both sides of the border, most people want peace, but still not up for making painful adjustments.

I hope Canada decides to save herself some money by cutting all aid to the illegitimate terror statelet called Palestine.

That would be unfortunate and extremely risky.

The PA is on the brink of economic collapse as it is, making things worse will either usher in more radical elements, or make them turn to the rich boys in the hood for money - which is pretty much the same things, no matter who's the sugar daddy.

I can't speak for Ramallah, but have seen the parking lots full of brand new cars that have found their way into Gaza city along with the money to build five star hotels. Imho it is naive to the point of delusion to believe western money can buy favour in the middle east as shown by asking who benefits from the world's largest per capita aid sum and exactly what productive use is it put to.

Well, the Hamas gets funded exactly by the sort of sources that are not positive news for peace. Having the same sources bankroll the PA as well, would be saying goodbye to the last bit of chance an agreement will be reached.

Not quite see how spending money does not result in clout - take Egypt's and the PA's actions during the recent hostilities in Gaza,

It doesn't give complete control, no, but it does make the recipients pay attention, at least to some degree. Rather doubt Clinton could have pressed Morsi playing ball under different conditions. Hard to comment on the chart provided as there's no link to the source - could be referring to all of the Palestinians (West Bank and refugees in the Arab world), -probably not to the people of Gaza. Point is that the PA, while not playing nice, is at least playing civil (as opposed to Hamas), and some of this approach could be chalked up for the aid it receives.

Gazans as a rule are poor, rather doubt they all drive around in brand new cars. Not exactly sure where, or when you refer to, would imagine such car parks would be choice targets for the IFA... As for 5 stars hotels: why would they need or want any? Not like they get a whole lot of tourists, and quite a bit of infrastructure (regardless of Israel's attacks) to deal with before getting to luxuries.

Note that the Israeli government made what is basically a hollow move - no housing will actually appear out of nowhere, and things could always be reconsidered after the elections. They could have easily done much worse by economic means (withholding fund transfers and stopping certain basic services etc.) - but that would entail immediate issues to deal with, plus not as sexy for their voters.

I hope Canada decides to save herself some money by cutting all aid to the illegitimate terror statelet called Palestine.

That would be unfortunate and extremely risky.

The PA is on the brink of economic collapse as it is, making things worse will either usher in more radical elements, or make them turn to the rich boys in the hood for money - which is pretty much the same things, no matter who's the sugar daddy.

Are you for real mate? It was Israel who initiated the conflict by killing the Hamas commander and do u expect residents in Gaza to stand still in their homes while Israel carry out airstrikes against them killing their children while they are sleeping more than thousands of airstrikes were conducted by israel killing hundreds of gazans and for sure Israel was scared because of the fact that they accepted the cease fire and did not launch ground invasion

What's unreal is pinning the conflict, or conflagrations within the conflict on particular incidents.

I'm pretty sure that there were rockets fired on Israel well before that specific attack.

Back to the real world - the number of casualties did not reach "hundreds", and even Hamas acknowledges that a fair share of them weren't "civilians".

I think the point made was that the UN, in general, is quick to condemn Israeli actions, while sounding more hesitant on condemning Palestinian acts of aggression (this relates mostly to the rocket attacks from Gaza).

IMO Netanyahu is the number hinderance to peace in the region

Well, the peace process wasn't going anywhere much also under previous Israeli governments.

Sure that Netanyahu isn't promoting peace (quite the opposite), but he's hardly of a caliber making him "number 1" at something. Most of what he does is dictated by short term gains, local public opinion considerations, and keeping both his coalition and his position.

Then again, that doesn't mean the Palestinian leadership went out of its way to make negotiations succeed. Both sides are entrenched in their positions, demands and per-conditions and do not show an over-willingness to go the extra mile.

So, on the day the UN grants observer status to Palestine, Israel announces it will build a further 3,000 homes in occupied Palestine. And Netanyahu keeps up the Orwellian double speak of "wanting peace". Stealing the land of your enemy is not known to be a successful strategy for settling conflicts. It would be helpful if the US and the diminishing number of Israeli allies would point this out to the intransigent Israeli government, who seem unable to even maintain a pretense that they want a sincere dialogue leading to peace. It does appear that the Palestinians are correct - Israel does not want peace, only land.

The Israeli government's move is singularly stupid and irresponsible, I think few outside staunch supporters of the ruling coalition do not realize that.

That said, a few things to bear in mind:

- Israel got general elections coming up soon. The way the recent hostilities in Gaza ended did not go down well with most of their potential voters, especially seeing the tough talk and stance taken previously. Criticism regarding handling the Gaza operation stacked with criticism over what seemed a diplomatic rout in the UN (previous unrealistic decelerations on that front as well) made them desperate for something, anything really, that would restore tough-guys image.

- Related to the above: Israel's ultra-right wing foreign minister said, defending the ceasefire with the Hamas, that it was inconceivable (guess he never heard of The Great Vizzini) to order a ground invasion such a short time prior to elections. Well, that sounds even more bogus now than before.

- In practice, this isn't an action, but still words. 3000 houses will not appear out of nowhere prior to the elections (less than two months away), and given the shifting currents of Israeli and Mid East politics - hard to be sure they will materialize even after that.

- The Palestinian UN bid, justified as it is, still constitutes a unilateral move. Avoiding such actions was specifically addressed in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. The way these agreements refer to Israeli settlements and further building in the West Bank is more complicated. Not to say that Israel fulfilled all its obligations under the agreements, of course, just pointing out that both sides aren't that big on keeping their word.

Saying "Israel does not want peace" is a tad misleading. Israel is a split nation on this issue, and the Palestinian leadership stance isn't much different than Israel's - mostly talk about wanting peace, less actions to promote it or conducting serious negotiations with goodwill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20498971

For many Israelis, the recent fighting in Gaza provoked mixed feelings of both fear and a certain euphoria.

Fear because, for the first time, longer-range missiles from Hamas and other Palestinian groups reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and euphoria because of the remarkable success of Israel's Iron Dome defensive system.

After airport security reduced one avenue for terrorists Israel's defensive wall reduced the number of suicide bombers, now the missile threat looks to be heading the same way. I wonder what the forces of evil will try next? My bet is economic warfare.

I very much doubt that Hamas/Hizbollah etc will be putting their missiles away quite yet. Iron Dome's success was based on the fact that, according to IDF data no less, the anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times, knocking down 421 out of 1,506 missiles fired from Gaza (a 73% kill to launch ratio). Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID. Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev, there is a limit to US generosity. Sadly it is unlikely that Qassams will be around much longer and enhanced Grads/Fajr 5s will become the norm. Quite how good ID is against multiple real missiles rather than souped up fireworks is yet to be seen.

Some interesting stats re launch numbers here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-20473672

Terrorism does not need a 100% strike rate, it's rather like cold calling, 1-2% pays the bills and anything more is just "cream".

The bottom line is that one can get all Top Gear and geeky about kill ratios etc but none of this actually addresses the real issues that might bring long term peace to a part of the world that deserves it almost as much as the DRC.

PS. al-Qassam was a Palestinian extremist killed in a shoot out by British-led Palestinian police in 1935. Though of course Palestine has never existed....see below

http://en.wikipedia....an_passport.jpg

From the Hamas's (and other outfits) there is no reason to let go of rockets. Rockets are generally not an effective means to inflict casualties on the other side (doesn't hold in regard to advanced/modern rockets, perhaps). They are very useful at disrupting and terrorizing relatively large areas at a low cost.

The BBC report seems odd as the IAF website doesn't specify interception success rates. The "anti-missile batteries opened up 573 times" bit isn't there as well - instead, the data states 421 Iron Dome Interceptions and 152 Failed launching attempts. Since Iron Dome does not attempt to intercept each and every launch, there's no special reason to assume it specifically did so with regard to failed launches (http://www.iaf.org.il/4388-39969-en/IAF.aspx).

Also, don't quite understand the assertion that " Not bothering to engage some 62% of launched missiles, or rockets to be more precise, reflects more on the home built nature/inaccuracy of Qassams than the efficacy of ID" - as far as I understand , the system still identifies and tracks any launch it detects. In some ways dealing with "standardized" launches should be easier than figuring out launches gone wrong.

50k missile cost is again a tossed around figure, and more of an upper range one at that. If I'm not much mistaken estimates ranged between 35k and 50k. Granted, not a fundamental difference as far as the cost effectiveness argument goes, but still a few bob.

