Our latest newsletter is out!

Our latest newsletter is out.

We’ve been having email deliverabilty issues to Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo and Xtra accountholders.

If you are affected, or you’d just like to read our newsletter, then you can download the newsletter from here.

Shalom.

Amb. Ran Yaakoby says farewell

In August, NZFOI held a farewell reception for Amb. Ran Yaakoby as he ends his extended tenure in New Zealand.

So much has happened on his watch.  Here’s the recording of the reception.

How October 7 impacted the NZ Holocaust Centre

Kris Clancy, Education Director for the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand.

Last week, Kris Clancy joined our Christchurch meeting to discuss the work of the Holocaust Centre, how he came to work for them, and how October 7 has significantly impacted the Centre’s work.

The recording of our meeting can be viewed here

 

Our latest newsletter is out!

Our latest newsletter is out.

We’ve been having email deliverabilty issues to Gmail, Hotmail and Xtra accountholders.

If you are affected, or you’d just like to read our newsletter, then you can download the newsletter from here.

Shalom.

Our latest newsletter is out

The September issue of our newsletter is out.

We’re continuing to have problems emailing our newsletter to Gmail, Hotmail and Xtra account holders.  If you are one of our members and you’re not receiving our newsletter, then you can download it from here.

ICJ did not say there was a plausible case for Genocide in Gaza — BBC Hardtalk

On April 25, 2024, Jane Donoghue, who was President of the International Court of Justice in January, when it was reported that the Court had found there was a plausible case for Israel to answer for alleged violation of the Genocide Convention, was interviewed on BBC Hardtalk.

In this Hardtalk interview, Donoghue walks back that common belief that it had decided there was a plausible case against Israel of committing genocide:

Q. Would it be fair to say and I’m no lawyer, and many people watching and listening will not be lawyers, but would it be fair to say that the key point that you made your initial order and ruling upon was whether or not there was a plausible case that should be taken on by the court of genocide in the case of Israel’s actions in Gaza after October 7th, and you quite clearly decided that there was a plausible case. Is it right to say that that was what you decided?

A. You know, I’m glad I have a chance to address that because the court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide, and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well, but it did not decide, and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media, it didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did, it did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected form genocide, but it — the shorthand that often appears which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide isn’t what the court decided.

Source: HonestReporting (@honestreporting) • Instagram photos and videos

Hope Presbyterian Panel Discussion on Israel – April 2024

Tonight we were part of a 90-minute discussion on what a Christian response to the Israeli-Gaza war should be.

The other panelists were fantastic and helped round out the coverage, they were:

  • Mark Ambundo, Pastor.
  • Roy Warren, an expert in protestant evangelical eschatology, who had covered the history of Israel over the previous two weeks from a Christian perspective.
  • Stephanie Gutschmidt, a member of Hope Presbyterian, and is fluent in many languages including Hebrew.
  • Tony Kan, President of NZ Friends of Israel.

We covered New Testament passages that conflict Christians like:

* Love your enemies
* Turn the other cheek
* Don’t reward evil with evil

We talked about the reliability of information provided by the Gaza Ministry of Health and how that is shaping the world’s perceptions of the war and how it is being conducted.

We covered how to talk to family, friends and loved ones about Israel-Gaza and the Middle East Conflict.

It’s clear that there was a lot for people to process and some of it will require people to let go of long-held “truths” planted by Hamas.

On the other hand, many came up to us and said they had learned a lot they didn’t know before.

Thanks to everyone’s support, prayers, and well-wishes. Special shout out to Paul and Gillian for recommending us to the Hope Presbyterian leadership.

The audio recording can be downloaded in a couple of days from here: https://www.hopechurch.net.nz/sermons

The slides that we showed and other resources can be downloaded from here: https://tinyurl.com/HopeCh24

Hag sameach!

The latest billboard campaign is launched: Let my people go!

The latest billboard campaign is up! It’s on the corner of Hagley Ave and Moorhouse Ave. Just along from the netball courts.

One of the busiest streets in Christchurch, plenty of eyeballs see this one!

Great location and getting lots of positive feedback.

Kol hakavod to Shalom New Zealand and all the donors! There are billboards in Auckland and Wellington too but ran out of funds for Hamilton.

