The Future of Globalisation? - Part 1

The unrest has started. Across Europe, the discontent is starting to spill over into action. In Greece, riots over the death of a teenager have been replaced by protests by farmers. In Latvia, protests are turning into riots. In Lithuania, the same. In France, a general strike disrupts the country. In Iceland, quiet little Iceland, protesters and riot police share the streets, and a government falls. And in staid, polite old Britain, wildcat strikes are occurring.

At the World Economic Forum, politicians and plutocrats haunt the stage of their old successes. They appear shell-shocked, stunned by how quickly the world they built, the system they created, has started to crumble around them. Like Miss Havisham, they are unable to move on from the scene of their humiliation and disaster.

It isn't meant to be like this, they tell themselves. For decades, people in Europe have taken to the streets to demand a move to their capitalist system, for ever greater 'reform' of their economies. Look at the states of eastern Europe - they have raced to remake themselves as zealots of capitalism, rushing to embrace membership of the EU to calcify the market's grip on their countries.

But now...

It's not hard to see why this is happening. Not surprisingly, people are worried. No, more than that, people are scared. They are afraid of the chaos being unleashed around them, chaos that is starting to expand and endanger their livelihoods, their families, their well-being.

But in addition to that, people are angry. They are angry that those widely seen as having caused this chaos are not only getting away with it, but have taken vast sums of money for their troubles. They are angry that banking executives seem to believe that taking money from the tax-payer for themselves is acceptable. They are angry that politicians are letting them get away with this. They are angry that those who caused this, in business and politics alike, seem to be those who will be least effected by it.

And it is this potent mixture, of fear and rage, that is driving people onto the streets. And our current crop of politicians, brought up in a culture of managerialism, of bureaucracy, of technocracy, don't know how to react to so much naked emotion on display.

But the people out protesting aren't protesting just because of the state of the economy right now. Yes, that has been the trigger, but it is only providing the catalyst for other, and longer held, dis-satisfactions to rise to the surface.

Look at France. The ostensible reason for the general strike was that the government was bailing out banks and fat cats, but not protecting jobs and helping workers. But France has been a simmering cauldron of unrest for a long time now. Sarkozy came to power promising a broad swathe of reforms to the economy, to French society. The generalised unrest this has provoked in a significant section of French society has been galvanised by the current economic crisis.

In the Baltic states, there is rioting on the streets. There are predictions of dire economic collapse - 4.5% in Lithuania, 7% in Estonia, and an incredible 10% in Latvia. The fear this causes has joined with the anger over the steady reform of their economies to fit in with the rest of the EU.

And now Britain. No, we're not rioting. We generally leave that to the hot-heads on the continent. But we have seen a sudden and unexpected flurry of wildcat strikes. At almost 20 locations, across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, workers have walked out, held protests, demanded to be heard. These are unofficial strikes, illegal strikes, acts that could see these workers losing their jobs. But they went ahead anyway.

I've heard claims that there is no way these actions could spread, that these are just minor blips. The argument goes that people won't strike, because they would be too afraid of losing their jobs. But if workers are already scared about losing their jobs, if they already feel powerless, what is going to stop them?

And don't fall into the easy trap of believing the only people who would join these protests, the only people who could possibly object to foreign workers, are racists, closet or otherwise. No, in a situation like this, where it appears a company is bringing in cheaper labour from elsewhere, it is not racism for these British workers to act against it.

They are simply acting in their own economic self-interest - by attempting to stop companies undercutting the prevailing wage rates. It is the same economic self-interest that causes people to join unions. And yes, this kind of protectionism can be bad for the economy as a whole. But people will act in their economic self-interest, we are told. Just as bankers acted in their own economic self-interest, to the ultimate detriment of the economy as a whole.

A capitalist system requires people to act in their own economic self-interest. That self-interest has to be moderated by the rules and mores of a society, from government, from the people. We need to provide incentives to act in a way that is good for society as a whole, or disincentives to behaving in a way society doesn't want. At the moment, the disincentives towards taking action aren't working.

So what do we do? How do we deal with this? This is not a matter of dealing with this narrow sector of industry, that of construction contractors in the energy industry. We have seen the wave of unrest and protest that is sweeping the continent. All it needs in any country is one small spark. (And yes, despite the left-wing leanings of many of the protests, I think a country run in fear of revolt is a bad thing, because I'm a "democratic socialist" - the first word is important too. In addition, any protest that the BNP sends supporters to runs the risk of stopping being about protecting workers, and becomes about victimising different workers.)

Continued tomorrow...

Government must release cabinet minutes on lead-up to Iraq war

Guardian article - Information tribunal orders publication of minutes following battle by campaigners

Sometimes you have to love the Freedom of Information Act and the rule of unintended consequences.

UK Treasury committee to grill chiefs who led banks to disaster

Treasury committee to grill chiefs who led banks to disaster - Times Online

About time.

Paying to Protest in UK

Jo Adetunji: Did you know … that you can be charged by councils for demonstrating against them?

I think this is a subject that is going to become more and more relevant as the various legislation that ahs been put through in the past few years starts to be applied.  Many people will start to be very surprised at just what is now being criminalised, monitored, controlled, or chargeable.

Obama-mania

So, it's happened. The USA has finally got rid of Bush, which means the rest of the world has as well. In exchange, we get Obama, a man who has an enormous pressure of expectation on his shoulders.

Obama has already done good things. He has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay internment centre, allowing those there to either be released, or face a court, as should have happened years ago. He has repealed the ban on funding family planning organisations around the world that dare to talk about abortion. Already, he is starting to repair the damage done to the USA's reputation around the world by the previous incumbent.

But this post isn't about Obama, or how wonderful or not he may be. This post is about the reaction to him from us, from Britain, and from the Labour Party.

The reaction to Obama has been ecstatic, and fawning. Like the screaming crowds greeting a pop-star, our politicians have been going goo-eyed over him, dreaming that some part of his lustre may somehow rub off on them. They have been scrabbling to touch the hem of his robe, hoping that somehow this will make them instantly popular.

Yesterday I suffered a moment that made me practically embarrassed to be British - not something that happens often. (Except when we play the Australians at cricket.) I turned over to the BBC News channel to see it had broken out the BREAKING NEWS banner. "My," I thought, "what has caused this? What shock to our country, what devastating disaster, or what joyous news, what happy event?" I didn't have long to wait. The banner streamed across the bottom of the screen: GORDON BROWN SPEAKS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA BY TELEPHONE. In-depth analysis followed, where the highly intelligent Stephanie Flanders made guesses as to what they may have spoken about.

Now look, I know a lot of this is the product of 24 hour news channels, where they have to fill their time with ever-increasing amounts of inanity. But come on, this was like a bunch of teenage girls screaming with excitement that that special someone had called them. Does anyone actually feel proud of our Prime Minister because he took a phone call? Does anyone feel our standing in the world is enhanced? Does anyone really feel it matters a damn if our Prime Minister is the first foreign leader Obama spoke to, or the second, or third?

Then there is the cringe-inducing case of Dawn Butler MP. I just don't know what to say about that. It's just... embarrassing.

Not to forget the Labour Party's dreadful new fund-raising push. They have seen an energising, exciting, successful campaign by a left-leaning (relatively) figure, and decided the best thing to do is... try and get some cash out of it. Yes, yes, I know that the party needs money, I know they are getting desperate. But is this really the lesson they want to learn? Do they really think people are going to donate money to the Labour Party because they think Barack Obama is a good guy?

We are suffering from a lack of confidence, from a lack of belief in ourselves. Yes, Obama is exciting and inspiring. But that doesn't mean that our response should just be adulation, and a desperate attempt to get some reflected glory. When did our country become so craven that that the best we can hope for is that the President of the USA calls us first? When did our politicians become so lightweight that standing next to someone people like is their favourite tactic?

I'm embarrassed that my country now believes in itself so little that it judges its worth by how quickly the US calls. I'm embarrassed that our politicians feel reflected glory is the best they can hope for.

The Labour Party, indeed the whole political class, seems to want the lesson from Obama's victory to be one about tactics. About how social networking can make a difference. About how blogs can get people to donate. About how Twitter can reach thousands instantly. About how a thriving and vibrant online presence can make people donate money and time.

I can understand this desire. I really can. If it is just about tactics, then it can be replicated. It becomes a cookie-cutter approach that can be rolled out by check-list, simple steps to achieve complete digital dominance. To achieve a critical mass that will help achieve electoral dominance.

I can understand the desire for that to be the lesson, I really can. But it's just wrong.

Obama's campaign didn't attract millions because it was online. It didn't attract millions because it communicated regularly. It didn't attract millions because it was shiny and new and digital and whatever buzzwords you want to throw at it.

