It is a very rare thing to hear a political commentator from the Left who understands and admits publicly that the current round of conflict was forced by Hamas, and that the Israeli response was not only the inevitable result of the spree of ethnic violence, rape and kidnapping, but exactly the intended purpose of this violence and hostage taking. Hamas wanted this result. It's not a strategy that makes much sense to anyone who is not a radical Islamist, but it achieved the desired response. The only attempted genocide was from Hamas, although no doubt some of the Extremist Jewish leaders would be happy to implement one too.
Thanks Chris, you're a rare relic from the days when Leftist politics still made some sense for social cohesion and was not entirely focused on separating people on identity grounds.
The human race is a warring species. It has always been that way but strangely only a very small number of humans promote it. The rest are happy to live together and get on with their lives.The other small group of people live by their beliefs and to make those beliefs a reality use power and influence. They make their way to the top of the pile and once in control initiate their agendas to accomplish their own righteous view of the world while the rest of us bobble around in their wake, and sometimes loose our lives because of it. Isolated countries like our own seem to to have more passive leaders but if NewZealand was situated near Gaza or the Ukraine or Iran would we be so passive. I doubt it.
There are differences in the morality of these war mongers. I still make the distinction of whether a missile is aimed directly at an apartment building full of civilians, or whether it is aimed at industrial or military targets that happen to have civilians in the area. IMO Putin ticks the box for the lowest form of life with his war strategy of sending missiles directly into cities. Netanyahu is also guilty, but at least there are military targets among the thousands of civilians killed. I listened to Hipkins speak this morning on how we should be taking the moral high ground, and should tell the US how disappointed we are in their behaviour. IMO they are hollow words from a hollow person. I might not have had the courage to make the decision to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran whether it be morally acceptable or not . But now its done I’m glad that at least one threat to world peace is gone even if it has been replaced by another.
If only our political elite, across the entire spectrum—possessed the historical depth, moral clarity, and geopolitical understanding needed to place the Israeli/Hamas/Palestinian conflict in its full context. Instead, I lament the shallow grasp of history and philosophy that underpins New Zealand’s current “two-state” balancing act or its default fence-sitting neutrality.
This is not a morally neutral conflict. Hamas has made its intentions chillingly clear, calling openly for the total annihilation of the Jewish state. In the face of such declared extremism, Israel’s struggle is not merely about territory; it is a fight for national survival.
That our leaders fail to take a principled stand in defence of Israel, the only democratic and pluralistic nation in the Middle East—reveals either a deep ignorance of history or a troubling unwillingness to uphold the values of liberal democracy when they matter most.
I commend Chris Trotter for his lucid and balanced article, which demonstrates what is so sorely lacking in our Beehive: the moral conviction to stand for what it truly means to be a Western democracy.
"the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is forced to inflict the maximum possible destruction, suffering, and death upon Gaza and its civilian population."
This is the most egregious thing you've written about this conflict and verges on the disgusting. The IDF – unlike her masts – has numerous options for responses but deliberately chose to kill thousands of civilians.
The moral environment of 80 years ago is hardly the same today. Let's see we have progressed morally or at least most of us have.
It's almost certain that the vast majority of Palestinians would be happy with a 2 state solution, rhetoric aside. Israel has made this impossible now. It shows a lack of foresight that is almost incomprehensible. Except to say that obviously Netanyahu wants to keep this thing going, because he is likely to be out of office and in jail once the state of emergency has ended. There are also supporters of his who want to expel all Palestinians to other countries and occupy the whole of Palestine themselves. This is perhaps some counterweight to your assertion that Palestinians want an end to the state of Israel.
I don't know what Hamas wanted from their attack, and I doubt you'd do either. Whatever it was I'm not at all sure they wanted the complete destruction of Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands of people. Having said that, Israel has now ensured a new generation of Hamas supporters, which they will have to live with. Unless of course they take the ethnic cleansing option.
"This is not a morally neutral conflict. "
It certainly isn't. The state of Israel was imposed upon the inhabitants of Palestine by colonial powers without consulting them. The Israelis began ethnic cleansing before the country was even established, and as I have said before, they never intended to agree to the partition plan from day one. The moral high ground might not be occupied by Hamas, but it certainly is by the Palestinian
people.
One thing I will agree with though, New Zealand's position is irrelevant and given that a 2 state solution is now impossible, reprehensible.
“At the end of October 2023, the two-state solution had the support of 71.9% of Israeli Arabs and 28.6% of Israeli Jews.[121] Prior to the October 7 attack, according to Gallup, just 24% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution, a drop from 59% in 2012.[122”
Your belief that Palestinians want a Two State Solution is not reflected in the figures GS. After the October attack how do you suppose Israel should have reacted considering Israel still hasn’t had their people, held by Hamas, released.
It is quite possible my figures were a little old, but the drop in support is almost certainly caused by the fact that Israel – by annexing more and more of the West Bank, and forcing Palestinians out of their homes – was making a 2 state solution impossible. But even now I suspect that if offered a 2 state solution, most would accept it, given the alternatives.
As of today as far as I know only 20% roughly of Israelis favourite 2 state solution as well. But I don't blame the Palestinians for this.
