One wonders if Israel's invasion of Gaza is a sign of desperation.

Missiles launched by Hamas, the organisation which effectively controls Gaza, have been raining down on Israel. They have been improving in range and accuracy. The Israelis fear their vulnerability is growing, and new reports suggest that their nuclear reactors may soon come into Hamas range.

Meanwhile, after Israel's last campaign against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Jewish state has been girding for war. The myth of Israeli invincibility was dealt a mortal blow by that bungled invasion, which ended up leaving Hezbollah stronger than before. The growing authority of Hamas and Hezbollah - both in their own countries, and in the Arab world - has further strengthened the hand of their Iranian ally. And Iran, led by its notoriously anti-Semitic president, is regarded by Israel as its greatest threat.

So Israel apparently felt it had no choice but to attack the Gaza Strip. Yet its choice of tactics seems to reveal how few options it has. It is obvious that Israel wants to stop the rockets. But to guarantee this outcome, it would probably have to drive Hamas from Gaza altogether.

Although Israel would dearly love to do this, it lacks both the capacity and the apparent will. It has little obvious appetite for reoccupying Gaza, which its soldiers vacated just over three years ago. The Palestinian government, which is at loggerheads with Hamas, would not likely want to retake Gaza on the backs of Israeli tanks. So Hamas is not likely to disappear. Israel will probably have to find a way to live with the Islamist movement.

Meanwhile, Israel's diplomatic standing and international image suffer setbacks each day the images of death flow from Gaza. Israel's desire to protect its citizens from enemy attacks disappears behind the stream of reports: a ratio of 100 Palestinian deaths to each Israeli one makes Israel look vengeful, even to its friends.

Time is not on the side of the Israeli government. The inauguration of Barack Obama in less than two weeks may bring a softening in Washington's support, if only because the Bush administration was so pro-Israel. Elections in February may well topple the existing Israeli government. In a desperate rush to consolidate positions, it may be taking a ham-fisted approach which will do more harm than good to the country's long-term interests.

It is hard not to conclude that Israel's government blew an opportunity to put itself in a better position. Among the world's governments, including Arab ones, Hamas has few friends. Meanwhile, within the movement, there are moderate elements who might well resign themselves to some kind of peaceful co-existence with Israel, however grudging it might be.

Could not be trusted

However, the Israelis judged Hamas could not be trusted. They, therefore, set out to crush their foe. The Bush administration supported this all-out approach. But by squeezing Gaza economically, the Israelis only strengthened Hamas' support, as well as the position of militants within the movement.

Israel then seemed to judge that greater Hamas militancy gave it the excuse it needed to go after the movement militarily. However, the perception of over-reaction has brought condemnation from around the world. Much as they dislike Hamas, Arab governments face domestic discontent as the number of dead Palestinian children rises.

The Israelis say they learned the lessons of 2006, when the botched assault on Lebanon left them worse off. Perhaps that is so, in that they are running this campaign differently. But different doesn't necessarily mean better. It may be that Israel is just finding new ways to worsen its position in the region, and in the world.

John Rapley is president of Caribbean Policy Research Institute(CaPRI), an independent think-tank affiliated to the University of the West Indies, Mona. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.