If you want to get behind this, follow the instructions on our website (www.nzfoi.org) how to make a donation.

Don’t forget to email us your details to get a tax receipt if you’re in New Zealand.

Protesters Regret ‘From the River to the Sea’ Chant Upon Learning Meaning – Newsweek

A new survey found many potential protesters couldn’t explain the meaning behind the controversial phrase. UC Berkeley professor Ron Hassner hired a survey firm to poll 250 college students from across the country, and a majority, or roughly 86 percent, said they supported the phrase, a common protest chant to express support for Palestinians in the ongoing conflict against Israel.

Still, only 47 percent could name the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, which historically encompassed Palestine and today includes both Israel and Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

And even more surprising, once students learned more about the region, 67.8 percent of those surveyed no longer agreed with the sentiment.

Read more: Protesters Regret ‘From the River to the Sea’ Chant Upon Learning Meaning (newsweek.com)

Why Iran is the common link in conflicts from Gaza to Pakistan — NYT

By Cassandra Vinograd

Published Jan. 18, 2024

Updated Jan. 19, 2024, 9:33 a.m. ET

Israel and Gaza. Yemen and the Red Sea. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq — and now Pakistan, too.

At every flashpoint in a set of conflicts spanning 1,800 miles and involving a hodgepodge of unpredictable armed actors and interests, there’s been a common thread: Iran. Tehran has left its imprint with its behind-the-scenes backing of combatants in places like Lebanon and Yemen, and with this week’s direct missile strikes on targets in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan.

The Iran connection stems partly from Iran’s decades-long efforts to deter threats and undermine foes by building up like-minded militias across the Middle East.

In addition, Iran itself, like neighboring countries, faces armed separatist movements and terrorist groups in conflicts that readily spill over borders.

But what does Pakistan have to do with Gaza? Here’s a look at how Iran ties together recent tensions.

What’s the back story here?

Ever since the 1979 revolution that made Iran a Shiite Muslim theocracy, it has been isolated and has seen itself as besieged.

Iran considers the United States and Israel to be its biggest enemies — for more than four decades its leaders have vowed to destroy Israel. It also wants to establish itself as the most powerful nation in the Persian Gulf region, where its chief rival is Saudi Arabia, an American ally, and has often had hostile relations with the Saudis and some other predominantly Sunni Muslim Arab neighbors.

With few other allies, Iran has long armed, trained, financed, advised and even directed several movements that share Iran’s enemies. Though Iranian forces have been involved directly in wars in Syria and Iraq, Tehran has mostly fought its enemies abroad by proxy.

Iran, which calls itself and these militias the “Axis of Resistance” to American and Israeli power, sees it all as “part of a single struggle,” said Hasan Alhasan, a senior fellow for Middle East Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a policy analysis group.

Iranian leaders call their approach a forward defense strategy, saying that to defend itself, the country must take action outside its borders.

“If they are to avoid fighting the Americans and Israelis on Iran’s soil, they’ll have to do it elsewhere,” Mr. Alhasan said. “And that’s in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Afghanistan.”

How well the strategy works is open to question. Terrorist groups have attacked recently on Iranian soil. And for years Israel has carried out targeted attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, killing some of its key figures and destroying facilities.

Why does Iran outsource its conflicts?

While Iran wants to project its power and influence, it is reluctant to directly engage the United States or its allies, courting major retaliation or all-out war.

How secure Iran’s leaders feel in their grip on power is unclear. But they know that decades of sanctions and embargoes have degraded Iran’s military forces and its economy, and that their repressive government faces intense domestic opposition.

Iran has hoped to compensate for its vulnerabilities by raising the prospect that it could develop nuclear weapons — which would put it on par with Pakistan and Israel, and ahead of Saudi Arabia.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program has only peaceful purposes, and Tehran has carefully kept the uranium it produces just below the threshold for bomb-grade fuel, which is considered the red line that could trigger military action against its underground nuclear complexes.

Investing in proxy forces — fellow Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, and the Sunni Hamas in the Gaza Strip — allows Iran to cause trouble for its enemies, and to raise the prospect of causing more if attacked.

“Proxy forces have allowed Iran to maintain some level of plausible deniability, while asymmetrically supplying Tehran with a means to effectively strike Israel or apply pressure to it,” the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point wrote in a December report.

