A s another week of combat ends in the Gaza strip, it still isn’t clear what “winning” would entail. Unless Israel manages to eradicate Hamas entirely, the little war will end with both sides repositioning themselves in the rubble, each trying to claim victory.

But Israel and Hamas aren’t the only forces with a stake in the conflict. Look beyond that dysfunctional duo, and you’ll see some winners and losers already emerging.

Egypt. As Al Jazeera airs gruesome Gazan images and Arab anger intensifies, the region’s “moderate” governments are suffering in the court of public opinion. The result is instability, especially in Egypt, where the regime shares responsibility for the sad state of the Gazan Palestinians.

By sealing the strip’s southern border, Hosni Mubarak’s government played a central role in the blockade that preceded the present fighting. Then, once Israel’s aerial attacks began, Egypt distinguished itself by shooting Palestinian civilians trying to flee across that border. Now it’s facing the country’s largest street protests in five years, and the militant Muslim Brotherhood is gaining traction. The only way Egypt could walk away a winner is by turning the situation on its head and coming up with a diplomatic solution that sticks. Egypt and France have produced a ceasefire proposal. If any of those efforts lead to genuine gains for ordinary Palestinian people, moderates will be able to present themselves to their citizens as level-headed saviors.

BUT ISRAEL AND HAMAS AREN’T THE ONLY FORCES WITH A STAKE IN THE CONFLICT.

Fatah. In the West Bank, the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority has broken up several solidarity demonstrations since combat began. Fatah was the dominant party in the old Palestine Liberation Organization. Now its violent rivalry with Hamas has grown so bitter that it’s willing to side with its oldest enemy. That won’t earn the organization much support within the Palestinian public. And unlike Egypt, Fatah can hardly ride to the rescue with a diplomatic solution.

Al Qaeda. It’s not as though Hamas and Fatah are the only options for angry Palestinians. Marc Lynch, author of the influential Abu Aardvark blog, has pointed out one potential beneficiary: Al Qaeda. Bin Laden’s loose network has no love for Hamas, which has prevented Al Qaeda–branded jihadists from getting established in the Gaza Strip. Unlike Fatah, Al Qaeda has nothing to gain from appearing to support the Israeli attacks. “Israel’s assault on Gaza has really created an almost unbelievable no-lose situation for Al Qaeda,” writes Lynch. “If Hamas ‘wins’, then Al Qaeda gets to share in the benefits of the political losses incurred by its Western and Arab enemies… and can try to take advantage of the political upheavals which could follow. If Hamas ‘loses’, Al Qaeda still wins. It will shed no tears at seeing one of its bitterest and most dangerous rivals take a beating at Israel’s hands or losing control of a government that they have consistently decried as illegitimate and misguided.”

Whether or not an organization appears calling itself Al Qaeda in Palestine, the attacks will give a boost to jihadism in general. Mustafa Barghouthi, the preeminent Palestinian voice for nonviolent resistance to the occupation worries that the invasion of Gaza will “provoke a new generation of suicide bombers.”

America. Did you really think we could come out ahead?

While I suspect Israel is shooting itself in the foot with this operation, you can certainly spin scenarios in which it benefits more than it suffers. The U.S., by contrast, is helping finance a war in which it has nothing to gain.

JESSE WALKER is the managing editor of Reason Magazine.