An explosion at the al Ahli hospital in Gaza on Tuesday killed many – officials linked to Hamas said up to 471 were killed.
This latest round of fighting has inflamed anger and violence well beyond the confines of the Israel/Hamas conflict.
The Israelis insist they have evidence which suggests that the damage was not inflicted by them, but instead by a misfired rocket by Hamas ally Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
That is not believed in the Arab world, most of whom say they want to see an independent investigation into what happened.
Regardless, “the first casualty of war is the truth” – so what prospect is there of stopping this current spiral of violence to avoid a significantly wider regional conflict?
Whether attributed to US politician Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918; Dr Samuel Johnson in 1758, or even the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus around 550 BC, the quote about the truth being the first casualty of war would appear as true today as in Aeschylus’ time.
Despite the horrific and despicable events committed by Hamas on Israel on 7 October, it suits Hamas to frame the current conflict as one between Arab and Western ideals, and nothing appears off-limits.
And it has worked.
Violence has erupted all over the region in protest at Israel’s actions.
Even Jordan’s foreign minister has made clear that “no one is buying” the Israeli narrative about the Gaza hospital explosion.
The West, and indeed most of the world, tolerates a wide range of religious beliefs in its population provided that the shared values of the nation endure.
However, having been responsible for creating the Jewish state of Israel, in the middle of an Arab region – which supplanted the resident Palestinian population at the time, the West has more than a degree of responsibility for solving the ensuing problems.
All sides know there is no military solution, yet in the absence of a political determination to chart a course for peace, the politicians take the easy route, hide behind inflamed rhetoric, and the casualties mount.
Military action should be a last resort and only if it offers clear objective
Military action should be the route of last resort – and only then if it offers a clear objective. Instead, each side seems determined to inflict growing levels of violence, destruction and pain on each other, which makes the path to peace even more challenging.
Every country is entitled to protect its people – indeed, it is a priority.
However, in the current conflict, a perpetuation of the violence makes future conflict more – not less – likely.
So, the politicians involved are making matters worse, not better. Real political strength is not the ability to inflame, antagonise and incite – that might play to the crowd, but it is a negligent folly.
Read more:
Biden: Putin and Hamas want to ‘annihilate’ neighbouring democracies
Who are the British victims of the Israel-Hamas war?
What is the two-state solution?
Instead, great statesmanship is walking the hard road, of working tirelessly to get beyond the anger, to understand your adversary’s position, to seek compromise, understanding and accommodation.
This is no idealistic dream, this is the harsh reality that without supreme efforts, violence risks spiralling out of control. And, for normal Palestinians and Israelis, nobody wins.
The conflict in Israel is a direct result of a failure of politics and diplomacy.
Periodically, events attract the interest of international politicians, who then seek to apply a “quick fix” by focusing on the “symptoms” of the problem – such as now with the humanitarian crisis and hostage situation – and a few deftly placed sticky plasters are applied.
But the central disease endures, conveniently dormant but unresolved, until circumstances dictate, and the violence erupts again.
Occasionally, leaders can look beyond their own polarised view, swallow their pride and engage in slow but meaningful progress.
Yasser Arafat was the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from 1969 to 2004, but gradually shifted his approach from open conflict with the Israelis and instead engaged in a series of negotiations with the Israeli government to end the conflict between it and the PLO.
These included the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David Summit.
The success of the negotiations in Oslo led to Arafat being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, alongside Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, in 1994.
And, despite Arafat being a polarising figure, progress was made. Following his demise, who was prepared to build on those foundations – from either side?
Who, on either side, is prepared to make such brave and potentially unpopular steps today?
Politicians are supposed to speak for their people rather than pursue firebrand rhetoric, and all are aware that there is no military solution to the Israel/Palestine/Hamas issue.
Normal Palestinians and Israeli families cannot want the current conflict to continue, to blight their lives and that of the next generation.
As a former military officer, we had to have faith in our political masters, that they would explore every avenue available before committing their military to war – with all that war entails.
Can that test be passed today? In the absence of true political leadership, the violence continues – taking sides does not help, it simply hardens resolve.
Each side blames the other, third party proxies fuel the hatred, and in the tsunami of casualties and anger, the truth becomes hard to find.
What a sad indictment on the apparent power of democracy that we know the path to peace, but systematically avoid taking such brave and difficult steps.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts