Editorial: Apology still required from Israel

COMMENT

The two Israeli intelligence agents who were spirited out of New Zealand yesterday should count themselves extremely lucky. The nature of their offending and the failure of Israel to tender an apology meant the veil of secrecy thrown over their departure was hardly merited. Indeed, it might have been more fitting - if not totally practical, given that the pair were deported - to have shown them the door of Mt Eden Prison and left them to their own devices. That would have been particularly appropriate for Uri Kelman, a man with apparently much to hide given the way he evaded photographers and placed a hand across his face throughout court proceedings in Auckland.

The question of deportation aside, the Government has acquitted itself well in handling the issues raised by the Israeli agents' attempt to fraudulently obtain a New Zealand passport. There would be obvious security implications if Israeli agents were able to travel the globe and undertake their shadowy activities in this manner. It was important, therefore, to demonstrate to Israel, and to other nations, that this country was prepared to defend the integrity of its passports. And to make it clear that this need would not become hostage to the exigencies of state espionage, even that involving a supposedly friendly country.

Now, even though Kelman and his fellow-agent, Eli Cara, have left New Zealand, the Government must maintain its demand for an apology from Israel. Their behaviour was, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, "utterly unacceptable". And until that apology is received, the Government must keep in place the diplomatic sanctions that were imposed after the sentencing of the pair to six months' jail.

The cancellation of scheduled foreign ministry consultations and the requirement for Israeli officials to apply for visas to visit New Zealand will hardly be creating tremors in Tel Aviv. Nor will the suspension of the appointment of an ambassador and the rolling out of the "not welcome" mat for the Israeli President. But together these strictures represent a measured and appropriate response by a small nation with limited weight to toss about.

Other sanctions could have been imposed - for example, restrictions on Israeli tourists or trade barriers. But this would have been excessive and misdirected, as ill-conceived, indeed, as Israel's attempt to wriggle off the hook by referring to New Zealand's voting record on Palestine at the United Nations, and of accusing the Government of anti-Jewish sentiment. Palestine is entirely unrelated to the passport issue and, in any event, New Zealand's record at the UN is much like that of most European nations.

The Israeli Government is responsible for the operations of Mossad, the intelligence organisation to which Kelman and Cara have been linked. For it, an apology would represent a loss of face, and offer an unwelcome peek into Mossad's stealthy dealings. But so obviously were the agents caught with their hands in the document drawer that nothing other than a formal apology is acceptable.

A previous Labour Government flunked its introduction to the world of international espionage by failing to maintain a strong line over the Rainbow Warrior saboteurs. After bowing to French pressure and agreeing that the bombers would serve their sentences on a Pacific atoll, it was left to rue its weakness. That embarrassment should fortify the present Government.

The ball is, as the Prime Minister suggests, now in Tel Aviv's court. It must offer New Zealand a full explanation, an apology, and a pledge that there will be no repetition of the passport incident. It must also put an end to the nonsensical appeal by Kelman and Cara. The two agents pleaded guilty, and received an appropriate sentence. Any grounds for appeal are spurious. All in all, the two Israelis have been treated as well as they could have expected, right down to their exit from New Zealand. The Israeli Government should acknowledge that, and apologise.