But "Even the IDF cannot justify launching a $50,000 missile to knock out an $800 Qassam heading for the Negev"? The whole point is that they don't try to intercept missiles which aren't identified as threats. If we accept the 50K price tag and estimated number of interceptor missiles used - adds up to about 3$ million per day. Sounds unreasonable? Certain reports estimate that one day of fighting cost Israel circa 40$ million or more (much of this due to using precision weapons, btw, carpet bombing and indiscriminate shooting are way cheaper). Waging war is expensive.

Missile per missile, of course it makes no economic sense, but that's rather a simplification of factors included when making the decision to deploy such a system. Would costs is damages be higher? Would not having Iron Dome entail even more intense air attacks? A ground invasion? Would these alternative cost less (both in human lives and financial terms)?

At some point during the recent confrontation it was said that Iron Dome uses a single interceptor missile per launch, compared with two missiles used earlier. This might reflect some of the differences in figures of costs and interception success rates.

Yes, the Iron Dome presence will most likely lead to an arms race of sorts as far as rocket capability goes. Then again, those longer range rockets were already around (both in Lebanon and Gaza), so not exactly a new threat as such. Apparently dealing with them is within the current system's capabilities, more a question of coverage (ie, number of batteries deployed). On the other side of the fence, the logistics involved in transporting, storage and launching more advanced rockets aren't negligible - in some ways they make for easier targets. Probably costs a wee bit more.

Iron Dome and the like aren't a replacement for a political solution to the conflict. One may claim it allows Israel to further ignore the route of diplomacy as the military threat decreases, another may claim that it gives Israel greater freedom for diplomay as threats are toned down some. For me those claims just point out to the obvious - Iron Dome is a tool, with a certain level of effect on conditions - it does not, by itself, have a huge bearing on solving this conflict. As there is no diplomatic solution waiting around the corner, developing and deploying such measures does not strike me as an unreasonable move. It isn't even a perfect operational solution, but it is the best existing so far, and as referring back to the OP, it is a component of a defence concept, rather than a stand alone overall solution,

Your PS - other than being OT, is also a nice bit of demagougy (note the rather obvious other writing in the pic). As for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam being a Palestinian - born and lived most his life in Syria, family originated from Iraq.

I wasn't aware I was condemning anyone - only conflict, wherever it exists, and man's inhumanity in using indiscriminate armed conflict as a means of resolving differences or pursuing a particular agenda, political, religious or otherwise. Do you really think it matters whose 'ordnance' killed this baby? Do you think his parents care? Conflict killed this and many other children, as well as so many innocent adults - so often dismissed as 'collateral damage' or 'unfortunate casualties of war'. Do I condemn Hamas for their modus operandi? Absolutely I do! Just as I condemn all those whose only resort is to pursue their aims through violence and the killing of innocents. And that includes Israel's over-the-top retaliation or, rather, 'defence'.

If all you (not me) can do is blame one side or the other then we get nowhere - only perpetuate the conflict. I merely, and perhaps naively, try to point out the absolute futility of it all. There has to be a better way or there can be no hope of resolution or peace - in the Middle East, in any other area of conflict or, for that matter, for us as human beings. That is the reality.

Not disagreeing with the spirit of your post. Probably easier to hold such a view when you're not in the midst of it, or less involved, though.

As the issue of 'Israel's over-the-top retaliation" comes up again, I wonder what would be considered "not-over-the-top", "reasonable", "acceptable" retaliation? (If possible, without going back to the roots of this conflict and all the baggage, as this seems to be more of an "operational" level thing).

Wrong. Although 10-40 rockets have been fired from Gaza nearly every month since Israel withdrew, this recent escalation was from the IAF's targeted killing of Hamas leaders on October 7th (see link). The attack killed 1 militant and injured 11 including children. That was what triggered the escalation. http://www.timesofis...n-gaza-strip/ This was when Hamas, rather than the rag tag militant factions that usually fire the 10-40 monthly rockets, retaliated with rockets. So unless you want to get Biblical and try to figure out who started the ORIGINAL hostilities, then it is incorrect to say that Hamas started this latest round of hostilities.

And Israel has repeatedly warned the perpetrators that they would eb taken out if they kept launching rockets. So, after a continuing barrage, the Israelis defend themselves and it is the Israeli's fault? Nice logic.

Did I say that they shouldn't defend themselves? Are you denying that the Oct 7th airstrike didn't result in Hamas openly joining the rocket firing, thus resulting in the recent conflict? Don't spin my words GK.