GS: "I don't know what Hamas wanted from their attack"
We're all trying to figure it out, GS. As Wayne says, there was no realistic chance of defeating Israel and the attacks were directed at civilians so there was little or no military objective. It just doesn't make any sense, unless you call this "sense": British Iranian Elica Le Bon on the motivations of the Iranian Islamists:
" the theory is that the final prophet emerges once justice and equality has been achieved in the world and the thing that achieves this justice is that the last drop of blood of Israel falls so the end of Israel brings back the final prophet"
One possibility is simply that they wanted to provoke a reaction from Israel, another is that they wanted hostages as some sort of bargaining chip to ease conditions in Gaza which was kept by Israel in a state of semi-starvation. Full starvation now I suspect. Israel's objectives in Gaza are less clear. Although their objectives in the West Bank are perfectly clear – annexation and expulsion.
I don't accept the logic of this article. That the only choices that Israel had was to do nothing or to carry out the war the way Netanyahu has, with over 50,000 killed with the majority being civilians. Neither is it a view shared by a substantial number of Israelis including former Prime Ministers.
Obviously Israel was always going to respond militarily, but they had choices in how they did so. The US negotiated a ceasefire which would have resulted in the release of hostages and an end to hostilities. Israel broke that.
So what Is Israel's objective now?
Presumably the complete removal of Hamas, and the likely confiscation of a large part of Gaza. This is to be achieved, irrespective of the suffering of the Gazaian population. Or perhaps that is the intent, with the population moving out because of the conditions. Certainly a large part of the Israel government wants that. They are being encouraged by President Trump. His future for Gaza specifically requires the removal of the Palestinians. This is the very definition of ethnic cleansing.
Historically Israel has not dealt with its enemies this way, including the Palestinians. From 1978 through to around 2000, Israel was inclined toward peace settlements. That period seems well and truly over. The fault is on both sides, specifically Hamas but also the current government of Israel, including a significant part of the Israel population. Instead maximalist positions are staked out and whoever has the most power, wins.
It is worth considering what Hamas thought they were doing in October 7, 2023. They must know they can't eliminate Israel, notwithstanding their rhetoric. Did they think their actions would result in negotiation after a relatively brief war?
If that was their intent, the level of atrocity and the numbers killed, precluded that outcome. Israel was always going to respond with massive force. Nevertheless there have been at least two off ramps to end the war, both involving negotiations sponsored by the United States. Israel has broken both agreements, presumably because the government can't accept any long term negotiation with Hamas. The result is the ongoing war, with the level of devastation we have seen. As I noted at the beginning ongoing war is not the only option.
It is a bit the same with the Israel Iran war. If the objective was the removal of Iran's nuclear potential, why is the bombing still going on?
It almost seems the Israel government wants a permanent state of war. That as soon as the state of war stops, then difficult questions will be asked within Israel that the government will not be able to ignore.
The problem here, Wayne, is the mindset most westerners bring to a problem like the Israel-Gaza War. Secular, liberal, humanitarian, educated western opinion finds it next-to-impossible to understand the deep irrationality of the belief systems fuelling such conflicts.
You entertain the possibility, Wayne, that the Hamas leadership launched the 7 October pogrom with rational expectations. But, unless those expectations embraced the actual outcome: massive Israeli retaliation provoking international outrage; they are most unlikely to have been rational.
Jew hatred is instilled in Palestinians from childhood. All that harms the "Zionist Enemy" is considered righteous. In such a context, and given the cultural introversion that inevitably accompanies extreme religious and nationalist beliefs, it is likely that the Palestinian people struggled to understand why the rest of the world did not celebrate 7 October - as they did.
For many years Israel tried to develop a modus vivendi with Hamas, and in the months leading up to 7 October Netanyahu's government believed it was making progress. When they discovered that the pogrom was being planned, even as Hamas's leaders were upping the level of co-operation with Israeli authorities, all thought of continuing to work with them was abandoned. To prevent another orgy of violence, Hamas would have to be destroyed.
A few months back, Israel, under tremendous pressure from the Biden Administration, agreed to a ceasefire and commenced a series of hostage exchanges. But, the spectacles organised by Hamas to accompany these exchanges were clearly intended to show the world a well-equipped, disciplined, and utterly undaunted military force. As such, they can only have reinforced Israel's original strategic judgement that anything short of total annihilation would be presented as a victory by Hamas. Further co-operation with Biden's plans was, therefore, considered to be not only fruitless, but also dangerously counter-productive.
The Israel that sought peace with the Palestinians in the 1990s no longer exists. The implacable hatred of the Palestinians killed it. So, of course ethnic cleansing is being pursued. Like the new Turkish government overseen by Mustapha Kemal in the 1920s, the Israeli government has decided that communities determined to destroy their neighbours can no longer be neighbours. In the case of the Turks, the neighbours driven out were the Greeks. In Israel it will be the Palestinians who are forced to leave.
And, lest you be shocked by this solution, Wayne, be aware that the British did something very similar to India in 1947, and the Allies did something exactly the same to the ethnic Germans of Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War. They, too, were driven from their homes and relocated across redrawn borders.
When wars begin there are often a great many secular, liberal, and humanitarian voices urging decency and restraint. When wars end, however, there is only the silence of exhaustion and relief.
