But that is precisely what seems to be happening in the current Israel-Hamas conflict. After a horrendous terror attack by Hamas on October 7 that killed more than 1400 Israeli citizens, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Tel Aviv quickly pledged a total war to eradicate Hamas in Gaza.
Since then, the Netanyahu government expanded an air, land and sea blockade — that had been in place since 2006 — to cut off food, electricity and water to Gaza; launched a relentless bombardment which has killed more than 7000 Palestinians; and begun a ground offensive in Gaza.
It goes without saying that during this period, many people in Israel and Gaza have endured almost unimaginable suffering, a trend only slightly relieved by the recent news Hamas had released four Israeli hostages and the first trickle of humanitarian aid was reaching Gaza via its border with Egypt.
However, the Netanyahu government’s war with Hamas raises troubling questions. Is it possible to destroy Hamas without killing thousands more Palestinians that had nothing to do with Hamas’ terror attacks? And if it is possible to destroy Hamas, will such an outcome make Israel more secure?
To be sure, there is no valid justification for the appalling terror attacks by Hamas, but such violence did not come out of a clear blue sky. The Palestinian desire for political self-determination in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem has been frustrated by more than 50 years of Israeli occupation.
Despite repeated warnings from US presidents that the steady expansion of Israeli settlements in areas such as the West Bank were not helpful to advancing the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such settlements proceeded apace.
Tough economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza compounded a palpable sense of desperation among Palestinians and contributed to a climate in which an extremist group, Hamas, has largely controlled Gaza since Israel withdrew from there in 2005.
The initial responses from major democratic actors like the US and EU to the Hamas attack seemed to emphasise unconditional support for Israel’s right to defend itself.
President Biden said: ‘‘Let me be crystal clear, the United States stands with Israel’’. Mr Biden indicated the US was prepared to provide whatever military assistance was required by the Netanyahu government and quickly sent weapons and navy carriers in support of Israel.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen initially prioritised Israel’s right to defend itself against an ‘‘act of terror’’ by Hamas that reflected what she called ‘‘ancient evil’’.
Meanwhile, the UNSC has once again been hamstrung by a global security challenge. Unable to reach a clear position on the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine last year, the Security Council is now struggling to agree on a resolution to end the Israel-Gaza conflict.
On October 18, the US vetoed a draft resolution which called for a humanitarian pause in besieged Gaza on the grounds it did not mention Israel’s right to self-defence and that American on-the-ground diplomacy needed more time.
For New Zealand and other liberal democracies that depend on an international rules-based order, the early expressions of apparently unqualified support from the US and EU for a Netanyahu government that pledged to reduce Gaza to rubble has been troubling.
These early responses did not include calls on Israel to abide by international law in its bombardment of Gaza, remained silent on Tel Aviv cutting off water, electricity and internet in the besieged and densely populated enclave and failed to reaffirm US and EU support for the idea of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
While the US and EU have noticeably shifted their public rhetoric recently as the massive humanitarian toll of Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza became evident, the diplomatic damage to Western leadership has already been considerable.
Authoritarian states like China and Russia, backed by many states in the developing world, have been able to make the diplomatic running in demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, while Iran’s repressive clerical regime and its militant ally, Hezbollah, have been given the chance to project themselves as defenders of Palestinians in the Middle East region in an Israel-Hamas conflict that could widen.
The New Zealand government has provided $5million in humanitarian aid to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank and Carolyn Schwalger, deputy permanent representative at the New Zealand Mission to the United Nations, called ‘‘for the immediate and unconditional release of all [Israeli] hostages’’, reaffirmed ‘‘Israel’s right to defend itself, in full compliance with international law, including in respect of actions taken in Gaza’’ and said ‘‘New Zealand remains committed to a two-state solution’’.
On October 27, New Zealand was the only member of the Five Eyes partnership to vote for a UN General Assembly resolution, backed by more 120 member states, calling for an ‘‘immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities’’ in Gaza.
While Ms Schwalger indicated after the vote the resolution was not perfect, New Zealand was not prepared, like most of its allies, to either oppose it or abstain.
New Zealand’s decision reflects the view that two wrongs do not make a right in international affairs. Both the terrorist attack of October 7 and Israel’s massive retaliatory bombardment of Gaza have involved clear breaches of humanitarian law and for New Zealand, strengthening the rule of law internationally is not advanced by being selective about such breaches.
As a country that emphasises an independent foreign policy, the incoming New Zealand government and like-minded states must be prepared to make it abundantly clear there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that there is now an urgent need for a reinvigorated two-state approach to reconcile Israel’s desire for security with the Palestinian’s quest for statehood.
■Robert G Patman is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Otago.
