Everyone has a view on what is happening in Gaza at present...here's mine for what it's worth.
Hamas doesn't like Israel. Israel doesn't like Hamas. Both want to eradicate the other. This is what is playing out at the moment except Hamas's ability to wipe Israel off the map is constrained by it's lack of sophisticated weaponry. I think it's safe to say that if it did have access to more deadly firepower it would be using it without compunction. Read the Hamas Charter - it's there in black-and-white (As an aside, I did take comfort from the fact that I as a Christian could live in Gaza under the "shadow" of Islam if I wanted to. Hmmmm...)
Now Israel on the other hand does have this type of weaponry at it's disposal and is using it with devastating effect with a consequence being the killing of many innocent civilians. I cannot believe that Israel would purposely target the civilian population nor does it appear that they are waging an "indiscriminate" campaign - unlike Hamas who launch rockets with no apparent idea of where they are actually going to land. That said the carnage visited upon the Gazans by the Israeli Defence Force is unspeakable and it's not something you would wish upon your worst enemy, but the question is - to what extent does Israel have a right to defend itself - and what level of "collateral" damage is acceptable in this regard?
It is of course an impossible question to answer - but the airwaves are full of those giving it a stab; and failing dismally in my view. The term "proportional" response has cropped up a lot but what exactly does that mean? Sean Connery's character, Malone, in the Untouchables to Elliot Ness (played by Kevin Costner) on how to bring down the mob puts it thus:
"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone."
But the world would prefer that Israel bring a knife to this conflict - or maybe that it sit back and take Hamas's approach and just turn off the guidance switch and for every rocket launched by Hamas, launch one back. That is perfectly proportional, yet I would suggest would result in a far greater degree of death and destruction.
But will "pulling a gun" mean that Israel "gets" Hamas in the end or should Israel sit down and negotiate with Hamas, like Nick Clegg suggests. I am in the Clegg camp, but honestly how realistic is this? Some of their differences are not reconciliable. Hamas does not recognise Israel's right to exist. Israel does not recognise Hamas as a "legitimate" voice of the Palestinian people. Two fairly large elephants in a china shop I would say.
But if Hamas tore up it's abhorrent charter and started promoting political moderation/religous tolerance and Israel made a move to dismantle it's settlements (which is a major bone of contention) and bring all it's civic and political experience to bear in developing a "two state" solution, then real negotiations could begin. People will argue that change can only occur incrementally in that region; well that's bollocks. For 40 years I have been on this planet (almost), and for 40 years the Israeli/Palestinian "question" has been on the agenda with various political actors tinkering around the edges and absolutely nothing has changed - in fact I would say it's gotten much worse.
So where to from here? Most likely more of the same. A ceasefire at some point evolving into an uneasy truce and finally back to "normal". Hamas will replenish its rocket inventories and rebuild it's tunnel network (before rebuilding the smashed up homes of its citizens - call me a cynic); Israel will reinforce the blockade and continue to expand its settlements and this particular region will remain a tinderbox for the next 40 years - unless leaders emerge on both sides, who are willing to put reconciliation at the top of the agenda and allow all the hate to fall off the bottom of the page.
Out.