The attack on the date quoted was not aimed at Hamas operatives, but at members of other organizations. I don't think that there's a very definite pattern as to when Hamas chimes in with rocket firing when something like this happens.

That aside, pinning this last escalation on a that attack is arbitrary at best (other dates/attack/reasons were brought up). The way things are, ANY act of aggression, no matter from which side, can lead to a conflagration. Add political considerations (again, on both sides), and the date/event of choice is whatever someone wants it to be.

Looking at a list of hostilities over the last year, for example, one can just scroll and pick a date at random - sure to be a reason for some payback on something done earlier.

China having aircraft carrier isn't a major issue from a military point of view, more to do with politics and prestige, possible as slight intimidation vs. some of the neighbors.

Having an aircraft carrier is not quite the same as having a few decades worth of operating them.

A computer only launches missles to intercept the rockets that are going to actually hit something. The ones headiing for barren land are ignored. So far, Iron Dome has been pretty effective.

There's not a lot of barren land in Israel, too many settlements, Kibbutz etc . . . added to which trajectory and the like may be calculated but not distance.

Don't forget that the missiles are not smart missiles

If you replace "barren" with "open areas" or "non-residential areas" it will make more sense. Quite a bit of that in the south of Israel, actually, which is where most of the rockets were fired at. A rocket hitting a field, a garbage dump, or anything of the sort might do some damage, but the risk to human life is low. Not too sure why you assert that distance (range?) cannot be calculated, sort of essential for a successful interception.

The system attempts interception only in cases where an incoming rocket is defined as a threat according to certain parameters.

The hit rate refer not to all of the rockets launched at Israel, but only to those who were considered a threat by the system.

Saying it's not good enough - well, it was never meant to be a full proof solution (talking from a military/technological point of view), but as part of a whole array of means, both defensive and offensive. Iron Dome will never be 100% successful, but considering there is no other existing defense system that comes close, it's as good as it gets.

Gaza's ruling Hamas will not stop arming itself because only a strong arsenal, not negotiations, can extract concessions from Israel, the No. 2 in the Islamic militant group told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday.

The comments by Moussa Abu Marzouk, just three days after the worst bout of Israel-Hamas fighting in four years, signaled trouble ahead for Egyptian-brokered talks between the hostile neighbors on a new border deal.

Hamas demands that Israel and Egypt lift all restrictions on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Palestinian territory, which has been buckling under a border blockade since the Islamists seized the territory in 2007.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/back-school-gaza-after-israel-offensive

Obviously, hard to reconcile the first and third sentences, as far as Israel goes.

Makes a bit more sense if one bears in mind that Hamas got their own internal politics and upcoming elections. Pays to talk tough on matters relating to Israel:

The supreme leader of the Palestinian Islamic militant group Hamas has decided to step down, clearing the way for the movement to choose a new head for the first time in more than 15 years, two senior officials said Monday.

Khaled Mashaal told a recent meeting in Cairo of Hamas' leadership that he would not run in upcoming elections for the top position, said Izzat Risheq, a confidant of Mashaal who attended the gathering. Moussa Abu Marzouk, Mashaal's deputy, also confirmed the decision.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hamas-head-mashaal-says-he-will-resign

A different viewpoint, from the New York Times, (FYI not a Jihadist media outlet) on the murder of the Head of the Hamas Military Wing, Jabari, that kicked off the recent conflict. In summary saying the assassination was a miscalculation by the Israelis. Jabari was involved in negotiating an Egyptian-brokered comprehensive, long-term cease-fire with Israel when he was killed. Jabari had been given a near-final version of a ceasefire agreement by the Egyptians hours before he was killed. Had he not been killed, Jabari would have been responsible for enforcing the agreement to stop rockets fired by various Palestinian groups from Gaza into Israel.

http://www.nytimes.c...ation.html?_r=0

The negotiations weren't with official Israeli authorities, but proposals and ideas exchanged between Baskin (and probably others) with Hamas contacts. Just to be clear - the offer was not accepted and approved by both sides, so no guarantees that Jabari would have indeed been up to the task of enforcing it.

That said, while Baskin isn't an official Israeli negotiator, he was involved in negotiations with the PA and Hamas in the past. Hard to judge if he got any Israeli official unofficial blessing for the latest endeavor.