Over the last few months I have considered the exchange of peoples that occurred in Europe after WW2. Mostly it was communities returning to their homelands, perhaps after a few generations as with the Volga Germans. The difference with the Palestinians is that they have been there for well over 1,000 years.
So far about 10% of the Gaza population have left, presumably they have relatives overseas. But what about the 2 million still left in Gaza and the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank.
That is too many people for Israel to remove forcibly. In any event where, and how do they go? Both Egypt and Jordan will prevent them crossing the border.
Perhaps Israel plans to make conditions so miserable that over coming decades more and more will leave. The miserable conditions, such as exist in Gaza today, if it is Israel's plan they continue, will seriously damage Israel. Perhaps Israel doesn't care, or at least the current government doesn't. I suggest that this is not a sustainable policy. A different Israeli government might see that such a policy will cause long term damage to the standing of Israel.
We seem to be moving into a lawless era, where might prevails and the law be dammed.
From the end of WW2 to the early part of the 21st century observance of international law was an accepted norm. Nations, often adversaries, entered into treaties and observed them. Even when war did break out, the parties justified their actions under law, although not always justifiably. But at least they understood the requirement.
The major step change was the invasion of Ukraine. Power is what counted (though in many ways Russia has failed in its war aims). Nevertheless the precedent was set. Israel has conducted its war against Hamas with relentless ferocity (yes I know Israel has a right to defend itself). They initiated the war against Iran, joined by the US. At no stage did anyone seek to justify their actions under law. The current US administration has a callous disregard for law both domestically and internationally.
Rory Stewart, on his podcast, said we are now in a lawless era where the UN is irrelevant. Even if this is an overstatement, he is right in that we seem to be in a new era.
We will rue the day when the major powers felt they can act with little restraint. There is likely to be more conflict, not less. Emerging powers will test the resolve of the strong or seek to displace them. We will all be the poorer for this unless there is a return the a more ordered world.
Obviously Russia, China and Iran have no respect for International law unless it suits them as a weapon in itself. But what of the rest of us?
For laws to be respected they must be applied even handedly and vigorously enforced. There's no doubt that is not what has happened. In the Middle East, for example, the UN, charged with curtailing Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and overseeing Gaza (UNRWA), have proved to be worse than useless; not only turning a blind eye to, but actively participating in, terrorist activity and infrastructure. Is it any wonder that faith in the rules based international order has collapsed. Justice must not only be done but seen to be done.
Sir Niall Ferguson:
"The liberal world order was never particularly liberal, nor was it particularly orderly. What it was, in fact, was a security guarantee provided by the United States during the Cold War to contain the threat posed by the Soviet Union. And it was only as international as far as the U.S. protective shield extended. On the edges of that shield, in South Vietnam or Nicaragua, for example, there was anything but order. We should forget the fairy tale of the liberal world order and turn instead to the reality of the second Cold War in which we live."
I consider you have deliberately misinterpreted my comment. It is not a one sided approach. That it is only our "enemies" who are lawless, but that our partners are law abiding.
While Russia is obviously the main offender against international law, I don't think you can seriously argue that China is anything like a lawless state. By and large China observes international law, the main exception being the South China Sea bases. China provides a different challenge to the international order, one that is derived from its hugely increased economic power. Hence the suite of international agreements, including the one with the Cook Islands, which clearly challenges our status with the Cook islands.
My comment is that "our side" is joining in the idea that power supersedes law. For example, the United States, in its imposition of comprehensive tariffs, despite the free trade agreements that it has. And most obviously, the recent United States and Israeli attack on Iran. Which was done without even the pretence of recourse to law. It was simply the exercise of power. Which may not have succeeded in any event in respect to the destruction of Iran's potential.
It was this action, without regard to the law, that caused Rory Stewart to make his observation. We will rue the day when power became the main determinant without any recourse to the law.
I should note that I used to teach international law at university and that my PhD is international law, notably the Iran United States Claims Tribunal, negotiated by the Carter administration. So, yes to me adherence to international law matters, especially for smaller states like New Zealand. When states start to routinely act outside the law, then we live in an anarchic world, where the main determinant is power. A very different conception to the world that was envisaged after WW2 and the establishment of the UN.
There is no easy solution. Your analysis focusses on the emnity between Palestinians and Israel. What tends to be ignored is that Palestinians are broadly not welcome anywhere in the Middle East. They may get some financial support but definitely no refuge. This leaves both Israel and the Palestinians nowhere else to go and seem unable to reach a two state compromise our armchair expert politicians advocate.
It is to be hoped that use of tactical nuclear weapns is not seen as a means breaking the impasse. Hence the apparently surgical US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Not sure there would be a surgical response if Israel really felt thereatened.
"It is worth considering what Hamas thought they were doing in October 7, 2023"
Indeed! It really is key to the whole thing.
In the absence of an explanation that makes any sense it's not unreasonable to assume that what has unfolded is the intention - including the suffering of the Gazan people as Chris has pointed out.
Or perhaps there's no sense to be found, that the whole of that endeavour, and that of the Iranian Islamists, is grounded in an ideology that is insane.
Hamas gained power in Gaza by posing as a moderate force. It was used by Netanyahu as a counterweight to other Palestinian factions. And now it's come back to bite him in the arse.
