New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, recently delivered to the United Nations, New Zealand’s official position on Palestine, which is not to recognise it at this stage.

Bravo, New Zealand. And bravo, Winston Peters, whose speech highlighted the many millions of people across the globe – mostly in Africa and the Middle East – in desperate need of humanitarian aid but whose plight has largely escaped the notice of both the UN and pigtailed doom-goblin and perennial attention seeker Greta Thunberg.

17 million in Syria, with a similarly large number displaced. Over 21 million Congolese. In Sudan, more than 30 million. In Myanmar, 22 million.

He notes:

‘New Zealanders were appalled by the barbarity of Hamas’ attack on Israeli citizens on October 7, 2023, the worst massacre in Israel’s history. Hamas have no place in any future Palestinian State.’

So far so good, except that the rubric ‘Hamas have no place in a Palestinian state’ echoes the glib vacuity of the Albanese/Wong response to any searching question as to how this new Palestinian state might actually come into existence.

As an aside, ‘there is no place for…’  now seems to have been added to the lexicon of handy go-to responses at the disposal of hapless politicians confronted by some ugly reality when they have no actual plans or ideas how to address whatever the issue is. For example, we know from repeated assurances by Albanese that ‘there is no place in Australia for anti-semitism’ and yet after nearly four years of his government anti-semitism abounds. How  about ‘there is no place for home invasions in this country.’ Right.

But I digress.

Peters’ address then strikes a discordant note:

‘Today, nearly two years on from the horror inflicted that day, including the continued holding of Israeli hostages by Hamas, we are shocked to our core by harrowing images of famine in Gaza. We are also revolted by what can only be described as a grossly disproportionate response from the Israeli government.’

Peters may have been shocked by images of famine in Gaza, but he should be quite well aware that these images are contrived.  That is what he should be shocked about.  There is no actual famine in Gaza, except where it has been caused by Hamas.

But what is really disturbing in the above passage is the reference to ‘a grossly disproportionate response from the Israeli government’. We hear this from many sources but not one of them, including Peters, has ever spelled out what a proportionate response by Israel would be. Kill 1,200 Palestinians civilians and capture 250 of them? Or maybe apply an interest premium and make it 2,400 and 500 respectively?

A proportionate response does not mean tit-for-tat. Certainly, it is punitive, but it is more than that. It means that an aggrieved party may go as far as is necessary, and hopefully no further, to deter an aggressor from persisting or escalating – to convince your adversary that they cannot prevail. The problem is, how do you know when your response is sufficient? Well one obvious way is if the aggressor persists in his behaviour.

And that is precisely what has happened, and is happening, in Gaza. Hamas has not been deterred and have demonstrated that every civilian in Gaza is expendable in the holy quest to wipe Israel off the map. As far as Hamas is concerned, Palestinians can all die happy martyrs.

In asymmetric warfare, which is what Hamas is engaged in, the aggressor employs pinprick tactics to wear down their target.  Hamas has been doing this for years – terrorist attacks and missile strikes, etc. – and Israel has always responded with the kind of proportionate response that Winston Peters would applaud. On 7 October 2023, they mounted an invasion. This was not intended to weaken the morale of Israelis. It was intended to provoke a full-scale war, and they got what they wanted. Israel is entitled to respond to the maximum extent.

Which brings me to the peace plan currently being mooted. Yossi Melman, writing in The Spectator, summarises it thus:

‘The release of 47 remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.

Israel will release from its jails a few thousand Palestinian terrorists.

A permanent ceasefire.

Gradual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Strip.

The Hamas government would be replaced by a Palestinian administration of technocrats, with some elements coming from the Palestinian Authority, which since 2007 has been present only in the West Bank.

A security and police force consisting of Palestinians operating together with troops from Arab and Muslim countries. Egypt and Jordan have already started to train such a force.

Rich Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, United Aran Emirates, Bahrain and a few others will allocate significant funds to run Gaza and to reconstruct the huge damage which the Israeli army has inflicted on its infrastructures.’

The key plank is in point five – the Hamas government would be replaced. That will not happen merely by pointing out that ‘there is no place for Hamas in the new Palestinian state’. In order for that to happen, Hamas will have to be defeated militarily.  A security and police force from wherever the hell will not get a foot in the door until then. And if Hamas will not lay down their arms to Israel, why would they do it for anyone else, particularly if they still have Iran at their back?

We’ll see how the Trump peace plan announced on Tuesday plays out.  Apparently it has been accepted by Israel and Arab nations.  As to Hamas it was reported they were reviewing the plan ‘in good faith’ – an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

I suspect that Israel will have to continue to do the dirty work that has been forced upon them by, amongst factors, the ineffectuality – indeed duplicity – of the UN for the best part of 80 years.