Pays to read the whole article, though - interesting man.

Celebratory fire is often used as an excuse to settle a lot of scores in the Middle East.

I attended a wedding celebration in Eastern Turkey, a long time back. Shots were fired by the groom's family inside the wedding hall, causing a sizable chunk of the ceiling to come down and almost hit the future mother-in-law. Could have been a failed preemptive strike...

Ok, an initial summary of winners and losers.

Israeli population; Losers, missiles still sporadically being fired in spite of a so called ceasefire. Their government has bowed to international pressure and didn't finish the job off properly, which needed a ground invasion to stop the rockets effectively.

Palestinian population; Losers, They have been clobbered by Israel and Hamas are now even more solidly in control of Gaza. This means privations due to the tyrannical rule of Hamas, who would rather keep their people oppressed with Israel used as a scapegoat to divert attention from Hamas criminals.

Israeli government; Jury still out. Iron dome was a big success, but having Egypt as the monitor of a ceasefire is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Muslim Brotherhood; Winners, They have been billed as peacemakers, when in reality they took the role Washington projected for them with U.S. aid used as a stick.

Iran; Losers. They will be furious if Hamas have changed allegences back to the Sunni sponsors of Qatar, this may make Lebanon their only border from which to directly attack Israel from.

The above may change with time and I will be interested in two things. Firstly how Iran reacts, secondly how effectively Egypt polices borders with Gaza to prevent arms being smuggled in. I suspect egg on Washington's face and the same for the Israeli government soon enough, but with Hamas's most effective weapon being western bed wetters and useful idiots perhaps this farce needs to blow up before steps are taken which should have already been here and now.

I think dubbing sides as "winners" or "losers" depends on time perspective. Most of what you stated is probably holds for the short term - not so sure if the implications of long term effects are quite the same.

The Israeli population - right now doesn't seem rockets are being fired from Gaza, not sure what you refer to. As to how long it will last... wouldn't put any money on it. Having the Israeli government not living up to their expectations might make the Israelis vote for another in the upcoming elections - so possibly a gain, depends on one's political views. Getting the job done is a slogan - what you get is a temporary respite, with a diplomatic price tag (not to mention casualties).

Palestinian population - took a beating, but compared to the last round and the fears of a ground invasion, the hits they took and damage done aren't as bad as could have been (once again, indiscriminate targeting by IDF and IAF are mostly hollow talk). Border situation supposed to improve, so a gain (which will be attributed to Hamas). The view that they are under tyrannical rule might be true - but not sure you could say they population in Gaza will subscribe to this point of view wholesale. Being under economic and military pressure, exposed to constant propaganda, having limited political alternatives and belonging to a different cultural/religious mindset, may make them have a different take on the situation.

Israeli government - The Iron Dome is mostly chalked up to the previous government (which at the time the current PM ridiculed as weak vs. the Hamas...) and the generosity of the USA. Also, it does intercept rockets very effectively but doesn't make routine life possible. Whether this will effect the upcoming elections, hard to say - depends a lot of the next couple of months, much can happen and public memory is very short. Having Egypt agree to play a more active role in preventing arms smuggling is a major win (not necessarily for the current government) - if Egypt lives up to it, good - if they don't, it's pretty much the same as it is now and clear who's responsible. Nothing to loss, really. The very fact that the new Egyptian regime had to deal directly with Israel is an important and positive development.

Egypt (which you termed the Muslim Brotherhood) - yes, they gained prestige, but on the other hand they are now committed to uphold certain things which they weren't keen to (opening the border pass, dealing with arms smuggling, dealing with Israel). Might not sit all that well with radicals within, opposition, and voters.

And may I add another "winner"? The USA. Showed who's got more clout, didn't get further tied up in any significant, and mostly perceived as got it done (less of the usual they-are-pro-Israel-bias talk). On the contrary, the EU, UN, Arab league proved quite irrelevant, not to mention Russia or China which were hardly involved.

Seems to me that Hamas have come out of this ahead with their constituents, subject to the actual outcomes, as the agreement calls for the discussion of a number of issues, including freedom of movement in and out of Gaza and a commitment by Israel not to target Palestinian militants within Gaza.

EDIT: Unless there is also a secret agreement with Hamas, the Palestinian collaborators who assisted Israel with targeting Hamas will not be getting a free pass and will be hunted down, tortured and killed

Those "collaborators" were already being hunted down and killed. They have typically been aggrieved Fatah supporters who have suffered since 2006. These people had nothing to lose as they are blocked from making a living and can only receive funds from the PLA if Hamas allows the transfer of funds through the Hamas controleld bank in Gaza.

I'd say that picking an obvious candidate (ie down-on-his-luck-Fatah-supporter) sounds a tad too amateurish to be "typical". Spies, collaborators and betrayal come in all shapes and sizes. Human beings got a whole array of weaknesses ready to be exploited, Moreover, payments to agents in Gaza shouldn't be such a big deal, with or without use of Hamas controlled banks.

I had a chuckle as I watched the Gazans celebrate their victory over Israel. I am sure the Islamic jihadists/Hamas/PFLA and assorted other terrorists are breathing a sigh of relief as they can get back to extorting money from their fellow citizens of Gaza. Mind you, the rebuilding will mean bigger profits for the Hamas construction and tunnel operations monopoly. The Egyptians , Israeli Arabs and non arabs will all get a slice of the rebuilding activity. Meanwhile, the Gazans will suffer,

The public sentiment is one of resentement at Hamas, Fatah and Israel. Every reputable report from Gaza states that the people want a different option. They are tired of being held hostage by Hamas et al and they want access to Israel and Egypt. They want their jobs back in Israel, and they want Israel to stop the retaliation. Unfortunately, it can't happen unless the terrorist groups stop the attacks. The Gazan residents have been denied an opportunity to have a free election and they want to be able to choose candidates that offer a diifferent option. Hamas won an election in 2006. It's mandate finished and there should have been an election last year, but Hamas has refused to allow the elections. I find it odd that all the people pointing to Hamas having been elected ignore the fact that the mandate has to be renewed, as Hamas was not elected for "life". The same holds for Fatah. If the Palestinians were ever allowed to vote for candidates not approved by Fatah and Hamas, I think the results would be shocking and Israel would be obliged to sit down with actual sane people intent on establishing peaceful relations.

Well, of course they weren't looking forward to a ground invasion by the IDF, and yes, they took some nasty hits - but bottom line: they kept firing until the last minute, they didn't break down and capitulate under the attacks, and they had some success hitting farther areas (plus making the most of it from the propaganda angle). They got most of what they wanted out of the ceasefire, and when the dust clears - despite the massacre/genocide chorus, casualties weren't as high as last time and overall damage to infrastructure not that extensive (re whining about indiscriminate targeting...).

If I understand the terms - most building materials will be allowed to pass the borders now, and there will be a general easing of restrictions. Assuming that's the case - the smuggling gains will presumably transform into bribes and taxes, as is common among civilized nations. Israelis, even Arab ones, aren't very likely to gain much (if anything) out of rebuilding Gaza, maybe in a roundabout way.

Not sure how you define reputable reports - there's resentment alright, most of it directed at Israel, with Egypt and the PA competing for the "biggest disappointment" medal. Negative opinions of Hamas are usually on the decline during or right after military confrontations with Israel (similar trends for Israeli public opinion, with regard to their leadership, though to a lesser extent). Helps to bear in mind that the combination of difficult security/economy conditions, state propaganda, and the medical side effects of expressing negative feeling toward the Hamas, do a lot to sustain public support. Israel is routinely held responsible for every hardship (including Egypt keeping the border closed). The people do want a better life, sure, but Hamas is often portrayed and seen as the one making even what little the have possible (and if not that, then at least it keeps pride and hope alive).

By no means a comprehensive review of Gazan citizen opinions, but saying they don't have support or that what support they have isn't real just doesn't fit they way things are.

Candidates not belonging to a major movement will most probably lack clout and political apparatus. The few possible independents are mostly connected to rich family/clans which aren't much better than the rest. I doubt a sane person will get mixed in Palestinian internal politics to begin with.

The Hamas is here to stay, at least for the near future, Israel will need to cope with that. Then again, sticking around as a political movement will make the Hamas have to cope with Israel. Same old.

The Egypt factor in this deal is very interesting. As it was Egypt which allowed the more dangerous Iranian built weapons to enter Gaza and it is Egypt who is now promising to stop the entry of such weapons in future. Egypt is putting its neck out on this and its new Islamist government will be more powerful if it succeeds. Personally I don't believe they will stop those weapons which is a different thing than hoping that they do.

