Gal Gadot’s favorite Jewish prayer | Aish

Gal Gadot, actress

In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Israeli superstar Gal Gadot radiates positivity. Interviewer Nancy Jo Sales describes how Gadot has the “happiest smile I think I’ve seen on anyone since the start of the pandemic. I wonder about that smile, and how Gadot manages to stay so happy. I wonder if it’s because she seems so aware of how lucky she is.”

Throughout the interview, Gadot describes herself as lucky. She’s lucky for her family, lucky for health, lucky she has the opportunity to play Wonder Woman on screen.

She is also very grateful to God for her good fortune. “In the Jewish culture there’s a prayer that you’re supposed to say every time you wake up in the morning to thank God for, you know, keeping you alive,” Gadot explains, referring to the Jewish prayer, Modeh Ani. “You say ‘modeh ani’, which means ‘I give thanks’… So every morning I wake up and step out of bed and I say ‘Thank you for everything, thank you, thank, you, thank you…Nothing is to be taken for granted.”

Read more

The Detail: The life and times of Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta | Stuff

Nanaia Mahuta, Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand

NZFOI: Naturally we are interested in the background of the new Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand.

Nanaia Mahuta’s appointment as the Foreign Minister in the new cabinet stunned even the political insiders but a closer look at her 24 years in parliament reveal her to be a person of depth and ambition with a record of quiet achievement.

Today, The Detail’s Sharon Brettkelly looks at the political career of Mahuta and how it was shaped by her early years spent with her father, Sir Robert Mahuta, the key negotiator in the Tainui treaty deal.

Read more

The War of Return — A review | Quillet

[NZFOI has recently acquired this book for the members’ library.]

In a story that may be apocryphal, the late Christopher Hitchens claimed that he had once seen legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban comment that the most striking aspect of the Israeli-Arab conflict is how easily it can be solved: It is simply a matter of dividing the land of Israel into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The only thing standing in the way of this solution is the intense religious or nationalist attachment of both sides to the idea of an undivided nation between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, this assumption that partition alone can bring peace has been the foundation of all of the international community’s peace efforts since the 1967 Six Day War. The only difficulty, it is believed, is persuading the two sides to agree to it.

Read more

Justice for Some: A review

Justice for Some by Noura Erakat was published last year. It is a pro-Palestinian perspective on the Middle East Conflict and International Law.

Most reviews of the article have not been reviews at all but synopses of her material interspersed with the “reviewer’s” cheers and plaudits.

Spotted on the web, here is a pro-Israeli comment on her book that resonated with us:

In “Justice for Some,” Professor Noura Erakat delivers an anti-Israel tirade in the antiquated terms of Marxism.

The main target of Professor Erakat’s assault is the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine (the BMP), the League of Nations law that enabled the creation of the State of Israel. The professor declares that the BMP institutionalized a “racist,” “settler-colonial,” “Apartheid regime” of “oppression” dedicated to the “juridical erasure” of the Palestinian people.

Equally extreme is her view of the Oslo Accords, the set of agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinians in the 1990’s to resolve their longstanding feud. She condemns the Oslo peace process as a continuation of oppressive “colonial practices.”

To combat the alleged colonial oppression, Professor Erakat recommends worldwide “resistance,” described as a blend of economic and legal activism against Israel.

These “coercive pressures,” she contends, would reverse the legal injustices of the past, “dismantle” Israel’s “illegal … colonial infrastructure,” and “liberate” Palestine.

Erakat champions two related forms of resistance: the BDS movement, a boycott campaign “aimed at isolating and shaming Israel;” and “lawfare,” the use of legal tactics to damage a political enemy.

She agrees with BDS leaders that all Palestinians should be allowed to relocate to Israel under a supposed “right of return.”

Regrettably, she omits the fact that such a novel population shift would make Israel a majority-Arab state. Even more disturbing, she enjoys hinting at the prospect of “Palestinian sovereignty” over Israel.

Although the professor maintains that “armed struggle” is available to Palestinians “as a matter of legal right,” she considers BDS and lawfare more effective.

Professor Erakat is not the first Palestinian to assail Israel with the debunked Marxist rhetoric of oppression and resistance. The Palestine Liberation Organization has been spewing the same hate-filled jargon since its founding in 1964.

The only difference between the two manifestos is that one would annihilate Israel through terrorism while the other would do the job through the cynical weaponization of economics and law.

Mainstream scholarship on the BMP confirms the mandate reflected a valid recognition of Jewish self-determination, not an act of colonial oppression.

The law was approved unanimously by a vote of all League of Nations members, not just the “colonial powers.” The great powers did not even share a common political goal, let alone a scheme of oppression.

They competed shrewdly for influence over the territories subject to the League’s mandate system.