No, it attracted millions because of the message. Because Obama came out to a country that was deeply divided, that had been wracked by internal divisions for 8 years, that had faced disaster, attacks, murders and wars, that was now facing economic catastrophe, and the collapse of the system they had been following for decades, he came out to that country and he told them it was OK to hope again. That things can improve. That if they all work together, they can make their country, and the world, a better place. That it was OK to talk about changing the way the economy, and society, worked. He came out and gave a message at odds with that being given by both the Republicans and, initially at least, the Democrats.

The Labour Party here particularly has a problem with this. How can they provide answers to the chaos they have presided over? How can they tell people they will make it all better, when they are the people who took us into this mess? This isn't about the stale argument over whose fault all this is, it's about the perception and feeling of the electorate, which isn't going to be swayed by the incessant sniping over why we are here.

The country is scared. We are nervous, and worried, and we don't know what is going to happen next. Confidence is plummeting. The economic system we have followed for decades is falling apart around us. We are embroiled in two wars. We've been told to fear a vicious assault by terrorists.

Obama spoke to people. He spoke to their dreams. He spoke to their hopes. He spoke to their aspirations. He told them it was going to be OK. He gave them answers to the chaos unfolding around them.

The lesson to learn isn't that you need to campaign online. The lesson is that you need to speak to the electorate. You need to listen to what they want. You need to listen to their fears and their hopes, and you have to address them. The lesson is that you need a message, that you need substance, that you need to be willing to say what you think has to be done now, not because it is popular but because it is right.

In short, you need to be a leader.

It remains to be seen if any British politician of this generation can do that.

Barack Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay detention centre

Barack Obama signs order to close Guantánamo Bay detention centre

<insert much applause here>

Gordon Brown backs move to block full publication of MPs' expenses

Gordon Brown backs move to block full publication of MPs' expenses - Times Online

Breathtaking.

UPDATE:

Gordon Brown withdraws plan to keep details of MPs' expenses secret

Hurrah! Looks like an internet campaign had an effect, for once...

6 days to stop MPs concealing their expenses

mySociety » Blog Archive » 6 days to stop MPs concealing their expenses

Pretty much as it says.  Go, read, write to your MP.

The changes will put MPs and peers in a special category as the only paid public officials who will not have to disclose the full details of their expenses and allowances.

Guardian article.

Possibly the only time I have ever agreed with someone from the TaxPayers' Alliance...

Toxic Assets Leave A Bad Taste

It is becoming increasingly obvious that a new, and potentially devastating, round of bank writedowns is just starting. This will increase the dramatic holes in the banks' balance sheets. Inevitably, it will also renew the calls for more government intervention to save the banks.

The main focus for rescue attempts this time round is based on the so-called 'toxic assets' the banks hold - essentially, the overly complicated derivatives of various loans that started the whole credit crunch. People stopped repaying the loans, and banks suddenly realised that, thanks to the way the derivatives were structured, they didn't know who was going to be effected. With no idea of who was losing out, it became impossible to exchange these derivatives, leading to a freezing up of the financial markets, and a drying up of credit. Now the call is for the government, the tax-payer, to buy up these assets. This would mean the banks lose the potential black hole on their balance sheet, and get the security of cash instead.

The reason we are told we need to do this is to get the banks lending again, to return to the 'normal' level of lending of the past few years. But is this really something we want? It is widely acknowledged that the problem we are facing was caused by too much easy credit being available, that we had all become accustomed to the magically increasing feeling of affluence that rising house prices gave us, house prices propelled ever upwards through a combination of lack of supply and ever greater credit given to those seeking mortgages. If we did return to that world, it is inevitable that all we would be doing is putting off the economic distress to a later date, and in fact perhaps making sure it will be much worse.

That is not to say that the lack of lending is a good thing. No, credit is a vital part of business for many perfectly sensible and staid companies. But they are being dragged down by the poor decisions made by banks to lend to people based solely on the assumption that house prices would magically rise forever, with nary a blip to worry us.

So what is to be done? Banks, not surprisingly, are calling for the tax-payer to take the toxic assets off their hands, to transfer the potentially massive liabilities from them to us. But if we did, how much should we pay for these assets, given that the reason the market in them froze up was that no-one could value them? It's a difficult question, and has many different aspects to it. On the one hand, if you take too negative a view, banks will not gain enough money to resume lending. If you are too generous, the tax-payer hands over too much money, and loses on the value of the assets.

There is an argument that the second case is, essentially, irrelevant. Tax-payers are already suffering from an economy that is dead in the water. Being overly generous to the banks may just help alleviate that situation, and they are more likely to start lending again.