This comment is not really about the topic, though it is spurred by it.
What I found surprising about Chris' article is his more or less complete acceptance of Netanyahu's approach, though on occasion he has said the Israel has committed war crimes in the way it has prosecuted the war.
Similarly the level of rejection of New Zealand being a bicultural nation. However, I suspect Chris was quite comfortable with the iteration of the Maori Party led by Tariana Turia and Peter Sharples, both of whom deservedly received high Royal Honours.
Chris has often alluded to his activist days in New Labour, lead by Jim Anderton, who was a very traditional New Zealander. Both Jim and our host are a world away from the new inheritors of the left, especially as represented by Chloe Swarbrick and Marama Davidsion. Chloe, in particular, gives every impression that her economic vision has not evolved in the least from her university days.
So if the modern left has zero appeal to our host, who is now he philosophically closest to?
I would suggest Winston Peters and NZ First, with Winston's identity of old fashioned New Zealand nationalism. Winston is navigating his way as Foreign Minister with great skill, maintaining a certain level of independence while shoring up traditional and newer relationships. I imagine that our host may have some difficulty in Winston's ready acceptance of modern capitalism, but he would surely accept that NZ First has limited ability to influence their coalition partners in that regard. Nevertheless, Winston has had successes with the rail enabled ferries, the growth fund and support for traditional extractive industry. A pity Winston has not got the northland rail route back into service!
I've been trying to get my head around this for some time now. I think you've summed it up pretty well. The only thing I might just take issue with is your characterisation of the present left as a bad thing.
I've always thought that Peters was a reasonably good Foreign Minister, and a pretty good Minister of Maori affairs until he became too Maori for the National party.However, he is pretty unscrupulous In his methods of attaining the reins of power – See his embrace of the anti-vax people. But then Chris lets them run riot on his blog site.
He is however, very old. Still that could be a thing, Chris might be angling for leadership of New Zealand first? 😇
The lack of balance in Chris's columns has distressed me because I remember what he was like back in the day. Israelis murder Palestinians in the West Bank every day, Gaza basically destroyed – similar to Berlin which he seemed to think was a war crime, the execution style shooting of paramedics, where was the outrage?
I don't know many New Zealand first voters, but the ones I do seem to think very like Chris on the question of Palestine. So he'd fit in quite well I think.😇
The author of this article references Kemal Ataturk in a reply. What was he? A revolutionary? A conservative? A dictator? A man of wisdom? Yes to all. He was lucky to survive the brutal dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, and his civilization owes him a great deal still.
Contrast him to Enver Pasha, better than any at seizing power but who had thousands of Turkish troops march into the mountains against the Russians, without winter gear and some without boots. Where they died before they met any Russians. Only one of his many blunders and excesses. There is nothing remorseless or logical about war, just as there is no Left/Right, Patrician/Plebian explain-all corset.
Just sometimes, emerges a man ( or a woman such as Golda Meir) like Ataturk who can sift a little wisdom and sl less suffering from all the pointless death and suffering. If a country is v v lucky after a lot of very bad.
“The logic of war is pitiless and relentless”, the authors first words. With clear reasoning why. True.
Was my first reply, to Gordon Clifton, wrong?
In Hawaii, for some damn reason, a brother had his and my children stop at a photogenic spot and line up for a picture. On the edge of a cliff. My nieces and nephews and children remember with bemusement the roaring and fury from such a mild uncle and father, normally.
Gravity and Oops are also remorseless and unpitying.
They laughed.
Professional bodies and political parties lining up the children ( as are we all) with repellent hateful ideologies, bureaucratized ‘assisted dying’, and lies, deserve your fury and sternest action, and in time.
Many died under the command of Mustapha Kemal. He wasn’t a saint. But he was not a fool, in league with Death and Stupidity. Thats as good as it gets, and rarely. Written years later after many tears. By those who survive.
“You’ll be sorry” is prob not going to do any good responding to the Death and Stupidity brigade.
"Israel and Iran have agreed a “complete and total” ceasefire, Donald Trump has announced.
The US president, speaking just hours after Iran attempted to attack a US air base in Qatar, praised both countries on “having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence” to end the war.
“CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE!” Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
“It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!).”
He continued: “During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, “THE 12 DAY WAR.”
Given that this was an unprovoked attack by Israel right in the middle of negotiations about the very thing they are worried about, I think that the Iranians have reacted with a certain restraint. I would like to thank them for warning the Americans that they were going to attack their base in Doha, Thereby avoiding tit-for-tat retaliation that could go on for a long time, and Donald Trump for letting slip that the Americans were going to attack Iranians nuclear sites, thereby giving them a chance to get their nuclear weapons away. Nuclear weapons which have about as much believability as Bush's weapons of mass destruction.
It is a very rare thing to hear a political commentator from the Left who understands and admits publicly that the current round of conflict was forced by Hamas, and that the Israeli response was not only the inevitable result of the spree of ethnic violence, rape and kidnapping, but exactly the intended purpose of this violence and hostage taking. Hamas wanted this result. It's not a strategy that makes much sense to anyone who is not a radical Islamist, but it achieved the desired response. The only attempted genocide was from Hamas, although no doubt some of the Extremist Jewish leaders would be happy to implement one too.