Great Britain, the empire that most actively prepared the Jews for statehood, soon became the movement’s most powerful opponent.

Moreover, the Jews could not participate in the League’s BMP vote because they lacked membership in the world body.

Far from serving as agents of any colonial hegemons, the early Zionists immigrated to Palestine to escape the persecution of those regimes.

Another 800,000 Jewish immigrants came to Palestine from the Arab world, including the Jordanian-occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank, where they had suffered a brutal ethnic cleansing.

Jews from all hemispheres migrated to the “Land of Israel” because that was their ancestral home. There, they supplemented indigenous Jewish communities much older than the region’s first Arab dwellings.

Middle East Arabs won the greatest share of mandatory bequests. They gained four large new states: Lebanon; Syria; Iraq; and Transjordan (present day Jordan).

By contrast, their Jewish neighbors had to settle for a much smaller tract because Great Britain reallocated 77% of their League-designated territory to create Transjordan.

The Arabs could have celebrated their vast, newfound sovereignty. But instead, in 1948 they waged a five-state military jihad against Israel and grabbed portions of the Jewish foothold for themselves. That illegal offensive was the real “oppression” that turned the BMP border-drawing exercise into perpetual ethnic strife.

As an international lawyer, Professor Erakat must realize that expunging Israel through terrorism or any other manner would violate the animating principle of the United Nations.

Article 2 of the UN Charter requires nations to settle their differences “by peaceful means” without harming the “sovereign equality,” “security,” “territorial integrity,” or “political independence” of any state.

As a human rights lawyer, Erakat should know better than to portray the existence of Israel as a racist endeavor. That unfounded charge constitutes antisemitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and officially recognized by the US, Canada, 24 EU member states, and five other state signatories.

She compounds the human rights affront by endorsing the BDS movement. A September 23, 2019 UN report titled “Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance” determined that BDS is a form of antisemitism.

A less biased study of legal claims in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have considered both sides of the debate.

The author would have acknowledged Israel’s indigenous rights, self-determination rights, and sovereign rights to the territories in dispute.

She would have weighed possible remedies for the Jewish refugees from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And she would have backed at least one legal measure to curb terrorism. Sadly, “Justice for Some” demands justice only for Palestinians.

— Anonymous

Resource: MP Carter makes quick u-turn | NZ Herald

David Carter, Minister of Agriculture in 2010 and also then shareholder of Silver Fern Farms and Alliance Group Ltd. He later became Speaker of the NZ House of Representatives.

NZFOI: This article gives interesting background for the Kosher slaughter controversy back iin 2010. We republish it here so that it can be preserved as a resource for when this issue will once again rear its head.

Herald on Sunday By: David Fisher, David Fisher (28 Nov 2010)

A farming company part-owned by a Cabinet minister was able to give him a briefing about how the Government could protect its lucrative trade with Muslim countries by banning Jewish slaughtering.

Agriculture Minister David Carter supported the recommended law change but had to back down days before he was to be taken to court to justify it.

It is the second time this year Crown lawyers have had to leap to the defence of one of Parliament’s wealthiest MPs – and this time in a case in which he was forced to admit getting basic facts wrong.

Carter was being sued by the Auckland Hebrew Congregation for changing the law in May to make traditional Jewish slaughter of animals illegal. The case was set to begin in the High Court at Wellington tomorrow – until an embarrassing backdown by Carter who on Friday overturned the ban he asked Cabinet to support.

The practice of shechita on poultry was declared no longer illegal while the Government also agreed to negotiate the ban on sheep. New Zealand Jews will still have to import beef from Australia, where shechita is allowed.

Documents obtained by the Herald on Sunday appear to show Carter broke the rules governing his portfolio by considering trade implications when making the original decision.

An allegation of conflict of interest has been made because of that – he holds shares in a company which exports meat and met with senior managers who wanted a ban on shechita to protect their interests.

Carter was pulled back into line after lawyers told him he was allowed to consider only animal welfare issues. He had been advised trade with Muslim countries might suffer if it emerged kosher meat was allowed to be produced here while restrictions were placed on halal slaughter.

New Zealand requires halal meat be stunned before slaughter while kosher meat – which is killed only for a small domestic market – does not have the same restriction.

After getting the advice, Carter’s office seems to have broken the rules again by giving opinions on trade to Prime Minister John Key in January and Trade Minister Tim Groser in February.

Emails obtained by the Herald on Sunday show Carter met in March with Silver Fern Farms Ltd chairman Eoin Garden and chief executive Keith Cooper, who said meat exports would suffer if shechita wasn’t banned.

The MPs Register of Pecuniary Interests shows Carter owns shares in Silver Fern Farms Ltd and another major meat exporter to Muslim countries, Alliance Group Ltd.

