Hugh Hewitt is absolutely right to note the barbarism of Hamas, and some of the MSM’s squeamishness in reporting such (much of Hugh’s evidence comes from the MSM, of course). Dean Barnett is also on the mark, I’d say, on this point:
Hamas was the popularly elected government in the Gaza Strip. It reflects the will of the Palestinian people. For those who fantasize about a great silent majority in that part of the world hungering for peace, the events of this week should provide a needed reality check.
But I’d like to know more about this Hewitt aside:
The connections between Sunni Islamist radicalism and Shia Islamist radicalism are also obvious, and do not appear to be at all troubled by the savage sectarian blows one delivers the other in various cities around Iraq.
Can Hewitt substantiate the "obvious" connections between al Qaeda and, say, Ahmadinejad, between Wahhabists and Persian Shiites? Whether we are facing two foes who can be pitted against one another or one homogeneous group called "Islamist terror" is surely critical to crafting a strategy for victory. Everything I have read suggests deep, deep division within the Islamist world, and deep, deep distrust between the Shia and Sunni forces. Yes, they all hate the Jews. But that could be said for almost everyone in the Middle East. My fear is that by conflating the two groups, we not only miss important opportunities but also risk fomenting such a unity. And why on earth would we want to do that? Except for the purposes of crude Republican electioneering?
The Dish 