Center for a New American Security

Peter Beaumont and Hazem Balousha make the case in today's Observer that no, Hamas, was not weakened fundamentally by the Israeli offensive and that this has changed little with respect to the organization's popular support.

Wael Abd Latef, 38, a bookshop owner from the Tal el-Hawa district of Gaza City, was convinced that the long days of bombardment have had little effect on Hamas. He abandoned his house five days ago with the arrival of Israeli tanks, and on Friday returned to check his property. "It's a war against the civilians. It's not against Hamas," he said. "They think that it's against Hamas, but it's not. The situation is a disaster for Palestinian people, not Hamas. Israel started the war against Palestinians. They imposed sanctions on Palestinians. Hamas demands the world just leave the siege and break the blockade on Palestinians by opening the curtains. Hamas spent a long time helping the Palestinian people here and worked for its interests.

"Hamas has the authority and the legitimacy to rule Gaza. I don't think the war affected Hamas that much. They destroyed everything, but Hamas is still there. Hamas will show its power when the war is over." He was scathing about the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, head of Fatah, whose term in office is ending.

Because I know the readership likes nothing more than a little social science on a Sunday morning, it's worth noting here that Yale super-nerd Stathis Kalyvas has determined states habitually overestimate the degree to which the population has influence over armed groups. And the use of indiscriminate force, such as artillery and air power? It rarely has the desired effect states intend. States opt to use indiscriminate force over more selective violence because the costs associated -- human and political -- are much lower. (For the state, anyway. Not for the taregeted population.) Factors such as a nation's strategic culture play into this as well.

John Paul Vann gets the last word:

This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane. The next worst is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle — you know who you're killing.