Ministerial private secretary Natalie Nesbitt emailed senior Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries officials: “Silverfern (sic) Farms CEO and chairman raised their opposition to an exemption being provided for shechita (kosher) slaughter … with the minister this afternoon, among other matters.”

She said concerns from Garden and Cooper included “trade risks (particularly to halal markets)” if a Jewish religious form of slaughter was allowed to continue in New Zealand.

Garden refused to detail the discussion when approached on Friday: “I don’t think it is appropriate to comment on what was discussed at that meeting. I’ll get legal direction on this.”

Cooper initially said the concerns were in relation only to animal welfare, then later said “it was a long time ago” and he “doesn’t recall any more detail”.

Silver Fern Farms Ltd processes about 30 per cent of New Zealand’s cattle market. With other stock, it exports more than $200 million of meat to the Middle East.

Carter owns three farms – a 1200ha cattle breeding property in Teddington, a fattening unit at Southbridge and shares in a property in Waiau.

Crown Law Office spokeswoman Jan Fulstow was unable to provide details of the cost of defending Carter over the shechita ban before press time.

It emerged in April that taxpayers paid $115,000 towards Carter’s legal bills after a defamation scrap with former NZ First leader Winston Peters.

Fulstow contacted the Herald on Sunday on Friday to warn against printing material relating to the court case.

Fulstow said she was calling to warn about a confidentiality order at the urging of Carter’s lawyer.

The call came within minutes of questions from the Herald on Sunday to Carter’s ministerial office over Jewish community claims of a conflict of interest.

But much of the information used by the Herald on Sunday came through the Official Information Act, sought by Auckland’s Jonathan Shenken, who became concerned his religious right to kosher meat would be threatened.

Shenken began and continued a decade-long research initiative which turned up concerns by MAF over the possible trade impacts of shechita – and eventually Carter’s meeting with Silver Fern Farms Ltd. Other information included a High Court judgment released on Friday.

In the judgment, from Justice Alan Mackenzie, it was revealed that Carter had banned shechita slaughter of poultry, sheep and cows with the belief all could be imported from Australia.

But Carter’s lack of knowledge was exposed in the judgment.

Judge Mackenzie reported that Carter had no idea it was not possible to import kosher chicken meat and that “his understanding was wrong”.

His evidence also revealed he had no idea how much it could cost to import kosher meat – in the case of lamb, more than $120 a kilogram.

It was the judgment that also revealed Carter’s office had repeatedly referred to shechita and trade after he had been told by lawyers he was not to do so.

According to the judgment, Carter’s evidence said he did not know what was in the briefing papers sent from his office to Groser or Key that mentioned possible trade impacts from allowing shechita.

Carter did not respond to requests for an interview.

In a statement he said: “Claims that business interests determined my decision on the Commercial Slaughter Code of Welfare are totally baseless. Animal welfare was the primary consideration in making this decision and I have said many times that animal welfare is a priority of mine.”

Prime Minister John Key – who has Jewish roots – said he had “no concerns” with the way Carter made his decision.

Leaders fear Jewish community would ‘wither’ because of shechita ban

Jonathan Shenken became concerned a decade ago that his religious practice was under threat.

There were changes planned to the Animal Welfare Code that posed a danger to domestic kosher meat, and while those at the syngogue made noises about legal action, he went his own way.

“I’m not a committee person. I decided to start doing some digging myself.”

He peppered the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with Official Information Act (OIA) requests.

Learning to use the OIA was difficult and not made easier by officials who did not seem inclined to help, he said.

What emerged from all the paperwork he gained access to, he believed, was officials who were being urged by meat exporters to ban shechita, a form of animal slaughter that sees the intended meal prayed for before a ritualistic cutting of the throat.

It is a religious practice akin to that of the Muslim one of halal.

In NZ, animals are required to be stunned before being slaughtered, but the Jewish exemption to the stunning of kosher meat made it difficult for meat exporters, who feared Muslim countries would take umbrage over perceived preferential treatment of Jews. Muslims also oppose the stunning of animals.

Papers show that officials repeatedly spelled out to successive agriculture ministers how small the domestic kosher market was – about 2000 chickens a year and no more than 300 sheep – and that banning it could breach the Bill of Rights.

That advice continued right up to the current minister David Carter – who banned it anyway.

“My view is that Carter has only considered trade,” said Shenken. “And when I found out the Minister had a pecuniary interest in exporting halal meat, it just blew my mind. There’s a complete conflict on interest.”

Shenken said the decision to ban shechita meat meant kosher meat would become inaccessable and signal the end of a 170-year Jewish community in New Zealand.

“The Jewish community worldwide knows of this. We can’t attract teachers, rabbis, youth leaders. The community will wither.”

