Here are three interesting articles about the situation in Gaza:
- Charles Krauthammer at NRO: Charles argues that the situation is, now, quite simple. The West and Israel should isolate Gaza, because the West cannot deal with a terrorist organization. Furthermore, Israel should adopt a zero tolerance policy towards Hamas / Gaza. “Israel should declare that it will tolerate no more rocket fire — that the next Qassam will be answered with a cutoff of gasoline shipments.” At the same time, the West should focus completely on Abbas and help him as much as possible. Abbas stands for - in the eyes of Krauthammer - moderation and the US should bolster him. Of course, Abbas is far from perfect (he’s weak for one thing), this should be considered his last change: it is up to him to turn the West Bank into a success.

- Daniel Levy at The American Prospect, on the other hand, believes that “ignoring Hamas and Gaza in an effort to bolster Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah isn’t going to work.” That is why he proposes “a three-part plan to address the current crisis and relaunch a viable peace process.” The plan consists out of three phases:
* Phase one: Stabilization. The US need to support Abbas, but not hug him to death. “Those elements within Fatah and Hamas and in the Arab world (hopefully including Saudi Arabia) who are convinced that the only stability and peace-building option for Palestinians (and Israelis) is via Palestinian power-sharing and national accommodation should establish channels of dialogue and negotiation towards that end.” Fatah has to “reign in its armed militants on the West Bank, to incorporate them into regular security forces, and/or initiate a process of collecting unauthorized weapons.” Furthermore, “In Gaza, Hamas will be expected to undertake a similar process of regularizing the carrying and display of weapons and the collection of unauthorized weapons with a view to a later integration of security forces. Hamas should impose order and a ceasefire that will also be accepted by Israel.” Lastly: “Mid-level officials will coordinate between Israel and Hamas in Gaza (directly or via international agencies) in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis and allow normal life to resume.”
* Phase two: Consensus-building on a new way forward. Once the situation has calmed down, “Abbas and the Fatah and Hamas leaderships should commit themselves to a new power-sharing political arrangement.” Which would result in “a new power-sharing arrangement between Fatah and Hamas leading to a renewed National Unity Government.” After that they have to: “Expand the circles of support around this new way forward: Hamas and Fatah would explain their respective positions and Abbas would advocate for international acceptance of the new Palestinian national framework as having the delivery capacity, especially on security, to carry forward a peace process.” Israel and the US would get involved as well and they would work towards a new plan. “Security efforts will be focused on solidifying a comprehensive ceasefire arrangement that includes the West Bank and Gaza.”
* Phase 3: Re-launch a better grounded peace process. “Launch a comprehensive regional peace process on all tracks. Israel and the new Palestinian government will announce their readiness to begin serious political negotiations on all issues. This process should also involve Syria, which is important in itself, and can help reduce tensions and avoid spoiler tactics that might undermine the process, emanating from both Lebanon and from within the Palestinian arena.” “As the security situation is further stabilized against the backdrop of the ceasefire, major efforts should be undertaken by Israel to dramatically free up living conditions in the West Bank, and to remove outposts and outlying settlements.” Also, previous agreements forged to re-link Gaza to the West Bank should be fully implemented — including the Access and Movement Agreement from November 2005.” Of course, “the Arab states, in the context of the Arab League Initiative, should undertake certain diplomatic gestures towards Israel.” The last point of this phase:

On the Israeli-Palestinian track, the negotiating goal should be defined as a permanent status agreement. In the absence of an ability to reach such an agreement, the process should not be defined as an all-or-nothing effort that has collapsed (learning from Camp David 2000). Rather, two fallback efforts would be simultaneously deployed: the Quartet should put forward its own detailed parameters for permanent status and perhaps have them endorsed in a UN Security Council Resolution, and Israel would undertake an immediate agreed withdrawal from the West Bank towards permanent borders, with agreed-upon international forces taking the place of the IDF.

- The Economist: “ecular nationalism of the sort Fatah stood for is coming to look like the weak force and radical Islam like the strong force. This poses a huge danger to a region already beset by violent conflicts. What is worse, Western policy is in danger of strengthening the wrong side by making the Islamists look like martyrs and the secularists like traitors.” A big problem with the “West Bank first” approach, hugging Abbas can labeling him a “moderate”: ‘Any Arab leader who wins the label “moderate” and is showered as a result of this with American love and money is in danger of being called a traitor.’
So, what needs to be done? Abbas has to deliver results. He has to show that moderation works. Working, in this regard, does not just mean that we should pour money into the West Bank; it means that Israel should withdraw, slowly but surely, from it.

From the three articles mentioned above, I agree the most with the article at the Econmist. Hamas and Gaza have to be isolated, the West Bank has to be supported, but money alone will not do the trick. Besides that, Abbas cannot afford to look like America’s best friend. That will only be counterproductive.