Even if it’s not obvious to everyone, the position of the US and Israel are the same against Hamas. I mean with that that even if we see some differences at the level of diplomacy, in reality at the level of strategy  and especially grand strategy there is no difference because  both of them know that Hamas has to be erased from the region. In reality it’s not only Hamas in fact it’s the tool of Iran and also Qatar, so we have to decide on something. The problem is, if we can say that it’s a problem, the difference of the presentation of this struggle against Hamas. The idea for Israel is clear, they have to fight totally against this organization but for the US it’s quite different because they stand by Israel but they want at the same time to show that they are not injailed in this position and they want to have the freedom to express their difference but the difference is only at the level which is diplomacy, nothing more nothing less. We have to see it, more than we can imagine, as a position in relation with the elections and nothing more because at the end of the process and I mean at the end of the war, there is also a difference, because Israel is already saying that it has to keep the control of the region. There is a difference at this level because it’s different to have the control, it’s different to have  an occupation and the problem is to avoid an occupation, so maybe it’s better to imagine that an equilibrium between those positions is to use the model  of West Bank, one of the three zones and to use it in Gaza to avoid in fact that Gaza will impact West Bank. The idea is to  maybe have dual control of this situation to avoid the occupation but also to avoid laxism because the idea is to see how we can create a new future together in this region and to keep in mind that the government of West Bank has to say something about Gaza and not to consider that we have two totally different regions in this area.