Gaza: Spectators Rush Onto the Pitch

VIEWS FROM OUTSIDE THE APIARY: IAN FLETCHER 

By Ian Fletcher

I was going to write about education and NCEA reform this month, but many people have been asking me about Gaza. So, this is an effort to look through the fog of war and misinformation, and see the shape of what’s going on.

Two big developments over the past week. The first was the announcement by the UK, Canada and Australia that they would join France (and many others) in ‘recognising’ a Palestinian State. As we know, New Zealand said the time was not right.

After that, the US announced (another) peace plan, this time involving international trustee and security arrangements, voluntary disarmament of Hamas, and a sort of supervised autonomy for a Palestinian-led administration. The key (at time of writing) is that Israel has accepted this plan, and Hamas has not.

What’s going on?

The first point is that ‘recognition’ of Palestine is a gesture. It won’t change anything in Palestine, or Israel. It does add to Israel’s sense of political isolation. Hamas is an organised and still effective political and military force. It is winning the (online) war for public opinion in Western countries. Public opinion in Israel is probably now largely anti-war too, as the economic and social consequences of two years’ fighting sink in. Israel’s army is a citizen force, designed for short, sharp wars each with a clear, socially accepted goal. A prolonged, increasingly pointless war of occupation is eroding morale. After the 7 October 2023 atrocities, Israeli opinion was united; now it’s fragmenting.

So, Hamas is winning the war for public opinion, and on the ground Israel (with a really strong army and overwhelming intelligence superiority) is reduced to slow, hesitant advances. Near enough to a stalemate to count the ground war as a draw, so far. Hamas: 2; Israel: yet to score.

Israel’s fragmented politics are changing. Hitherto, the ruling coalition (led by Netanyahu, who faces corruption charges once he leaves office) has depended on appeasing the (religiously motivated) right-wing parties in his coalition. A policy of war (in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and with Iran – quite impressive for two years’ effort) has held the government together. But that’s changing: elections are a year away at most, and the coalition will fragment as polls approach. Netanyahu is probably looking for a new way to hold on to power.

The Americans are looking for a deal. The newly announced peace plan looks a lot like the ones used in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Northern Ireland. The involvement of Tony Blair, the former UK Prime Minister, is no accident here – this is exactly the sort of plan he used to be involved with (his reputation was ruined by the Iraq war, where there was no post-conflict plan – he’s looking for some sort of redemption here).

The other player is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has two things the US wants: money, and the ability to normalise relations with Israel. The Saudis want to see a route to Palestinian autonomy or statehood (maybe, one day), and they don’t want to see the status of Jerusalem and the West Bank changed.

The Saudis take their religious responsibilities very seriously, especially as guardians of Islam’s holy places in Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem is the other holy place, and it matters. Israeli annexation of the West Bank of the Jordan and building settlements to encircle Jerusalem would again expose Saudi impotence to offer guardianship to all Islam’s holiest places. Their support for Palestinian statehood reflects Arab opinion, and the fact that no-one wants to have to deal with an exodus of Palestinians. Better to keep them where they are.

For the rest of the world, recognition of a Palestinian state is a gesture. Its real significance is in domestic politics for the UK, Canada and Australia. Each has a large and politically significant Moslem population, and each has a government looking to shore up wobbly support for other reasons. Palestine has become a symbol of anger and frustration for many. Other than Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia and Hamas itself, no one else has meaningful influence. The rest of the world are spectators, not players. Trying to rush onto the pitch doesn’t change that.

Where does that leave New Zealand? While a lot of New Zealanders share global anger at what they see as Israeli atrocities in Gaza, that doesn’t play into New Zealand’s domestic politics. Very few of us will change our votes next year because of this. The Government has said it will recognise a Palestinian state at some point, so the card can be played closer to the election if it seems relevant. And meanwhile, we might try to parlay our non-recognition into a slightly better tariff deal from the US, but I’m not optimistic.

We sometimes comfort ourselves by saying that New Zealand’s opinion counts in world affairs. It doesn’t. It counts among or Pacific Island neighbours, because we provide money, disaster relief, and a source of employment. But that’s about all.

In 1945, Winston Churchill is said to have urged Stalin, the ruthless Russian wartime leader, to have regard to the then Pope’s influence in Eastern Europe. “How many divisions does the Pope have?” was his reported reply. New Zealand is in the same place. Hard power counts, and we don’t have any. Wringing our hands doesn’t work.

Ian Fletcher is a former head of New Zealand’s security agency, the GCSB, chief executive of the UK Patents Office, free trade negotiator with the European Commission and biosecurity expert for the Queensland government. These days he is a commercial flower grower in the Wairarapa and consultant to the apiculture industry with NZ Beekeeping Inc.