Media coverage in the United States does not distinguish between Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In fact, it doesn't give you much of anything to understand what is going on in the "Summer Rain" offensive launched by Israel.
It's really hard to inform yourself on an issue which at the end of the day involves, and costs billions to, the United States. (But these days, the US has a unending quantum stream of cash so talk of money is immaterial.) I've been reading the European papers and have retrieved other viewpoints from experts on the region.
First, Hamas is not a Jihadist Islamic party like al-Qaeda or others. It is a "territorialist" and nationalist party founded on religion. That's a very different thing. It is hard-line because it has no confidence in Israeli promises and wants to "liberate Palestine", beginning with the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. In this respect, it is very similar to the goals of the PLO.
The recent acceptance of the Prisoners Text means that Hamas grants Israel an indefinite truce and de facto recognition, so long as Israel pulls back to its 1967 borders. But it does not renounce its central belief: the rejection of Jewish state on Islamic lands. In the real world, mutual recognition is not a prerequisite for peace.
It should be said that Israel always denies the nationalist character of any Palestinian movement. Under Labour or Likud, it will point to Marxism, Nasserism, revolutionary Iran, Hezbollah, Arab Nationalism, radical Islam or any other danger that will make Washington tremble and fork over more billions while declaring Israel's right to defend itself.
European experts in the area have said that if Israel continues to deny the reality of Hamas as a nationalist political movement and not a merely religious organization, then it will stumble from failure after failure until it accepts the fact.
So what is Olmert trying to accomplish with his tanks and his guns and his rockets?
Olmert is trying to bring about what Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak attempted to force upon Arafat: acceptance of a handful of disconnected cantons as a Palestinian state whose sovereignty is controlled by Israel from the outside. This offer, obviously, will never find a taker in Palestine.
To achieve this aim, Olmert is applying military pressure to force Palestinian voters to renounce the results of their election. But given how Palestinians feel about their country, the notion that this will work is delusional.
The scenario is that once Olmert achieves Impossibility No. 1, then he'll pull out here and there from the West Bank while keeping Israeli settlements there intact. In his vision, Impossibility No. 2, the new Palestinian leadership will accept Impossibility No. 3: a state connected by a can-of-worms beltway with elevated spans and tunnels with its capital in Ramallah. West Jerusalem will be annexed and Israel will proceed to Impossibility No. 4: the consolidation of its hold on the ancient city, sacred to three major religions based on Divine Revelation,
Which brings us to the Bush Administration and the Republicans, the party of Impossible Beliefs. Like Israel, they have adopted an impossible strategy for the Middle East supported by non-existant tactics, all pursued existentially, that is, by the seat of pants.
If the Democrats have any asset, it is the ability to occasionally make a reality-based analysis. But they have bound thenselves to the Big Taboo: never question Israel's actions. Dean's skepticism on Bush's ability to coerce the Iraqis indirectly carried over into the domain of Israel/Palestine, and this, in IMHO, is why he was silenced.
Despite its fears, Israel is economically, societally, and militarily stronger than Palestine and all its Arab neighbors combined. Its existence is not threatened. All they have to do is buy a clue about the West Bank and look into history: a pullout is usually accompanied by sustained peace. The acceptance of this reality will open the doors to regional stability and to salvation of the US from a tragic national catastrophe.