Iranian officials have publicly denied being involved in or ordering Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel that killed about 1,200 people. But they also praised the assault as a momentous achievement, and warned that their regional network would open multiple fronts against Israel if the country kept up its retaliatory war against Hamas in Gaza.

Some of those proxies have, in fact, stepped up attacks on Israel, but have avoided full-fledged warfare.

People waving yellow-and-green Hezbollah banners watch the group’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, deliver a speech on a giant video screen.

Who are these proxies for Iran?

Hezbollah in Lebanon, widely considered to be the most powerful and sophisticated of the Iran-allied forces, was founded in the 1980s with Iranian assistance, specifically to fight the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. The group, which is also a political party in Lebanon, has fought multiple wars and border skirmishes with Israel.

Hezbollah has been trading fire across the border with Israel’s military almost daily since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks, but it has thus far refrained from fully joining the fight.

The Houthi movement in Yemen launched an insurgency against the government two decades ago. What was once a ragtag rebel force gained power thanks at least in part to covert military aid from Iran, according to American and Middle Eastern officials and analysts.

The Houthis seized much of the country in 2014 and 2015, and a Saudi-led coalition stepped into the civil war on the side of the Yemeni government. A de facto cease-fire has held since 2022, with the Houthis still in control of Yemen’s northwest and its capital, Sana.

Since the war in Gaza began, the Houthis have waged what they call a campaign in solidarity with Palestinians under Israeli bombardment. They have launched missiles and drones at Israel, and have disrupted a significant part of the world’s shipping by attacking dozens of vessels heading to or from the Suez Canal.

That has transformed the Houthis into a force with a global impact, and prompted the United States and Britain, with help from allies, to carry out missile strikes on Houthi targets inside Yemen.

Hamas, in the Palestinian territories, has also received weapons and training from Iran, and has fought repeated wars with Israel.

Why did Iran strike directly, not through allies, in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan?

It has a lot to do with the government’s problems at home.

As tensions rise across the region, Tehran has increasingly become a target.

Last month, a separatist group attacked a police station in southeastern Iran, killing 11 people. Two senior Iranian commanders were assassinated in Syria, and Iran blamed Israel.

Then this month, suicide bombings in Kerman, Iran, killed almost 100 people — the deadliest terrorist attacks since the Islamic Republic was founded. The Islamic State claimed responsibility.

Iran analysts, and Iranians close to the military, say the government wanted to make a show of force with an eye to the hard-liners who make up its base of support, and were already incensed at Israeli attacks. Iran went on the offensive.

It said this week that it had fired missiles at the Islamic State in Syria, and at what it said was an Israeli base for intelligence gathering in northern Iraq. (The Iraqi government denied that the building struck was tied to Israel.) It also fired into Pakistan.

“Iran has signalled clearly that it is not willing to deploy those capabilities for anything less than the defence of their homeland,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, a policy group.

What does Pakistan have to do with this? It’s not even in the Middle East.

The separatist group Jaish al-Adl wants to create a homeland for the Baluch ethnic group out of parts of Iran and Pakistan, and it operates on both sides of the border. It also took responsibility for the deadly attack last month on an Iranian police station.

The two countries have accused each other of not doing enough to prevent militants from crossing the border.

Iran said its strikes in Pakistan targeted bases for Jaish al-Adl, but Pakistan pushed back against Iran’s reasoning, citing what it said were civilian casualties. On Thursday, Pakistan responded by bombing what it said were terrorist hide-outs inside Iran.

Pakistan and Iran have had mostly cordial relations, and the frictions between them have little to do with Iran’s other regional conflicts. But Iran’s decision to strike inside Pakistan has the potential to damage its relationship with Pakistan. At a time when the region is already on edge, a miscalculation could be especially dangerous.

Vivian Nereim, Salman Masood and Farnaz Fassihi contributed reporting.

A correction was made on Jan. 19, 2024: An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has raised the prospect that it could develop nuclear weapons, maintaining that its nuclear program has only peaceful purposes, but it has not developed them.

How we handle corrections

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 19, 2024, Section A, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: Why Iran Is the Common Link in a String of Conflicts, From Gaza to Pakistan. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe