The massive use of force against protesters in Gaza is alienating a

The massive use of force against protesters in Gaza is alienating a whole new generation. Blocking tunnels may interrupt arms smuggling, but it will do nothing to stem the resentment of those who live in the occupied territories, nor will it make a Palestinian Gaza into a stable and peaceable neighbour. Just how universally unacceptable Israel’s conduct has been in Gaza became apparent on Wednesday when the United States chose for once to abstain rather than use its customary veto against a vote of censure in the Security Council.As the White House said in a statement, Israel’s actions in Gaza do not serve the purpose of peace and security, either in Israel or in the wider region. Nor have Israel’s attempts to justify its conduct by citing the international war on terrorism carried conviction.

The objective is a neutralised Gaza that will pose no threat to Israel when its troops withdraw. The corollary is that there will be no question of any withdrawal unless that objective is achieved. If it is, we can be sure that the same tactics will be applied to those parts of the West Bank from which Mr Sharon says Israel will withdraw.The lack of mystery about Israel’s intentions, however, does not make what it is doing any more acceptable. Perhaps the only positive feature of recent days has been the extent and volume of the international outcry. Minds have not yet been so dulled by revelations about American mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq that they ignore brutality and injustice elsewhere.

Israeli officials have defended the raids in Rafah as targeting arms smugglers and the network of tunnels they allegedly use to bring weapons to Palestinian militants from Egypt. Tanks and helicopter gunships have been deployed in an unusual, and deadly, show of force.
There should be no mystery about why Israel is acting as ruthlessly as it is in Gaza. The prime minister, Ariel Sharon, wants to pursue his plan for a unilateral withdrawal from select areas of the occupied territories as the first stage of enforcing peace on his terms. How much further can the Middle East spin away from peace? In the past four days, Israeli forces have killed more than 40 Palestinians in one of the biggest and most brutal operations in Gaza for years. But Mr Howard is right to assert that broad support for the war does not prevent the main opposition party from raising some concerns, especially when the aftermath has been handled with such brutal incompetence.Mr Howard’s politically astute intervention and the reaction to it are illuminating. The war and its appalling aftermath continues to cast a long shadow over British politics.. Ministers seek to hem the Tories in to their own political nightmare in Iraq; Mr Howard attempts to creep away slowly and deftly; the Liberal Democrats cry that we were the ones who had nothing to do with this from the beginning.

Not surprisingly, anxious ministers are keen to point out that the Conservatives were gung ho in advance of the war. Obviously Mr Kennedy is in a much stronger position to make sweeping criticisms of the war. He opposed it from the beginning and deserves credit for having the political courage to do so. The Liberal Democrats stand to benefit electorally from their opposition to the calamitous war against Iraq. They do not want the Conservatives moving on to their fruitful electoral terrain. Mr Blair, meanwhile, has acted throughout on the assumption that the Conservatives would not benefit in the same way because they supported the war.The political reactions are over the top. Mr Howard’s distancing was significant, but relatively modest.