Thanks Chris, you're a rare relic from the days when Leftist politics still made some sense for social cohesion and was not entirely focused on separating people on identity grounds.
The human race is a warring species. It has always been that way but strangely only a very small number of humans promote it. The rest are happy to live together and get on with their lives.The other small group of people live by their beliefs and to make those beliefs a reality use power and influence. They make their way to the top of the pile and once in control initiate their agendas to accomplish their own righteous view of the world while the rest of us bobble around in their wake, and sometimes loose our lives because of it. Isolated countries like our own seem to to have more passive leaders but if NewZealand was situated near Gaza or the Ukraine or Iran would we be so passive. I doubt it.
There are differences in the morality of these war mongers. I still make the distinction of whether a missile is aimed directly at an apartment building full of civilians, or whether it is aimed at industrial or military targets that happen to have civilians in the area. IMO Putin ticks the box for the lowest form of life with his war strategy of sending missiles directly into cities. Netanyahu is also guilty, but at least there are military targets among the thousands of civilians killed. I listened to Hipkins speak this morning on how we should be taking the moral high ground, and should tell the US how disappointed we are in their behaviour. IMO they are hollow words from a hollow person. I might not have had the courage to make the decision to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran whether it be morally acceptable or not . But now its done I’m glad that at least one threat to world peace is gone even if it has been replaced by another.
Thanks for the thought provoking essay Chris.
If only our political elite, across the entire spectrum—possessed the historical depth, moral clarity, and geopolitical understanding needed to place the Israeli/Hamas/Palestinian conflict in its full context. Instead, I lament the shallow grasp of history and philosophy that underpins New Zealand’s current “two-state” balancing act or its default fence-sitting neutrality.
This is not a morally neutral conflict. Hamas has made its intentions chillingly clear, calling openly for the total annihilation of the Jewish state. In the face of such declared extremism, Israel’s struggle is not merely about territory; it is a fight for national survival.
That our leaders fail to take a principled stand in defence of Israel, the only democratic and pluralistic nation in the Middle East—reveals either a deep ignorance of history or a troubling unwillingness to uphold the values of liberal democracy when they matter most.
I commend Chris Trotter for his lucid and balanced article, which demonstrates what is so sorely lacking in our Beehive: the moral conviction to stand for what it truly means to be a Western democracy.
"the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is forced to inflict the maximum possible destruction, suffering, and death upon Gaza and its civilian population."
This is the most egregious thing you've written about this conflict and verges on the disgusting. The IDF – unlike her masts – has numerous options for responses but deliberately chose to kill thousands of civilians.
The moral environment of 80 years ago is hardly the same today. Let's see we have progressed morally or at least most of us have.
It's almost certain that the vast majority of Palestinians would be happy with a 2 state solution, rhetoric aside. Israel has made this impossible now. It shows a lack of foresight that is almost incomprehensible. Except to say that obviously Netanyahu wants to keep this thing going, because he is likely to be out of office and in jail once the state of emergency has ended. There are also supporters of his who want to expel all Palestinians to other countries and occupy the whole of Palestine themselves. This is perhaps some counterweight to your assertion that Palestinians want an end to the state of Israel.
I don't know what Hamas wanted from their attack, and I doubt you'd do either. Whatever it was I'm not at all sure they wanted the complete destruction of Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands of people. Having said that, Israel has now ensured a new generation of Hamas supporters, which they will have to live with. Unless of course they take the ethnic cleansing option.
"This is not a morally neutral conflict. "
It certainly isn't. The state of Israel was imposed upon the inhabitants of Palestine by colonial powers without consulting them. The Israelis began ethnic cleansing before the country was even established, and as I have said before, they never intended to agree to the partition plan from day one. The moral high ground might not be occupied by Hamas, but it certainly is by the Palestinian
people.
One thing I will agree with though, New Zealand's position is irrelevant and given that a 2 state solution is now impossible, reprehensible.
“At the end of October 2023, the two-state solution had the support of 71.9% of Israeli Arabs and 28.6% of Israeli Jews.[121] Prior to the October 7 attack, according to Gallup, just 24% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution, a drop from 59% in 2012.[122”
Your belief that Palestinians want a Two State Solution is not reflected in the figures GS. After the October attack how do you suppose Israel should have reacted considering Israel still hasn’t had their people, held by Hamas, released.
It is quite possible my figures were a little old, but the drop in support is almost certainly caused by the fact that Israel – by annexing more and more of the West Bank, and forcing Palestinians out of their homes – was making a 2 state solution impossible. But even now I suspect that if offered a 2 state solution, most would accept it, given the alternatives.
As of today as far as I know only 20% roughly of Israelis favourite 2 state solution as well. But I don't blame the Palestinians for this.
GS: "I don't know what Hamas wanted from their attack"
We're all trying to figure it out, GS. As Wayne says, there was no realistic chance of defeating Israel and the attacks were directed at civilians so there was little or no military objective. It just doesn't make any sense, unless you call this "sense": British Iranian Elica Le Bon on the motivations of the Iranian Islamists:
" the theory is that the final prophet emerges once justice and equality has been achieved in the world and the thing that achieves this justice is that the last drop of blood of Israel falls so the end of Israel brings back the final prophet"
Elica on Triggernometry, 10 minute clip. https://youtu.be/JjBV_WxY4gY
One possibility is simply that they wanted to provoke a reaction from Israel, another is that they wanted hostages as some sort of bargaining chip to ease conditions in Gaza which was kept by Israel in a state of semi-starvation. Full starvation now I suspect. Israel's objectives in Gaza are less clear. Although their objectives in the West Bank are perfectly clear – annexation and expulsion.
I don't accept the logic of this article. That the only choices that Israel had was to do nothing or to carry out the war the way Netanyahu has, with over 50,000 killed with the majority being civilians. Neither is it a view shared by a substantial number of Israelis including former Prime Ministers.
Obviously Israel was always going to respond militarily, but they had choices in how they did so. The US negotiated a ceasefire which would have resulted in the release of hostages and an end to hostilities. Israel broke that.
So what Is Israel's objective now?
Presumably the complete removal of Hamas, and the likely confiscation of a large part of Gaza. This is to be achieved, irrespective of the suffering of the Gazaian population. Or perhaps that is the intent, with the population moving out because of the conditions. Certainly a large part of the Israel government wants that. They are being encouraged by President Trump. His future for Gaza specifically requires the removal of the Palestinians. This is the very definition of ethnic cleansing.
Historically Israel has not dealt with its enemies this way, including the Palestinians. From 1978 through to around 2000, Israel was inclined toward peace settlements. That period seems well and truly over. The fault is on both sides, specifically Hamas but also the current government of Israel, including a significant part of the Israel population. Instead maximalist positions are staked out and whoever has the most power, wins.
It is worth considering what Hamas thought they were doing in October 7, 2023. They must know they can't eliminate Israel, notwithstanding their rhetoric. Did they think their actions would result in negotiation after a relatively brief war?
If that was their intent, the level of atrocity and the numbers killed, precluded that outcome. Israel was always going to respond with massive force. Nevertheless there have been at least two off ramps to end the war, both involving negotiations sponsored by the United States. Israel has broken both agreements, presumably because the government can't accept any long term negotiation with Hamas. The result is the ongoing war, with the level of devastation we have seen. As I noted at the beginning ongoing war is not the only option.
It is a bit the same with the Israel Iran war. If the objective was the removal of Iran's nuclear potential, why is the bombing still going on?
It almost seems the Israel government wants a permanent state of war. That as soon as the state of war stops, then difficult questions will be asked within Israel that the government will not be able to ignore.
The problem here, Wayne, is the mindset most westerners bring to a problem like the Israel-Gaza War. Secular, liberal, humanitarian, educated western opinion finds it next-to-impossible to understand the deep irrationality of the belief systems fuelling such conflicts.
You entertain the possibility, Wayne, that the Hamas leadership launched the 7 October pogrom with rational expectations. But, unless those expectations embraced the actual outcome: massive Israeli retaliation provoking international outrage; they are most unlikely to have been rational.
Jew hatred is instilled in Palestinians from childhood. All that harms the "Zionist Enemy" is considered righteous. In such a context, and given the cultural introversion that inevitably accompanies extreme religious and nationalist beliefs, it is likely that the Palestinian people struggled to understand why the rest of the world did not celebrate 7 October - as they did.
For many years Israel tried to develop a modus vivendi with Hamas, and in the months leading up to 7 October Netanyahu's government believed it was making progress. When they discovered that the pogrom was being planned, even as Hamas's leaders were upping the level of co-operation with Israeli authorities, all thought of continuing to work with them was abandoned. To prevent another orgy of violence, Hamas would have to be destroyed.
A few months back, Israel, under tremendous pressure from the Biden Administration, agreed to a ceasefire and commenced a series of hostage exchanges. But, the spectacles organised by Hamas to accompany these exchanges were clearly intended to show the world a well-equipped, disciplined, and utterly undaunted military force. As such, they can only have reinforced Israel's original strategic judgement that anything short of total annihilation would be presented as a victory by Hamas. Further co-operation with Biden's plans was, therefore, considered to be not only fruitless, but also dangerously counter-productive.
The Israel that sought peace with the Palestinians in the 1990s no longer exists. The implacable hatred of the Palestinians killed it. So, of course ethnic cleansing is being pursued. Like the new Turkish government overseen by Mustapha Kemal in the 1920s, the Israeli government has decided that communities determined to destroy their neighbours can no longer be neighbours. In the case of the Turks, the neighbours driven out were the Greeks. In Israel it will be the Palestinians who are forced to leave.
And, lest you be shocked by this solution, Wayne, be aware that the British did something very similar to India in 1947, and the Allies did something exactly the same to the ethnic Germans of Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War. They, too, were driven from their homes and relocated across redrawn borders.
When wars begin there are often a great many secular, liberal, and humanitarian voices urging decency and restraint. When wars end, however, there is only the silence of exhaustion and relief.
Over the last few months I have considered the exchange of peoples that occurred in Europe after WW2. Mostly it was communities returning to their homelands, perhaps after a few generations as with the Volga Germans. The difference with the Palestinians is that they have been there for well over 1,000 years.
So far about 10% of the Gaza population have left, presumably they have relatives overseas. But what about the 2 million still left in Gaza and the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank.