This is not an argument I am totally convinced by. Anything which deliberately moves our tax money into private hands, and is, almost by deliberate design, overly generous doesn't exactly sit well with me.

So what is to be done? Bailing out the banks, and buying their toxic assets, and doing nothing else would serve only to reward them for their poor decisions (I've blogged about this before). The role of government in this banking crisis is not to act in the best interests of the banks. It is to act in the best interests of us, the voters and tax-payers who are going to have to fix all of this mess. Our needs and best interests are complex, and will not be served by simple solutions, by throwing money at the banks in the hope they will deign to start lending in the same reckless way they have in the past.

How about this for a way forward?

Use government money to invest in a large-scale and rapid expansion of social housing. This has the benefit of getting money directly into the economy, supporting an industry particularly badly hit by the downturn, and reducing the pressure on the housing market that caused it to overheat so dramatically.

Completely nationalise RBS (the bank we currently have a large and absolute majority shareholding in), and use it as a development bank. This bank, as well as continuing as a retail bank (though this arm could subsequently be sold off) will have as its aim to support British industry through providing loans to small and medium businesses with a long repayment time at low interest rates - in essence, allowing businesses to invest in themselves without risking the uncertainty of short term bank loans or braving a flotation or other form of external investment. One of the ways this could help is by enabling manufacturing businesses to invest in new machinery without being punished by shareholders.

However, while we need a strong and vibrant manufacturing sector (particularly considering the positive impact, now removed, that the financial markets in London had on our trade deficit), we cannot compete as simple metal-bashers - if we try to compete on cheapest cost only, we are doomed to failure. No, we must also target loans at supporting other industries, industries that use the wealth of graduates we are now producing in productive ways. Knowledge based businesses could receive loans to develop new technologies, new devices, new methods. Even intellectual properties need to be developed.

This is the type of lending that the economy needs, that society needs. This will enable Britain to rebuild its economy, and refocus it from being excessively biased towards the financial markets, and to become much more balanced. And happily, we already have some of the infrastructure in place to make the judgements on what lending is appropriate thanks to the various departments of Regional Development Agencies around the country, which already make judgements on grants on criteria including value to the wider economy and support for innovation.

Lending for larger companies would have to be looked at on a case by case basis. Large companies are, of course, important to the economy, not least through the web of companies they order from. But lending to these businesses would have to be done on much more stringent commercial lines.

As for the toxic assets, well, that's a tough one. It is appropriate for the government to intervene to assist home-owners (or rather, mortgage payers) in difficulty, and to try and reduce the over-inflation of the market through building. Is it appropriate to bail out those whose greed blinded them to the problems, who sought only to profit? I don't know.

What I do know, though, is that with one bank nationalised, the pressure from the stock market on the others over their toxic assets will be immense. Because of this, and to prevent their collapse and the situation of all banking in the UK being through state-owned banks, I can only suggest that the assets are indeed bought, but at a conservative price - paying too much would encourage reckless lending again, and important business lending will already be in place via the nationalised RBS. If the banks feel the need to batten down the hatches, then so be it.

Yes, this is likely to cause pain and hardship for some. But we have to face the fact that there is going to be pain and hardship. We got ourselves into an appalling position, and there is no magic wand to wave to make it all go away. We pay now, or we pay later, and perhaps pay more. All we can do is make sure support is there so that no-one suffers too much or for too long. And rebalancing the economy might just mean this kind of pain is avoided in the future.

(Thanks to Matthew Stratford for his help.)

Changes under Obama

Waterboarding is torture, says Obama's choice as justice chief. Compare and contrast:

Barack Obama's incoming administration made a definitive break with that of George Bush yesterday when Eric Holder, nominated as the next attorney-general, defined waterboarding as torture.

and

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, in interviews over the last week, has defended Guantánamo and continues to claim that waterboarding, in which drowning is simulated, does not constitute torture.

Young people are worthless

They must be, it's the only explanation for how our society is treating them.

For years we have been telling kids that the way for them to get ahead is to get a good education. We have piled more and more pressure on them, tested them to within an inch of their sanity at school, then packed them off to university, to get into massive debt, all on the pretext that the land of milk and honey they will enter with a good degree will make it all worth it.

Well, surprise surprise, it doesn't work. When an economic downturn hits, the first victims, before any redundancies, are those out looking for new jobs. This year, it is devastatingly obvious that graduate jobs are thin on the ground, leaving an entire year group fighting for fewer jobs, with the added competition of thousands of newly laid-off graduates.