NZ Jewish Council president Stephen Goodman said Carter’s decision was met with “shock, dismay and disgust”.

He said the community was currently seeking a rabbi for Auckland and potential applicants had raised the ban as a reason for not coming here.

From San Remo to 72nd Birthday, Israel displays rare and robust resilience | Melanie Philips

NZFOI: Mentioning the San Remo Conference often draws blank stares because it seems like an artefact of the past and its relevance is not apparent. But San Remo begins a chain of events that legitimizes the existence of the modern state of Israel in today’s international law. Consequently when the ignorant or the disingenuous say that Israel has no standing in international law and its existence is a contravention of international law, they are wrong. Here is an easy to digeset article from Melanie Philips that sets out the facts. April 26 marks the centenary of this remarkable conference.

One hundred years ago this Sunday, the four principal allied powers involved in World War I signed a resolution at San Remo. Next week, Israel celebrates Yom Ha’atzmaut, the 72nd anniversary of the state’s declaration of independence.

Typically, the world thinks that the key step towards the establishment of the State of Israel was the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the statement in which the British government committed itself to work for the establishment of a Jewish home in what was then called Palestine.

Relatively little attention has been paid to the more important milestone in that story: the San Remo resolution signed on April 26, 1920.

For it was at San Remo that Britain, France, Italy and Japan turned the Balfour Declaration into an internationally binding treaty to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine, with Britain being given the mandate to facilitate Jewish immigration there.

Read more

Yom HaShoah 2020 Memorial Service | ZFNZ

Last night the Zionist Federation of New Zealand organized a memorial service to honour the victims of the Holocaust.

In case you missed it, you can catch the service here:

COVID-19: A Pesach Message from Rabbi Sacks

R Jonathan Sacks

This is a very, very difficult time and it becomes really acute when we see it from the perspective of Pesach.

This year we’re clearly dealing with an enormous phenomenon. Just today, the General Secretary of the United Nations has called this “the greatest challenge facing humanity since World War II”.

So anything that I have to say, I say with absolutely humility and with hesitancy, because none of us know for sure what all of this means. But let me, in any case, share some thoughts with you.

Read more

Order your Matzos bread in time for Pesach (Passover)!

Hi Folks

UPDATE (16 MARCH 2020): SOLD OUT! SORRY IF YOU MISSED OUT.

Every year, we receive requests for Matzos bread for Passover.  Passover (Pesach) is coming up on April 8, and this year we have Matzos bread available!

It’s Solomon’s unleavened bread and made with only flour and water in 400g boxes. Matzos bread is traditionally eaten over Passover. Use Matzos as a substitute for bread or as a delicious cracker. No added sugars, salt, fats, colouring or preservatives.

There are only 18 boxes so be in quick.

Price

$10 each + P&P

P&P via NZ Post and within NZ only.

1 box:  Untracked $4, Tracked $5. Let us know which you prefer.
2-4 boxes:  Tracked $15.

If you require 5 boxes or more, or you wish to pick up in Christchurch, call us +64 (27) 433 9745.

How to make an order

Send us an email with your name, delivery address and quantity required to contact@nzfoi.org

Payment instructions

Internet banking payments can be made to:

Bank:  Bank of New Zealand
Account Name:  NZ Friends of Israel Association Inc
Account Number:  02 0820 0569411 000
Code:  Matzos
Reference:  Your initials and surname

Cheques may be made out to NZ Friends of Israel Association Inc and posted to:

NZ Friends of Israel Association Inc
Box 37 363
Christchurch 8245

We will despatch within a day of payment clearing and receipt of a delivery address.

Shalom

NZ Friends of Israel Assoc Inc
Box 37 363
Halswell
Christchurch
New Zealand 8245

+64 (27) 433 9745
contact@nzfoi.org
www.nzfoi.org

Black Hebrew Israelites behind attacks in Jersey City and Monsey | Jerusalem Post

NZFOI: Last Sunday, Rebecca Marchand gave a briefing on the December anti-Semitic attacks in Jersey City and Monsey. For many attendees this was the first time they had heard of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, or even that there were anti-Semitic sentiments amongst African-Americans for that matter. More disturbingly, the philosophies of the BHI resembles closely the philosophies of the British Israelite Movements and the modern Christian doctrine of Supersessionism. We should also add that though Supersessionism is commonly held amongst Christians, many oppose it. This article provides a disturbing briefing on BHI.

The Jersey City murders are the culmination of years of incitement against Jews. But the perpetrators in that case were themselves minorities from the African American community. The perpetrators have been identified as coming from an extremist religious group called Black Hebrew Israelites, making them a minority of a minority. The perpetrators are seen as a “militant” fringe within that minority.

Read more