RM, I'll try to un-spam my most; it's not length but links, i suppose, that invite spam suspicions. I brought a  few links about Syria's influence on Hamas. Generally, I think it's no use to foretell the uselessness of the ISraelo-Syrian accommodation before it happens. I'm sure it will have positive effects on the entire region; and i also stress the dire need to begin voluntary resettling of the refugees immediately.

RM, it is not only me but Israelis and many Fatah men who consider Syria a decisive Hamas factor; here are excerpts from a JPost article whic I don't link because any link seems to tag my posts as "spam":

""
Syria disrupting Shalit negotiations


Negotiations over the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit have stalled because of the intervention of Syria, which is exerting pressure on the Hamas leadership not to accept proposals made by the Egyptian mediators for a prisoner swap with Israel, Palestinian Authority officials here told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

Syria is playing a very negative role," said one official. "[Hamas leader] Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus, is refusing to approve an Egyptian-brokered deal because the Syrians are inciting him."

From Haaretz:

"Gilad Shalit's father: One phone call from Assad can free my son
 
By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent
 
The father of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit called on Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday to apply pressure on the Hamas leadership based in Damascus to bring the affair to a positive conclusion...""


there are many, yet how significant? Never discount the difference between a large state structure and private charities. Presently, Syria is indispensible for Hamas because -

- Syria is a stable dictatorial state with full organizational, intelligence, financial capabilities of a solid state machine;

- Syria is geographically proximate;

- Syria is Arab;

- Syria is Sunni;

- Syria has established links with Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups in Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf which cooperate with Hamas in smuggling, etc;

- Syria has leverage over Hezbollah and Lebanon where some of the Hamas training is done (although major Hezbollah sponsor is Iran, the two would be "disconnected", to a degree, without the Syrian link between them).

Finally, we can fruitlessly argue about the effects of the Israelo-Syrian deal on Hamas capabilities, but we'll never know those effects until the deal is reached. Peace between the two is also obviously valueable per se, not only as a tool towards the resolution of the Pal question. I think we agree that things should be moving towards a deal between Israel and Syria based on the complete Golan return, comprehensive peace under international auspices, possibly international presence on the Golans. I really expect a lot from that. And I blame Israel for the absense of the agreement. Israel is not ready for a complete Golan withdrawal (much of Israel not ready even for partial). Any peace-sympathizer should have this message for Israel: time to leave the Golans in return for peace with Syria. I support what many moderate partisans of Israel wish for: a solid defense pact between Israel and the US. Since the international community is reluctant to commit to M-East military obligations, the over-zealous Americans should simple conclude a bi-lateral defense agreement with Israel, of a NATO-like nature. Of course, with the 1967-based Israel. That would remove the concerns that the UN would never enforce peace guarantees for Israel.

 

"
it's not worth mentioning that smuggling under border in secret from authorities is quite different from open support by a state machine. It's well-known that Egypt and Jordan are entirely pro-Fatah (I'd say, pro-Israel) in the Palestinian politics. The US uses Egypt and Jordan for anti-Hamas projects, transpotting weapons for Fatah through these countries, etc. So there is a difference between a bunch of youngsters digging tunnels miles long to smuggle modest quantities of TNT, and dozens of trucks laden with US weapons openly crossing from Egypt and Jordan to arm Fatah against Hamas. There is much more weaponry crossing from Egypt and Jordan to be used AGAINST Hamas than BY Hamas.



and why not deal with the CURRENT problem before prophesising the next one? I promise I'll acknowledge you were right if the Syrian issue will prove little effect on Hamas. What's the point to argue if we both see the necessity of the deal even if only for the Syrian dimension?


Hamas is underground in the entire ME already... there is a difference in terms of capabilities when you're undeground and when you're an open client of a state machine.



Syria has a number of advantages as a Hamas sponsor which Iran won't have (my previous post). Hezbollah dimension will be included
in the Syro-Israeli deal.

We seem to agree that, in any case, exit of Syria from the anti-Israeli front (which now consists of Syria and Iran) will weaken Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria is the only Arab country, besides the noisy but passive Lybia and the ambiguous Sudan, with actively anti-Israeli stance. It's a big player at any rate. So if you recognize there will be positive effect from the deal, why prematurely argue that this effect won't be great enough? I say it will be, you say it won't. We won't know who's right unless Israel is pressured to cede the Golans. I feel like you simply discard any initiative requiring return of the occupied territories.

the best argument for the return of the Sinai was the 1973 breakthrough. It was Egypts ability to cause troubles, not Egypt's ability to "demonstrate peace", that convinced Israel to return Sinai. Israelis have a sense of entitlement to much more than what they hold now, and readily spread settlments to any piece of land wrestled from Arabs. Whatever territory Israel returns to the Arabs is always a "forced" gift, not voluntary.


i would evaluate Syria's role in Hamas capabilites at 50%. Say, you will evaluate it in 10%. You know, if Germany had extra+ 10% on top of what it had in either of the world wars, history could go different.

Besides, as I said, the Syrian rapprochement will work best in conjunction with certain initiatives on Palestine. Here are the three things that will secure peace if combined:

- Israeli recognition of the 1967 line as the future border with independent Palestine;

- well-funded and organized volunary resettling programs for the Palestinian refugees;

- Israeli-Syrian peace based on complete return of the Golans, with the agreed international guarantees.

That will increase peace incentives and diminish motivations for conflict, will strengthen peaceniks and weaken radicals. Not instantly, but over the time. Societal processes are synergetic. But if your only interest is presenting a case for keeping the land, you can stick to the dead-end "First demolish Hamas, then we'll see!" narration. It won't work as a solution, but it can work as an excuse, - in certain quarters (which are already pro-Israel by default).

now reverse that. If Egypt didn't get at least the Sinai, it would have "stayed violent toward Israel". Israel defeated Egypt thrice. But each time it was getting more difficult. Israel would probably beat Egypt for the 4th and 5th times, yet at a far greater price. Besides, the threat of the Soviet interference would rise in the event of yet another Arab defeat. Menachem Begin decided that peace with Egypt was worth the Sinai. Land for peace. Yes, Israel HAD TO give Sinai back, - in order to avoid another war.

 
deals are not done this way. This is not about a misbehaving child punished by daddy until "demonstrating an ability to deliver". Not exactly same balance of power. Now, IF the agreement is already reached, it's natural to expect that peace is given before land. Say, if Israel concludes a deal with Syria, there could be a period of up to several years when Israel already enjoys peace from Syria but has not yet vacated the territory. But "demonstrating ability to deliver" WITHOUT any guarantees on the extent and the time of reciprocal actions, - that's a sonny//daddy situation, not inter-state politics.


i gave you quotes. Make a search of your own about Syria's leverage over Hamas. If you agree that Hamas would be even somewhat, even slightly, weakened by the deal, why not work for it and see what the effect is? Or possibly you have a better plan. I've given a few ideas. Seems it's your turn to be constructive rather than dismissive. But please try to be realistic, don't simply repeat ad nauseum that Israel will probably do something some day after violence is unconditionally stopped.

present role of Syria = future lack thereof. It is your contention that Hamas will be able to (almost) fully recuperate the loss of the Syrian support. So the burden of proof is on you. I seem to have proven Syria's importance to Hamas. Now you have to prove that this importance is unimportant because easily replaceable.


without the loss of efficiency?


Was Syria among those who applied the sanctions? Apply "basic logic".



they might be indirectly confronted. Undermined. Rendered powerless. They might be DIRECTLY confronted, - WHEN it is clear that they stand on the road to Palestinian independence within 1967 lines. But not until then. You want Palestinians to destroy their only means of pressure on Israel without any guarantees of Israel's future actions. And when Israel is liberated from pressure, it will be entirely at her discretion to decide what and when Palestinians get, if anything.

Egypt and Jordan used to support Pal "radicals". Not any longer. Now they support Fatah against Hamas. Both Egypt and Jordan stopped supporting Palestinian "rejectionists" after signing treaties with Israel. Now make a case that it will be different with Syria. 



it will lose state support and thus lose a good deal of capabilities. How many times need i say that?

 

here:


the thesis that Hamas will NOT be significantly weakened by the loss of Syrian support is tantamount to the thesis that Hamas will be able to almost fully recuperate the loss of Syria support. Or are you implyiong that a peace treaty with Syria will not stop Syrian support for Hamas? Any grounds for that? Just for the record, do you agree that the loss of state support by Syria will considerably weaken Hamas?