As far as any "victory" goes it seems to me the only real significant victories from all this:

Iron Dome has proven quite effective

All the noise about Obama not having Israel's back from the right wing in Israel and America was total bunk (think what that means regarding Iran)

Netanyahu politically

Most significantly, Hamas is now massively more relevant than Fatah among the Palestinians

As far as bringing the Palestinians closer to statehood which some factions there want, this conflict doesn't move that forward at all.

As far as destroying Israel, which some factions there want, it's a mixed bag. Israel is getting more isolated (from Egypt and Turkey) and the American connection is more important than ever. But the American connection isn't going anywhere; it will be stronger than ever for Israel.

Egypt never "allowed" weapons to be transfered to the Hamas, hence the border pass being mostly closed, and smuggling via Sinai peninsula and the infamous tunnels. With the deteriorating security situation in Sinai after the old regime was ousted, there was a period of time in which control was effectively lost. The new government cannot afford and is not interested in either losing the Sinai to extremists or risking a confrontation with Israel. Therefore, their very own interest is to limit weapon supplies - even better if they seem to be forced to do it. A possible decrease in the influence exerted by Iran and radical Sunni organizations might be another bonus.

How well will their part be implemented is anyone's guess, but they do have a certain motivation. Egypt cannot get involved militarily and cannot compete with economic aid given by richer players (example, Katar) - the only realistic way for them to keep their position is through diplomacy. A fine lesson in the transit between being an radical opposition movement and actually running a country. In my opinion, this is good for everyone involved - Egypt retains it's diplomatic clout and gains some, Israel deals with the new Egyptian government for the first time (an improvement in relations since the regime changed), and the Palestinians, while feeling they didn't get all the support the wished, still got most of what they wanted out of the deal. Again, this can all go pear shaped easily, but such is life in that part of the world.

The Hamas gained a lot from the latest round of hostilities too. Basically, it is not pariah anymore - not after dealing almost openly with the USA, Egypt and Israel as an equal party, or with a horde of Arab leaders coming over (most bypassing the irrelevant PA).

Legitimacy, even of sorts, is a a huge victory. But, in fact, I think that this too is everyone's gain: almost every terrorist/violent/resistance/military outfit starts a morphing process of mellowing down once they begin to talk. Can take a long while, but serves to remember the PLO was pretty much the same. You start to play diplomacy, you get caught in it.

As far as public support goes - better not to be deluded, Hamas got a very wide support base both in Gaza and the West Bank. Granted, not everyone, for sure, and as dissent and vocal (unarmed) opposition aren't yet a major component of Palestinian politics these things are hard to measure. But between the three main political alternatives (PA/PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad & co.) they have the momentum. PA is seen as corrupt, weak and irrelevant, Islamic movements got their appeal as hardliners vs. Israel, but not much more than that to offer, currently). People worry about security and economy before they think about rights and extras - whether their take of Hamas's role in this cycle is right or wrong is irrelevant - bottom line the Hamas isn't going to disappear from the Palestinian political map, quite the opposite, if anything.

A ceasefire between Hamas and Israel has been agreed and is to be announced within hours, according to a Palestinian official. On Tuesday night, Hamas official Ayman Taha said an Egyptian-brokered truce had been finalised and would take effect from 10pm. But a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the announcement was premature.

http://news.sky.com/story/1014294/gaza-israel-and-hamas-agree-to-a-ceasefire

Not sure if how solid is this, and there's still time for things to go wrong, as they so often do.

Local media on both sides had another take on how things will go - basically that Clinton will ask everyone to behave, Israel will accept and stop the attacks, then (willingly or under Egyptian pressure, not clear) the Hamas and Islamic Jihad will do the same. A more comprehensive agreement to be reached later on. Again, hard to judge how serious are these reports.

Re going-to-war-for-votes: Public opinion in Israel seems to be not overly supportive of a ceasefire under current conditions and according to this outline. If it goes through, might be some political price for decisions made. Two months are a lot of time in the Middle East, though... Palestinian public sees such an outcome as a major victory, what with no ground invasion and Hamas pumping some propaganda about downed Israeli aircrafts, Israeli casualties and direct hits. Guess some sane people on both sides also appreciate the chance for not having it all out this time around.