And that's the other problem our young people are facing - many businesses operate a last in, first out principle, throwing newly employed graduates back into the ranks of the unemployed. Of the 137,000 rise in unemployment in the three months to October, 40% were aged 18 to 24.

Jobs are already drying up, leaving many of the class of 2008 without work. And they are only going to get worse for the class of 2009.

But don't worry, Carl Gilleard, chief executive of the Association of Graduate Recruiters, has the answer:

"It's going to be a shock to the class of 2009. But it's far better to consider a temporary job than to sit at home and feel sorry for yourself. Why not do bar work? It involves skills you need for lots of jobs - working with people and perhaps negotiating tricky situations."

His suggestion that young graduates, leaving university with debts of tens of thousands of pounds, look for bar work is insulting. But it does point to the other group who are being hit - young non-graduates. As graduate jobs dry up, inevitably graduates will start applying for jobs lower down the corporate ladder. They are going to start displacing young people without degrees, who have nowhere else to go.

The government has announced extra funding for apprenticeships, but how many businesses are willing to take this on? How many young people can be covered by this?

The response to the prospect of mass unemployment in new graduates has been patronising, and pointless. As reported in The Guardian, Richard Reeves, director of Demos,

says a government minister recently told him unemployed graduates will probably end up doing master's degrees. "'Let them do master's degrees' is the modern equivalent of 'let them eat cake'," says Reeves. "You just worsen the problem. Doing an MA should not be an economic policy, it should be a broader social policy."

Encouraging already highly educated, but heavily indebted, young people to take on more debt for more education seems a bizarre idea. Students who are already doubting the ability of their degree to help them find work are unlikely to see the answer in another degree.

But even this answer is less insulting than the current plan for paid internships. Under this plan, some graduates will be offered 3 months paid internships. Firms including Barclays and Microsoft will take advantage of the scheme. And I really do mean take advantage.

The new graduates will gain experience and work skills - but certainly not a decent wage. They will be paid at a rate which will ensure an income "only slightly higher" than undergraduates' income from grants and loans. Currently, the maximum annual student grant is £2,835 a year, while the maximum annual maintenance loan is worth £6,475. Are we really surprised that large firms are happy to get high quality, cheap labour? But is this all we want to offer our young people? Sweatshop wages after years of university education?

Sadly, it may well be. We can expect little government action over this. They have been aiming for 50% of all young people to go to university for many years now. (Incidentally, something I agree with.) But what they haven't been doing is ensuring there are enough of the kind of knowledge based businesses in the country who want to employ this steadily growing number of graduates. They have been crossing their fingers that the businesses will be there, and they pretty much were - right up until the first sign of a wobble in the economic situation.

A democratically elected government will pursue policies that get them votes. This is both the strength and the weakness of the system. Here, it is a weakness, because, basically, young people don't vote. Demographically, there are more over 60s than under 16s. Electorally, over 55s accounted for 40% of all votes in the last election. In contrast, 18-24 year olds made up 7%.

You may have noticed David Cameron's latest proposal of tax cuts for savers. Ignoring the arguments over whether this is to reward those who behave prudently, or a recipe for economic disaster in recession, we can see that it was targeted at the group that is most likely to have savings - those who have paid off their mortgage, and are settling down to a nice retirement: the grey vote. This is just the first sign of a growing focus by the political parties on those who actually vote - and who can blame them? It's what they are there for.

Over Christmas and New Year, I stayed at my parents' place. One day, my father asked me a simple question: "Is there a political party for young people these days?" Once upon a time, when I was young and optimistic, I'd have said there was, and that it was the Labour Party. Of course, about the same time he probably wouldn't have needed to ask.

But now he has a valid point. More and more, parties will cater to the grey vote, the baby-boomer voting bloc. They will call for tax-breaks on savings, pension increases for all, government bail-outs for private pension schemes. All of these things need to be paid for. And as socialists, we should all be concerned about this. The only place for money that flows to the old to come from is from the young. And this is likely to be a redistribution of wealth from those who have little to those who have more.

So young people have two paths to prosperity. One option is what already seems to be happening, at least in part. The information about graduate internships came out in a Telegraph interview with John Denham. As he said:

"These are the children of the baby-boomers. They will be a very big group; around 300,000. What do we do with them?..We can't just leave people to fend for themselves."

I suspect the first sentence tells you why he is interested in helping these graduates - the votes of their parents. It seems young people today can only hope to do well thanks to the indulgence of their parents' generation.

The other path is to organise, campaign, and vote. But too many have the view that political parties are all the same. They join single issue campaigns, targeted little protests that don't effect the big picture, that won't change society. Or they hold the view that they can't change anything on their own, so it just isn't worth trying. Given the numbers, they may even be right.

But as I have already written on my wish to hope again, perhaps I need a more upbeat conclusion. Perhaps this recession is the wake-up call a generation needs. Perhaps finding out the stories they were told by their elders, about keeping their heads down, working hard, getting a degree, getting onto the corporate ladder, perhaps finding out those stories just weren't true might shake some of them from their apathy. Maybe there will be discontent in our universities again. And maybe, just maybe, that will translate into a political force.

(Links: Telegraph interview with John Denham. Nick Cohen on the grey bloc. Graduate jobs crisis in The Times, The Guardian, The Guardian again. Graduate intern plan on BBC News.)

Musical Interlude

I'm currently loving the wonderful "Reasons Not To Be An Idiot" by Frank Turner, which in turn has led me to his earlier EP, Campfire Punkrock, and the inimitable "Thatcher F***ed The Kids" which, as you may have twigged from the title, you may not want to listen to at work, or with innocent young ears nearby.

But it is a great song.

Boris Johnson to face inquiry over Damian Green intervention

I shouldn't chortle.  But I just can't help myself: Boris Johnson to face inquiry over Damian Green intervention.

Equal Rights and Parental Leave

There is an interesting campaign going on over at Equal Rights about parental leave. In essence, the campaign calls for the current separate paternity and maternity leaves to be combined into one pot of leave, that can then be shared between the mother and her partner in a way that best suits them. This means, for example, a mother could go back to work earlier, while the partner takes leave to look after the child, rather than the current situation.

This change would be helpful to families, enabling them to make decisions about childcare, and would also reduce the likelihood of women being discriminated against in the workplace, as either partner could take leave.

Much more information is available at Equal Rights, and a petition is up at the Number 10 website.

Death in Gaza

People are dying in Gaza. Men are dying on the streets of Gaza. Women are dying in the homes of Gaza. Children are dying in their beds in Gaza.

Regardless of the position of Hamas, regardless of the position of Israel, we should all be revolted at the sight of the innocent being killed. Of course that includes Israelis killed by mindless rockets sent by angry young Palestinian men. But it also includes the Palestinians killed by falling bombs dropped by professional young Israeli men.

There is no doubt that there are Palestinians living in Gaza who are actively attacking Israel. But there is no reason to believe that the overwhelming and disproportionate use of force on the people of Gaza is going to achieve anything other than more violence.

There have been approximately 450 deaths in Gaza caused by the Israeli bombings. Rockets launched from Gaza have killed 4 Israelis. All of these deaths should not have happened.

3 of the Israeli deaths have been of civilians, 1 of a soldier. Figures for Gaza are harder to come by, as hospitals are overcrowded and overwhelmed, but the UN Relief and Works Agency put the number of civilians killed at 63 on Tuesday evening. No men from Gaza city were included in this figure "because there were so many dead men and because it was so hard to identify body parts". It is believed about one third of the casualties are civilians or policemen, that leaves us with roughly 150 non-military killed in one week.

And will this make Israel safer? Will this lead to peace? How can it?

Currently Gaza is under siege. Israel has blockaded Gaza's borders, on land and sea, and controls its airspace. Economic activity in the area has collapsed. It is estimated 70% of the population is without work. Large numbers are totally dependent on food aid - of which precious little manages to get through. Is it any surprise there is growing anger and resentment? Will it be any surprise that military attacks on Gaza create more anger and resentment?

Right now, Israel is punishing the people of Gaza for the government they elected. Israel has destroyed the Gazan economy. Electricity and fuel is restricted. Movement is restricted. And now, people are dying in Gaza. Some of them may indeed have been seeking to attack and kill Israelis, citizens of the occupying power. Some of them won't have been. They die just as easily.

Long-term security can only come about through negotiation. Hamas has in the past said it is willing to accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders - and thus by implication the existance of a Jewish state. Are they good negotiation partners? Certainly not. But it is only by talking that both sides can start to come to an agreement.

Violence against Gaza won't turn the Gazans against Hamas, which Israel seems to believe. The first instinct when members of your people are attacked is to pull together, not fall apart. No, if Israel really wants peace, they need to start talking to Hamas, keep talking to Fatah, talk to everyone, just keep on talking until we move towards agreement.

Because the only other answer is more violence. Violence begets violence.

As I write this, reports are coming in that Israeli troops and tanks have crossed into Gaza. I fear this will become much bloodier.