Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) – An Israeli military operation of unprecedented severity has been under way in Gaza Strip since last night, less than a year after the decision of the Israeli army and settlements to withdraw unilaterally from the territory. The blitz was in retaliation to unrelenting Kassam missile attacks from Gaza Strip against Israeli cities, and above all, in response to the attack that led to the capture of 19-year-old Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier of French citizenship. He was captured during an attack by dissident Palestinian militants on an Israeli army post. Shalit is said to be held hostage somewhere in the Gaza Strip by rebellious members of the Hamas organisation.

Before the military attack, Israel demanded the unconditional release of its soldier, and announced that there would be no negotiation, no bargaining, and no release of Palestinian prisoners in return. Some left-wing members of the Knesset had denounced the exclusion of negotiations as "premature". The situation is extremely confused.

The political wing of Hamas in Gaza, headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has admitted in desperation to being impotent and uninformed, and therefore not responsible for Shalit's capture.

This all happened just as Haniya and his government were trying to gain some recognition and legitimacy abroad, just as they were about to launch a "national platform" agreed with their political rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abou-Mazen). The latter even condemned the attack against Israeli soldiers publicly, calling it a crime against the interests of the Palestinian people.

US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, had called for a "diplomatic solution", asking Israel not to react militarily. But some Israelis say she should first explain why the US opted for diplomacy when it forbade its diplomats to help or even to talk to the Palestinian Prime Minister and all other Hamas representatives.

And the confusion is far from over.

The contortions of Haniya

Haniya is torn among all these factors, and more: he needs to end the crisis quickly, so his government could go back to efforts to acquire international legitimacy. At the same time, he is seen as being unable to control the members of his own organisation. He has doubts about the political inopportuneness of condemning a guerrilla action that his own people consider as a "clean" military

– not terrorist – victory against an infinitely stronger military machine (which has killed militants and civilians in its raids). He wants to avoid a final breach with Abbas while avoiding being branded as ineffective like Abbas. He fears that massive Israeli military retaliation against Gaza may led to blame being laid at the door of Haniya and Hamas (either for provoking it, or for not being able to stop it, or both).

Haniya also needs to show he is independent of the pro-Iranian leader of Hamas "in exile," Khaled Mash'al. In all likelihood, it was Mash'al who ordered the attack on the Israeli soldiers, and who certainly approves of it. At the same time, Haniya needs to avoid setting himself up in open opposition to Mash'al, which would risk splitting Hamas in two.

Finally, Haniya needs to stay alive: Israel has already threatened to kill Haniya and all the members of the Hamas government. Already in the past, Israel killed – with missiles – the then Hamas leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, his close colleague, Rantisi, and many others.

The contortions of Olmert

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is also torn between many problems. The incessant missile attacks from Gaza on Israel, and now the embarrassing capture of an Israeli soldier – happened after Israel's unilateral retreat from Gaza, which Olmert himself backed, first as Deputy Prime Minister under Sharon, and then as Prime Minister. The unilateral withdrawal had been publicised as a step that would have given Israel more security, but in fact the opposite happened. Many Israelis remember the heart-rending pictures of settlements being forcibly evacuated by the Israeli army for the sake of "greater security": now they are demanding an account from Olmert and his colleagues. Moreover, what is happening in Gaza makes a mockery– in the eyes of Israelis – of Olmert's declared plan of unilateral withdrawal from some settlements in occupied territories, a move also motivated by guarantees of "greater security".

In Israel, one and all – left and right – remember how the former Chief-of-Staff of the Israeli Defence Force and other experts had warned that unilateral withdrawal from Gaza would bring about precisely this: a huge increase in attacks on Israel. Olmert must be asking himself if unilateral withdrawal was not a mistake. But if he admits this, how could he continue his policies?

Does a large-scale military invasion of Gaza risk certain death for the young imprisoned Israeli soldier? On the other hand, if Olmert stoops to negotiations and concessions, doesn't he face the risk of being condemned by the Opposition as being "soft on terrorism" and "lacking backbone"?

Vatican: unilateral solutions are illusions

Even the people of the town of Sderot – and other Israeli towns and villages in the vicinity – are confused: for months now, they have lived under a daily barrage of missiles and rockets from terrorists who were trying to kill innocent civilians, and the government did not appear to be excessively disturbed. Now, a guerrilla attack on the army has provoked an "end of the world" scenario. Yes, a young soldier has been taken hostage, but have not the people of Sderot been hostages themselves all this time?

In the midst of all this, the OLP and Hamas in Gaza have announced that they have finally drawn up a draft "national unity and reconciliation" platform, which may be read as a response to demands by the international community (western and Arab) that Hamas "recognise Israel". But then again, perhaps not, as it's so vague.

Such confusion serves to underscore the truth contained in the words of the Pope on 14 June, when he said unilateral solutions by one side or another, are just illusions. Modern-day crises – recurrent in the Middle East – will never end unless bilateral treaties are drawn up to secure a just and (therefore) lasting peace.