The article starts off with very valid criticisms of Hamas, but then proceeds to level a few at the Palestinians - criticisms for which the responsibility is misplaced and raise question to the article's thesis of a "geopolitical conflict without moral complications." There are reasons why Palestinians have "no roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all." And, they are not from a lack of trying on the part of Palestinians. The "flourishing greenhouses" require water, which is in short supply in Gaza.
This article is as biased - if not more - as most other opinion pieces I've read on the Israeli-Gaza conflict (regardless of who's side is being taken).
Almost pathetic attempt by Krauthammer to clothe the murderous Israeli assault on Gaza with moral camouflage. Hamas has offered ten or twenty year truces to Israel (and even longer) but this is not mentioned by the writer, who is one of the most ardent neocon advocates in the business.
I recommend Roula Khalef's piece in the Financial Times today on this topic. She sees that the stopping of rocket attacks as more of a cover story for a deeper Israeli game. I think Israel needs to accept the Arab peace plan and end the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.