That is too many people for Israel to remove forcibly. In any event where, and how do they go? Both Egypt and Jordan will prevent them crossing the border.
Perhaps Israel plans to make conditions so miserable that over coming decades more and more will leave. The miserable conditions, such as exist in Gaza today, if it is Israel's plan they continue, will seriously damage Israel. Perhaps Israel doesn't care, or at least the current government doesn't. I suggest that this is not a sustainable policy. A different Israeli government might see that such a policy will cause long term damage to the standing of Israel.
Just to add.
We seem to be moving into a lawless era, where might prevails and the law be dammed.
From the end of WW2 to the early part of the 21st century observance of international law was an accepted norm. Nations, often adversaries, entered into treaties and observed them. Even when war did break out, the parties justified their actions under law, although not always justifiably. But at least they understood the requirement.
The major step change was the invasion of Ukraine. Power is what counted (though in many ways Russia has failed in its war aims). Nevertheless the precedent was set. Israel has conducted its war against Hamas with relentless ferocity (yes I know Israel has a right to defend itself). They initiated the war against Iran, joined by the US. At no stage did anyone seek to justify their actions under law. The current US administration has a callous disregard for law both domestically and internationally.
Rory Stewart, on his podcast, said we are now in a lawless era where the UN is irrelevant. Even if this is an overstatement, he is right in that we seem to be in a new era.
We will rue the day when the major powers felt they can act with little restraint. There is likely to be more conflict, not less. Emerging powers will test the resolve of the strong or seek to displace them. We will all be the poorer for this unless there is a return the a more ordered world.
Wayne: "We seem to be moving into a lawless era"
Obviously Russia, China and Iran have no respect for International law unless it suits them as a weapon in itself. But what of the rest of us?
For laws to be respected they must be applied even handedly and vigorously enforced. There's no doubt that is not what has happened. In the Middle East, for example, the UN, charged with curtailing Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and overseeing Gaza (UNRWA), have proved to be worse than useless; not only turning a blind eye to, but actively participating in, terrorist activity and infrastructure. Is it any wonder that faith in the rules based international order has collapsed. Justice must not only be done but seen to be done.
Sir Niall Ferguson:
"The liberal world order was never particularly liberal, nor was it particularly orderly. What it was, in fact, was a security guarantee provided by the United States during the Cold War to contain the threat posed by the Soviet Union. And it was only as international as far as the U.S. protective shield extended. On the edges of that shield, in South Vietnam or Nicaragua, for example, there was anything but order. We should forget the fairy tale of the liberal world order and turn instead to the reality of the second Cold War in which we live."
David,
I consider you have deliberately misinterpreted my comment. It is not a one sided approach. That it is only our "enemies" who are lawless, but that our partners are law abiding.
While Russia is obviously the main offender against international law, I don't think you can seriously argue that China is anything like a lawless state. By and large China observes international law, the main exception being the South China Sea bases. China provides a different challenge to the international order, one that is derived from its hugely increased economic power. Hence the suite of international agreements, including the one with the Cook Islands, which clearly challenges our status with the Cook islands.
My comment is that "our side" is joining in the idea that power supersedes law. For example, the United States, in its imposition of comprehensive tariffs, despite the free trade agreements that it has. And most obviously, the recent United States and Israeli attack on Iran. Which was done without even the pretence of recourse to law. It was simply the exercise of power. Which may not have succeeded in any event in respect to the destruction of Iran's potential.
It was this action, without regard to the law, that caused Rory Stewart to make his observation. We will rue the day when power became the main determinant without any recourse to the law.
I should note that I used to teach international law at university and that my PhD is international law, notably the Iran United States Claims Tribunal, negotiated by the Carter administration. So, yes to me adherence to international law matters, especially for smaller states like New Zealand. When states start to routinely act outside the law, then we live in an anarchic world, where the main determinant is power. A very different conception to the world that was envisaged after WW2 and the establishment of the UN.
There is no easy solution. Your analysis focusses on the emnity between Palestinians and Israel. What tends to be ignored is that Palestinians are broadly not welcome anywhere in the Middle East. They may get some financial support but definitely no refuge. This leaves both Israel and the Palestinians nowhere else to go and seem unable to reach a two state compromise our armchair expert politicians advocate.
It is to be hoped that use of tactical nuclear weapns is not seen as a means breaking the impasse. Hence the apparently surgical US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Not sure there would be a surgical response if Israel really felt thereatened.
"It is worth considering what Hamas thought they were doing in October 7, 2023"
Indeed! It really is key to the whole thing.
In the absence of an explanation that makes any sense it's not unreasonable to assume that what has unfolded is the intention - including the suffering of the Gazan people as Chris has pointed out.
Or perhaps there's no sense to be found, that the whole of that endeavour, and that of the Iranian Islamists, is grounded in an ideology that is insane.
Hamas gained power in Gaza by posing as a moderate force. It was used by Netanyahu as a counterweight to other Palestinian factions. And now it's come back to bite him in the arse.
This comment is not really about the topic, though it is spurred by it.
What I found surprising about Chris' article is his more or less complete acceptance of Netanyahu's approach, though on occasion he has said the Israel has committed war crimes in the way it has prosecuted the war.
