The BBC are under attack for refusing to broadcast a charity appeal for people made homeless in Gaza. The Observer newspaper claims that the BBC has been thrown into crisis by the decision. Jon Snow, a veteran broadcaster, calls the decision “ludicrous”. Douglas Alexander, a government minister, has called upon the BBC to re-consider. Tim Llwellyn, a former BBC correspondent, accuses his former employer of “cowardice”.

But I think the BBC are right. Broadcasting a charity appeal for Gaza at this particular moment would compromise the corporation’s impartiality. This is not a disaster caused by a tsuanami or an earthquake. It is not an Act of God. It is the product of a highly controversial war – and for the BBC to broadcast appeals for humanitarian relief for Palestinian victims would inevitably be seen as a political act.

This is not to say that I think that firepower the Israelis unleashed on Gaza was justifiable – I don’t, I think it was appalling. But the BBC’s most important job is to report on what is going on, and its most important asset is its credibility. I think BBC reporters have done a pretty good job in this latest crisis. But they are routinely attacked for “bias”, particularly in the United States and Israel. Why play into the hands of their critics? There are plenty of other avenues for charities to appeal for help for the Palestinians.

So – more than 1,200 deaths later – who won? Israel has announced that it has achieved its goals and called a ceasefire – conveniently enough, just two days before Obama’s inauguration. Hamas says that it has also won and has also declared a ceasefire.

Both sides can claim a victory of sorts. Israel will say that it has stopped the rockets. Hamas has survived. Israel will say that it has re-established its deterrent power. Hamas will believe that it has proved its status as the real face of Palestinian resistance.

And then there is the battle for world opinion. It was probably shrewd of Hamas to declare its own ceasefire in response to Israel’s. A decision to keep firing rockets would have fitted the Israeli narrative that Hamas cared little for innocent Palestinian lives. On the other hand, the Israelis will have been encouraged that so many European leaders – Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Zapatero – were prepared to pose for photos with the Israeli leadership today.

The fate of Hamas and of its armed struggle against Israel will only become clear over the next few months. Gauging the impact of the conflict on the broader region will take even longer. At the risk of sounding like a liberal hand-wringer, it seems to me that in the long run everybody loses – Palestine is even more smashed-up, embittered and dysfunctional than when the fighting began, and Israel has created more enemies and pushed the prospect of peace ever further into the distance. And over 1.200 people are dead.

Neither Israel nor Hamas seem particularly inclined to heed the UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The Israelis, in particular, tend to shrug off condemnation by the UN, which they regard as an incorrigibly anti-Israeli body. You can understand why. The UN Human Rights Council, for example, has adopted far more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country. Both Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon have criticised the council for singling out Israel.

That said, I think Israel will still view Thursday night’s Security Council resolution with some concern for a couple of reasons. The Security Council is the serious bit of the UN. And it is hard for Israel to dismiss the UN altogether – after all, its owes its very existence as a state to UN resolutions.

But the most significant thing about the UN resolution was that, as the FT’s Tobias Buck puts it – “for the first time in many years, the US declined to veto a Security Council resolution opposed by Israel.” And that’s even before the Obama administration takes power.

Any weakening in American support for Israel at the UN would be a significant departure.  Some US ambassadors to the UN have become famous for their staunch support of Israel – Daniel Moynihan was a particularly strong example in the 1970s, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick and John Bolton were also dogged supporters. Susan Rice, Obama’s ambassasdor to the UN, will certainly hew to a pro-Israeli line. But I doubt that she sees herself making her mark by last-ditch defences of the embattled Jewish state. Thursday’s vote might be a sign of the coming times.