Fran O'Sullivan: Clark misses her chance for a peaceable gesture

What is it about our Government that it cannot rouse itself to extend Ariel Sharon best wishes at a time when the Middle East is once again in turmoil?

Many, including I suspect some Labour Cabinet ministers, would mutter "good thing" that the Israeli "bulldozer" reign has basically come to an end.

They still smart over Israel's blatant disregard for this country's sovereignty when Sharon's intelligence apparatus sent a Mossad team to operate a passport factory here to provide false identities for use in external political assassinations.

Sharon's shameful treatment of former Foreign Minister Phil Goff - whom he refused to see after Goff met Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at his Ramallah compound in 2003 - still rankles.

These transgressions are real, but are viewed through the lens of a government that boasts that we live in a "benign environment". Israelis would argue that many governments don't have that luxury.

The brute reality is that the Government's sympathies have lain more with the plights of the Palestinians who were "walled off" from Israel by the Israeli Prime Minister, rather than the Israelis who lost their lives through suicide bombings.

Then there are the black spots in Sharon's earlier bloody record as a military commander - Israeli militia massacres at Sabra and Chatila - which resulted in his being forced from office after an official inquiry.

Sharon's collapse is not of the same immediate impact as the Boxing Day tsunami which brought a swift reality dose smack in the middle of New Zealand's annual holiday slumber last year. But the power vacuum which has emerged in the Middle East still has critical geo-strategic implications.

That is why world leaders - including United States President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan - are making their voices felt.

Not out of respect for Sharon, the ruthless military commander, but because of the courage this soldier-statesman showed by repudiating his previous decision to expand Israel's borders by encouraging Israeli settlers to move to Gaza and the West Bank, and instead embark upon a withdrawal - even though the decision to do that on a unilateral rather than a negotiated basis has been fraught.

Two days into this latest Israeli crisis and there had not been a squeak, officially or otherwise, from Prime Minister Helen Clark or her key ministers.

The silence raises issues. First, how serious is the Government about wanting to restore "friendly relations" with Israel?

Clark agreed to Israel accrediting Ambassador Naftali Tamir here as part of an official deal last June when the Sharon Government apologised for the "activities" of two of its citizens in the passport affair.

There was little attempt to reach a public understanding on the security issues which led to the breach in the first place. Israel has since said it will reopen its embassy in New Zealand - no small commitment given Israeli budget constraints - but so far there is no reciprocal commitment.

Put that to one side. In reality, Clark has missed a valuable opportunity to show herself in a statesmanlike manner by rising above past grievances and staking out New Zealand's wishes for Middle East peace. This was difficult territory while the Mossad affair was still hanging over her Cabinet. But that was then - this is now.

Second, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has been left high and dry - for the second time in a row - without a ready response to an Israel-related issue. He was slow off the mark in condemning comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust was a myth and calling for Europe or North America to host the Jewish state, rather than the Middle East.

Peters, unlike his predecessor, does not have any baggage where Israel is concerned. He learned Hebrew at university as an undergraduate and while in opposition as NZ First Leader visited Israel at the invitation of a former Israeli ambassador to New Zealand.

He has the right credentials to rebuild the relationship - but again an opportunity for leadership has been missed.

Third, and probably the important issue, is that the Government needs to decide where to factor Israel into its Middle East diplomatic strategy.

The fact that Clark was cheered on by the Palestinian militant group Hamas over the decision to reduce diplomatic relations with Israel after the two agents were convicted will not have damaged our agriculture trade prospects with Arab countries.

But Israel also has much to offer New Zealand, particularly if Clark is serious about her aim to transform this country further up the high-tech scale.

Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu - one of the prospective prime ministerial candidates in the March elections - modelled his economic reforms on Sir Roger Douglas' free-market model. He expressed considerable admiration for this country when I interviewed him in Tel Aviv at the height of the passports scandal.

Netanyahu resigned as Sharon's economic minister after the party was riven by Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank.

The Likud had been gutted by Sharon's own decision to decamp and form the rival Kadima, which Israeli polls indicated was poised to sweep to victory on the personality of the 77-year-old Prime Minister.

With Sharon gone the game has changed. But there are no signs that New Zealand is prepared to engage with Israel.