Ofer Nordheimer Nur: Israel rebuke a potential risk to Kiwis

COMMENT

Helen Clark chose a vociferous public response to the Israeli Mossad agents scandal; that was her legitimate prerogative. But by calling the widest attention possible to the sorry and damaging passport abuse, she has not achieved her proclaimed goal of defending the integrity of New Zealand's passports and the protection of the well-being of New Zealanders travelling abroad.

Rather, she might have brought about the exact opposite.

Deplorable as it is, state espionage against friendly nations was not invented by the Mossad; neither is it likely to disappear any time soon. Most operations are never discovered, and if they are, they are likely to be dealt with discreetly.

Nobody should be so naive as to think that this is the first time New Zealand passports have been abused by any given secret service agency.

This shadowy, ugly business is insulting because it demonstrates utter disrespect to a state's laws and the well-being of its citizens. It calls into question how friendly a friendly nation really is, and puts its political leadership to a test of diplomatic wisdom.

Although it can be said that the diplomatic reprisals taken against Israel were measured and reasonable, Ms Clark failed that test by publicly reacting to the scandal.

Dealing with the incident behind the scenes would have been the right approach, unsatisfying as that might have been. The most obvious reason for this is that the exposure of the operation only amplified to the fullest extent possible a potential risk for New Zealanders travelling abroad.

There really is a war on terror going on, not only in the Northern Hemisphere. Perhaps this is why Australia, unlike New Zealand, has chosen to deal discreetly with the fact that one of the agents was operating for a considerable time out of Sydney.

Guarantees against such future operations are better obtained by firm yet discreet negotiation.

Both Israel and New Zealand are small nations which have to calculate their international affairs more carefully than larger, more powerful nations.

In the aftermath of the Rainbow Warrior affair in 1985, France added insult to injury by using its trade leverage to force New Zealand to effectively release French secret service agents and let them, literally, get away with murder.

Ms Clark has probably been advised that since Israel does not enjoy such leverage, it could be reprimanded with little risk to New Zealand. This is probably sound advice. However, using a less photogenic, discreet approach would have better served New Zealanders' personal well-being when they travel overseas.

Having chosen to react publicly to the affair, the Prime Minister should have made a more finely-tuned separation between the real culprit - the Government of Israel, which is the executive branch responsible for Mossad operations - and the people of Israel, who are not to be held responsible for the fiasco.

A large number of Israelis hold a deep affection for New Zealand, its history and its way of life. Many of them prefer New Zealand, remote as it is, as a vacation destination. Why poison a friendly atmosphere in a world full of hostility?

As far as the Israeli public are concerned, Ms Clark should have been advised that her reaction would be manipulated by the Israeli Government through the media for its own political purposes, by saying to the public something like: "Look, they are all against us anyway, the Arabs, the United Nations, and now even New Zealand ignores the threats to our very existence. We might as well defend ourselves, even at the cost of inconveniencing New Zealand passport-holders."

By her reaction, the Prime Minister only provided media ammunition to the Israeli Government.

She was right to impose visa restrictions on Israeli officials visiting in New Zealand, instead of all Israeli tourists. That was a smart symbolic gesture. Suspending the appointment of an ambassador until Israel apologised was also a judicious measure.

However, she was wrong to announce that the Israeli President was unwelcome in New Zealand until Israel apologised. The President of Israel is merely a ceremonial figure - criticism should have been focused more pointedly on the Israeli Government by announcing that any of its officials were unwelcome.

An old joke says that politics is too serious a matter to be left for politicians to handle. When it comes to international affairs, this saying ceases to be a joke. Diplomacy is a form of art that has seen better days, as politicians use the electronic media to interfere in sensitive international disputes.

By ham-handedly engaging in self-promotion, Ms Clark has in reality made it easier for the Israeli Government to hint to the Israeli public that in the name of the war on terror, clandestine operations in New Zealand are justified.

* Ofer Nordheimer Nur is a research fellow at the Centre for Jewish Studies at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris.