Talking to Family, Friends and Loved ones about the Middle East Conflict


The other day, a mother shared with me how her daughter was shocked to think that her parents sided with Israel amidst “the genocidal massacre of Palestinian children.” They have since agreed that this topic is off-limits. This mother talked about how much anxiety it caused her, know that there was this rift be-tween them. How can we talk to our family, friends and loved ones? Here’s a guide to ensure that your conversations will be constructive.

  1. Find out how much they know first. Listen. We’ve noticed that most pro-Palestinian advocates, actually don’t know the facts behind the conflict. For example, when they chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”, often they say the river is the Nile, or the Euphrates. The Sea is the Red Sea or even the Indian Ocean. From experience about two-thirds of people we encounter don’t know and they’ve just jumped on the bandwagon based on propaganda. Listen more talk less.
  2. Don’t get frustrated, angry, or upset.
    If you catch yourself getting grumpy, then you’re starting to try to win them to your way of seeing things. Don’t. They will probably feel threatened or pressured and the discussion will end with neither of you any wiser.
  3. Formulate your answer from what you find out.
    In the above example, if you have the opportunity, show them a simple map and point out the sea and the river, and ask what’s in between. Then you can ask if they intended that Israel should be done away with. 2/3rds say no. Let me rethink this.
  4. Look for common ground.
    When I was confronted by an angry young man, he was quite disarmed when I compli-mented him for his passion for justice. The conversation stopped being combative immediately.
  5. Don’t lecture.
    Keep your answers short. In this day and age, where everything comes in short articles, attention spans can be really short. Think about how to phrase what you want to say effectively and efficiently.
  6. Invite them to read widely and do their own investigations.
    None of this happened under a rock. Finding articles, and books should be easy. But reading widely means reading material that look at both sides of the controversy. Otherwise they are just in an echo chamber.
  7. Don’t try to convince them of your view. Don’t debate. Don’t try to win.
    Let the facts speak for themselves. There are plenty of them. Don’t raise your voice. Don’t make their conclusions for them. Let them make up their own minds.
  8. Be prepared: Read widely yourself
    So much of the pro-Palestinian movement relies on re-writing history and jumping to conclusions without the facts. Do the opposite. Read wisely. Reflect.
  9. Don’t wait until you know everything.
    You don’t have to know everything. Each conversation is an opportunity to learn from the other person. Listen to how they support their argument. If you don’t know about it, you can go and research it and circle back.
  10. Every time you have a conversation with someone, it is an opportunity to learn and refine your messaging.
    That’s right. Don’t wait until you know everything and/or your messaging is perfect. Learning by doing is an essential way to improve.

    NZFOI. This article was first published in the March 2024 issue of our newsletter.

Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable?

The Economist reviews the diplomatic immunity of Embassies following Ecuador’s raid on a Mexican Embassy to arrest someone who had been granted asylum.

In their discussion they say:

“There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal; a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces called the annexe that was destroyed a “military building […] disguised as a civilian building”. Iran may try to claim, falsely, that the same is true of Israeli embassies, and that attacks on them would be similarly justified.”

Source: Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable? (economist.com)

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!

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

Time to reset our relationship with Israel | NZ Herald

MEDIA RELEASE

19 JANUARY 2023 (Published in NZ Herald, 31 JANUARY 2023)

OPINION — Recently, there have been calls for resetting our foreign policy in respect of Israel. 

For decades now, New Zealand has founded its policy on Israel on the idea of a two-state solution: the idea that a Palestinian Arab state could exist in peace alongside the modern state of Israel. 

This idea is dependent on a number of assumptions:

  1. That the Palestinian Leadership is interested in peaceful co-existence with the Jewish people.
  2. That peace in the Middle East is predicated on the establishment of a Palestinian State based on pre-1967 borders.
  3. That the Palestinian Leadership are more interested in the welfare and prosperity of its people than they are interested in the destruction of Israel and its people.

We have sufficient history to see that each of these assumptions has been proven wrong.

Time and again, each Palestinian regime has shown that it has no appetite for peaceful co-existence with Israel.  The Arab language rhetoric is clear: the annihilation of the State of Israel is the end goal, and that relentless and deadly violence will be pursued until this goal is achieved. 

It is an all-or-nothing philosophy that is prepared to grind its own people into perpetual poverty and suffering.  During the 2000 Camp David Summit the Palestinians were offered nearly all of their demands.  Amongst anyone who is familiar with such negotiations between peoples, a truly remarkable offer. 

Yet the Palestinians declined it, setting off the second intifada.  The Gaza peace for land deal only resulted in even more violence.  The Palestinians have now received more foreign aid than Europe did to rebuild after the Second World War.  And what have they done with it?  They have used it to fund hatred, murder and misery.

The Abrahamic Accords have shown that there is an appetite for peace in the Middle East.  The normalisation of Israel’s relations with Sudan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, and Jordan show this. 

Even Saudi Arabia has allowed Israeli civilian aircraft to fly through its airspace.   These are monumental signs that the other Arab Middle Eastern nations are tiring of Palestinian narrow-mindedness. 

The current Palestinian regime will try to turn us against Israel by accusing it of not holding to Western liberal values while pushing a totalitarian society within their own jurisdictions. 

Today, Israel is a shining light in the totalitarian darkness of the Middle East.  It demonstrates that Middle Eastern peoples can live together in a true democracy, where their vote counts, where there is no threat of governmental coercion as to how they can vote, where one’s civil liberties are protected by law, where its citizens have access to health care, education and state welfare assistance, where Palestinian Arabs can study law and fight for justice, where people can truly live and whatever they lawfully wish. 

The Palestinian Regime needs to understand that its current goal of annihilating Israel, by fostering a grievance industry that enriches its leaders through the suffering of its people, has been discredited.  New Zealand has to reset its foreign policy in regard to the Middle East. 

Only by showing that this current regime has no credibility, will a new regime emerge that is free of corruption and is willing to enter into genuine peace negotiations with Israel.  Only by strengthening our trade and diplomatic relations with Israel will we positively reinforce the regional behaviours we so desire. 

We do need a foreign policy reset.  We would be fools to continue to persist with the current policy that superficially shows even-handed support to the Palestinian Arabs, and yet has had so little success in bringing peace over so many generations.

Tony Kan

President
NZ Friends of Israel Association Inc

Box 37 363
Halswell
Christchurch
New Zealand

NZ Friends of Israel Association is a registered charity that fights prejudice and intolerance through raising awareness of Jewish history and culture.


How to deal with Despots | Economist

NZFOI: A thought provoking piece from the Economist. Pragmatism v Idealism? What to do when there is a clash between societies over Vision and Values? Relevant issues that Israel has to daily wrestle with. In sharing this article, NZFOI is not saying we agree with the Economists ideas. But it is useful to start reflection and discussion.

For about 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Western foreign policy seemed to rest on sure foundations. Liberal values—democracy, open markets, human rights and the rule of law—had just prevailed over communism. America, the first and only global hyperpower, had the clout to impose this moral code against terrorists and tyrants. And tough love was justified, because history had shown that Western values were the uncontested formula for peace, prosperity and progress.

Another 15 years on, Western foreign policy is in a mess. To see why, consider Muhammad bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Our summer double issue, featuring profiles and long reads, leads with a deeply reported portrait of mbs, as he is known. It illustrates the erosion of each of the three pillars of Western foreign policy—values, power and that historic destiny.

The moral calculus turns out to be fraught. As our profile concludes, the crown prince has a tendency to be violent and erratic and to oppress his foes. He has been held responsible for the murder of a Washington Post columnist. Yet he is also a moderniser who has liberalised Saudi society, tamed the kingdom’s clerics and given women new freedoms. Even if you doubt mbs’s reforming zeal, Saudi Arabia produces oil that could help America and its allies withstand an even more dangerous man: Vladimir Putin. Is the ethical policy to shun mbs or sup with him?

mbs also shows that American power is less imposing than it seemed 15 years ago. Saudi Arabia has been close to America since 1945, but mbs long snubbed Joe Biden by refusing to take his phone calls, instead palling up with an assertive Russia and a rising China. Saudi Arabia is key to a region that America tried to mend by invading Iraq but, although America and its allies are still formidable, the fighting has worn out voters’ willingness to see their troops act as a global police force. Their reluctance is understandable. The desert wars demonstrated that you cannot turn people into liberals by firing guns at them.

And history has bitten back. A young man in a hurry, mbs believes he can achieve Western levels of prosperity without the inconvenience of democracy or human rights. Justin Bieber and Monster-Jam motorsports sit snugly alongside his despotic rule.

mbs is not alone. China is asserting the merits of “people-centred” human rights that put peace and economic development above voting and free speech. Mr Putin has invaded Ukraine in what can be thought of as a war on Enlightenment values by a regime in thrall to a Russian brand of fascism. When Western leaders entreat the global south to stand up for the international system by condemning Mr Putin, many say that they have lost patience with preachy, hypocritical Westerners who readily invade other countries whenever it suits them.

The Economist has not lost its faith in the institutions that emerged from the Enlightenment. Liberal values are universal. Yet the West’s strategy for promoting its world-view is sputtering and America and its allies need to be clearer-eyed. They must balance what is desirable with what is possible. At the same time they must cleave to the principles that save them from the cynicism of Mr Putin’s desolate, truth-free zone. That sounds like a counsel of perfection. Can it work?

The best way for Western leaders to avoid charges of hypocrisy is to refrain from staking out moral positions they cannot sustain. While campaigning, Mr Biden pledged to treat Saudi Arabia as a “pariah”. But this month he went to Jeddah and fist-bumped mbs and was widely condemned for hypocrisy and moral cowardice. In fact, his mistake was a crowd-pleasing pledge that was always going to be a millstone in office.

Western leaders need to be honest about how much influence they really have. The assumption that the rest need the West more than the West needs the rest is less true these days. In 1991 the g7 produced 66% of global output; today, just 44%. In hindsight it was hubris to think that dictatorships could be cured of their pathologies by battalions of human-rights lawyers and market economists. Leaders ought to be clear about right and wrong, but when they weigh up whether to impose sanctions on wrongdoers they should assess the likely results rather than the appearances of virtue.

Another principle is that talking is usually good. Some say that turning up bestows legitimacy. In reality, it generates insights, creates a chance to exert influence and helps solve otherwise insoluble problems—by means of climate deals, say; or getting grain out of Ukraine; or asking al-Shabab, an affiliate of al-Qaeda, to help save Somalia from starvation. Mr Biden was right to talk to mbs. Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, is right to talk to Mr Putin. Everyone needs to talk to China’s president, Xi Jinping.

There are ways to help keep talks honest. In meetings you can have your say on human rights. You can temper your contact, as Mr Macron did after Russian troops committed war crimes. You can insist on also speaking to the opposition and to dissidents. In this and other things, Western leaders should co-ordinate with each other so that they are less likely to be picked off by a policy of divide and rule—by China over its treatment of dissidents abroad, for example, or the abuse of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang.

A last principle is to acknowledge that foreign policy, like all government, involves trade-offs. For most countries that is so obvious it hardly needs saying. But the West came to think that it could have it all. Such trade-offs need not be grubby. A clearer focus on outcomes after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 might have led to more effective action by nato countries than the weak, conscience-salving sanctions they actually imposed. Unfortunately, Mr Biden’s simplistic attempt to divide the world into democracies and autocracies makes wise trade-offs harder.

Ideals and their consequences
The West has discovered that simply trying to impose its values on despots like mbs is ultimately self-defeating. Instead, it should marry pressure with persuasion and plain-speaking with patience. That may not be as gratifying as outraged denunciations and calls for boycotts and symbolic sanctions. But it is more likely to do some good.

Source

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett: World powers must ‘wake up’ on Iran nuke deal | Stuff

Naftali Bennett

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on Sunday opened his first Cabinet meeting since swearing in his new coalition government last week with a condemnation of the new Iranian president.

He said Iran’s presidential election was a sign for world powers to “wake up” before returning to a nuclear agreement with Tehran.

Iran’s hard-line judiciary chief, Ebrahim Raisi, was elected Saturday with 62 per cent of the vote amid a historically low voter turnout.

Read more

Green Party’s motion to declare Palestine a state fails in Parliament | Stuff

Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman

The Green Party motion asking MPs to recognise Palestine as a state has failed in the House, with National and ACT MPs objecting to the effort.

Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman​ on Wednesday afternoon sought leave of the House to debate a motion asking MPs to recognise “the state of Palestine among our community of nations”.

New Zealand does not recognise Palestine as a state but supports a two-state solution to the conflict, which would mean the creation of a Palestinian state.

National Party foreign affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee told Stuff on Wednesday morning that, while the party supported a two-state solution, it would not support the motion.

“We have followed that two-state concept since it was first proposed in 1993 and there have been many attempts to get it together but it has not yet been achieved, and I think to leap ahead of the negotiations by recognising Palestine as a state is pretty much an act of bad faith,” Brownlee said.

Read more

Two very different elections | NYT

Benjamin Netanyahu

Israelis are voting on Tuesday in their fourth election in just two years. Many of them feel numbed by their endless election cycle — a mood that contrasts with the Palestinians, who are excited about a rare chance to vote, in elections in May.

The Israeli vote is the embodiment of political paralysis caused in part by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to remain in office while on trial for corruption. Mr. Netanyahu hopes the country’s successful Covid-19 vaccination campaign will help him win. But polls suggest that the outcome is unlikely to break the deadlock. Many Israelis are bracing for a fifth election later this year.

The Palestinian vote, set for May 22, will be the first since a violent rift in 2007 between Hamas, the faction that controls the Gaza Strip, and its rival, Fatah. More than 93 percent of Palestinians have registered to vote, illustrating an initial enthusiasm for the process. Young people want a clearer path to statehood and a more competent government.

Geopolitics: Mr. Netanyahu’s plans to visit the United Arab Emirates and his bombast about Emirati investments have turned into a diplomatic debacle. Emirati officials sent clear signals that the Persian Gulf country would not be drawn into Mr. Netanyahu’s re-election campaign.

Source: NY Times

Washington attempts to quell Israel’s maritime shadow war with Iran | Israel Hayom

The Sabiti, an Iranian state owned tanker ablaze near Jeddah in late 2019, after a suspected rocket attack. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Recent reports suggest that the United States is disturbed by aspects of the Israeli-Iranian shadow war raging across the region – in this case, at sea. It seems reasonable to conclude that Washington is trying to lower tensions it fears can spoil attempts to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with Tehran.

American sources told The Wall Street Journal in recent days that since 2019, Israel allegedly attacked 12 ships illegally carrying Iranian oil to Syria, using weapons such as limpet mines to damage the vessels.

The report came amid signs of a possible escalation between Israel and Iran on the seas, suggesting that the information was designed to send a signal to Israel to cool down the alleged maritime operations.

It also surfaced at about the time Iran accused Israel of attacking an Iranian container ship in the eastern Mediterranean Sea last week named the Shahr e Kord, causing a fire.

That attack came days after Israel said Iran was behind an attack on an Israeli-owned cargo ship, the MV Helios Ray, in the Gulf of Oman.

Israel’s alleged covert campaign at sea is part of a much larger campaign, dubbed by the defense establishment as the “campaign between the wars,” designed to prevent the radical Iranian axis from building up its military and terrorist power in the region but to do so without crossing the threshold of regional war.

Read more