Similarly the level of rejection of New Zealand being a bicultural nation. However, I suspect Chris was quite comfortable with the iteration of the Maori Party led by Tariana Turia and Peter Sharples, both of whom deservedly received high Royal Honours.
Chris has often alluded to his activist days in New Labour, lead by Jim Anderton, who was a very traditional New Zealander. Both Jim and our host are a world away from the new inheritors of the left, especially as represented by Chloe Swarbrick and Marama Davidsion. Chloe, in particular, gives every impression that her economic vision has not evolved in the least from her university days.
So if the modern left has zero appeal to our host, who is now he philosophically closest to?
I would suggest Winston Peters and NZ First, with Winston's identity of old fashioned New Zealand nationalism. Winston is navigating his way as Foreign Minister with great skill, maintaining a certain level of independence while shoring up traditional and newer relationships. I imagine that our host may have some difficulty in Winston's ready acceptance of modern capitalism, but he would surely accept that NZ First has limited ability to influence their coalition partners in that regard. Nevertheless, Winston has had successes with the rail enabled ferries, the growth fund and support for traditional extractive industry. A pity Winston has not got the northland rail route back into service!
I've been trying to get my head around this for some time now. I think you've summed it up pretty well. The only thing I might just take issue with is your characterisation of the present left as a bad thing.
I've always thought that Peters was a reasonably good Foreign Minister, and a pretty good Minister of Maori affairs until he became too Maori for the National party.However, he is pretty unscrupulous In his methods of attaining the reins of power – See his embrace of the anti-vax people. But then Chris lets them run riot on his blog site.
He is however, very old. Still that could be a thing, Chris might be angling for leadership of New Zealand first? 😇
The lack of balance in Chris's columns has distressed me because I remember what he was like back in the day. Israelis murder Palestinians in the West Bank every day, Gaza basically destroyed – similar to Berlin which he seemed to think was a war crime, the execution style shooting of paramedics, where was the outrage?
I don't know many New Zealand first voters, but the ones I do seem to think very like Chris on the question of Palestine. So he'd fit in quite well I think.😇
The Israelis have been waging a proxy war for 30+ years. Now they're fighting the puppet master
Hopefully if they win the war will stop, if they lose Israel will stop
Thank you Chris for your objective recount of historic truths about WWII. Those are rarely mentioned (should I say admitted?) by commentators.
You mention the British blockade of WW1 that extended till June 1919.
A survey of younger Nazi party members in the 1930s noted the one experience they all had in common was hunger as a consequence of the blockade.
The relentless and remorseless logic of war has its consequences as does the relentless and remorseless logic of occupation and its reaction to it.
The author of this article references Kemal Ataturk in a reply. What was he? A revolutionary? A conservative? A dictator? A man of wisdom? Yes to all. He was lucky to survive the brutal dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, and his civilization owes him a great deal still.
Contrast him to Enver Pasha, better than any at seizing power but who had thousands of Turkish troops march into the mountains against the Russians, without winter gear and some without boots. Where they died before they met any Russians. Only one of his many blunders and excesses. There is nothing remorseless or logical about war, just as there is no Left/Right, Patrician/Plebian explain-all corset.
Just sometimes, emerges a man ( or a woman such as Golda Meir) like Ataturk who can sift a little wisdom and sl less suffering from all the pointless death and suffering. If a country is v v lucky after a lot of very bad.
Wisdom is very rare and super expensive.
I hope we don’t need much.
“The logic of war is pitiless and relentless”, the authors first words. With clear reasoning why. True.
Was my first reply, to Gordon Clifton, wrong?
In Hawaii, for some damn reason, a brother had his and my children stop at a photogenic spot and line up for a picture. On the edge of a cliff. My nieces and nephews and children remember with bemusement the roaring and fury from such a mild uncle and father, normally.
Gravity and Oops are also remorseless and unpitying.
They laughed.
Professional bodies and political parties lining up the children ( as are we all) with repellent hateful ideologies, bureaucratized ‘assisted dying’, and lies, deserve your fury and sternest action, and in time.
Many died under the command of Mustapha Kemal. He wasn’t a saint. But he was not a fool, in league with Death and Stupidity. Thats as good as it gets, and rarely. Written years later after many tears. By those who survive.
“You’ll be sorry” is prob not going to do any good responding to the Death and Stupidity brigade.
Breaking News:
"Israel and Iran have agreed a “complete and total” ceasefire, Donald Trump has announced.
The US president, speaking just hours after Iran attempted to attack a US air base in Qatar, praised both countries on “having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence” to end the war.
“CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE!” Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
“It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!).”
He continued: “During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, “THE 12 DAY WAR.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/06/23/iran-israel-us-strikes-latest-news-nuclear-sites-trump/
Given that this was an unprovoked attack by Israel right in the middle of negotiations about the very thing they are worried about, I think that the Iranians have reacted with a certain restraint. I would like to thank them for warning the Americans that they were going to attack their base in Doha, Thereby avoiding tit-for-tat retaliation that could go on for a long time, and Donald Trump for letting slip that the Americans were going to attack Iranians nuclear sites, thereby giving them a chance to get their nuclear weapons away. Nuclear weapons which have about as much believability as Bush's weapons of mass destruction.