I wish I could agree that "The Israeli government has tried every possible means to put an end to the fire. After all, what is the role of a government if not to protect its people?"

What seems to me to be lacking in the situation, what might actually help to protect everyone would look very different from the ways Israel and the Palestinian leaders behave.

An account of what Gandhi did for peace was read at the UN almost a year ago. I quote liberally from the speech which gave five points and can be found at:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19143.htm

Point 1: Never fear dialogue.

Gandhi dialogued with everybody in his many struggles, including with the Viceroy of an Empire he had come to loathe. And it bore fruits. It is pathetic to watch a US Secretary of State travel in and out of Israel assuring them that she will meet with neither Hamas, nor Hizbollah, nor Damascus, nor Tehran when that is exactly what she has to do to make her points and maybe learn some new ones. ...

Point 2: Never fear conflict: more opportunity than danger.

For Gandhi conflict was a challenge to know each other, having something in common, not being irrelevant to each other. Let us talk it over! He preferred violence to cowardice and conflict, disharmony to no relation at all; the best being, of course, the nonviolence of the brave and relations of harmony.

Conflict can be understood the Anglo-American way as violent clashes of actors-parties, or as an incompatibility of the goals of those actors-parties. The former perspective leads to control of one or more party, usually of Other, even to incapacitation-expulsion-extermination. The latter may lead to problem-solving. Thus, how can legitimate goals of all parties be accommodated? Could it be that even Other has legitimate goals? And--horribile dictu--that I, Self, fall short?

A conflict can be seen by the less mature and very self-righteous as a chance to impose oneself, prevail, to "win". Or, by the more mature, as an occasion for Self-examination rather than Other-censure, and a search for that possibly new reality where legitimate goals of all parties can be accommodated. Like the Muslim world's goals of Respect for Islam and the Western world's goals of Democracy and Free markets. Not easy, that one.

Maybe West could learn from Islamic economics deep respect for economic transactions as human transactions? And Islam from the West deep respect for more diversity of views and opinions? Welcome conflict, welcome challenge!

Nancy: thank you for your wonderful point about Gandhi. We could all use a little less fearless attitude towards conflict...
What exactly do you refer to when you say Islamic economics? What does that have to do with Hamas?

Louise:

All the information beginning with Point 1 to the end is direct quotation from the speech at the UN. Sorry not to have attributed it better.

What struck me was that Gandhi was not afraid to talk and was not afraid of threats. He would never himself respond to threats with threats, nor to violence in kind.

I also liked his self examination rather than blame of the other.

Since we have just celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. day here in the US, I have been thinking about how the world might look if there were spiritual leaders like him and his mentor Gandhi. I wonder what the situation in Gaza would look like if there were a strong leader dedicated to nonviolent resistance.

Yes, that is a beautiful thought, a non violent leadership for Gaza.
A woman...