How do I make sense of the Israeli-Gaza War of 2023?

There are two indigenous peoples who cherish the same land, Jews and Arabs.

Both were offered statehood. The Jews said we’ll give coexistence a shot and accepted. The Arabs said, no way, we want a winner takes all, fight to the death. And there has been death ever since.

On October 7, Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel that had been years in the planning.

For years, they had been gathering intelligence on Israel’s border and kibbutz security arrangements through Gazans employed by Israelis as agricultural and domestic workers.

By utilizing the latest use of drone warfare techniques learnt from the Russo-Ukrainian War, approximately 3,000 militants largely neutralized Israel’s frontline security and attacked communities up to 15 km within Israel.

The attacks were marked by indiscriminate, mutilations, rape, executions, abductions and acts of spectacular cruelty. Extensive video recordings were taken by the attackers, showing considerable glee and joy as they carried out their crimes against humanity. Up to 1,210 murders were carried out and up to 250 were taken hostage.

Israel’s government faced with the its duty to:

  1. Protect its vulnerable citizens
  2. Punish wrongdoing
  3. Prevent further wrongdoing

Had no choice except to declare war to ensure that a further attack would not occur, to deter other organizations from repeating similar attacks and to reassure its citizenry that they could be safe.

Hamas lacks Israel’s military resources and infrastructure. It must fight an assymetric conflict knowing it cannot win a conventional war.

Its objectives are therefore to survive and take advantage of Western cultural repugnance toward fatalities among women and children and ignorance of what war involves to undermine world support for Israel.

To expedite this objective, Hamas infiltrates mainstream media outlets with “independent” journalist contractors, controls what can be released to media and actively seeks images, and video footage of wounded, dying or dead children.

Media coverage of this conflict is disproportionately represented by such images and video footage when compared to other conflicts currently underway in Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen.

Casualty figures are produced by the Gaza Ministry of Health which itself is controlled by Hamas, yet Western media nearly always publishes these figures without cautionary statements, as if they can be accepted at face value.

Hamas holds strongly to a religious tradition of martyrdom and sees civilian fatalities as a necessary price for victory.

Victim’s bodies and hostages are used as trophies to demonstrate to the Arab world their continuing resistance and to undermine Israeli prestige.

Their propaganda messaging has evolved as the war progresses:

  1. “War on children”
  2. “IDF is committing genocide”
  3. “Israel is withholding humanitarian aid to cause famine”
  4. “Israel will cause a humanitarian disaster if it attacks Rafah”

To the Arabic speaking world the messaging is quite different:

  1. “We are the brave underdog resistance fighters against the hated Jews”
  2. “See the Israelis are beatable and we are superior.”
  3. We will never give up the good fight entrusted to us by Allah to destroy the Jews, even if it means sacrificing our people as martyrs

In reality,

UN Ambassador visits tunnels

For many years, Hamas has built up to 700kms of tunnels beneath Gaza leaving very few city blocks without tunnels underneath them. Each block contains multiple exits.

Hamas’ tactics include

Under the Geneva Convention doing so, relieves these structures from their immunity from violence, and thus the IDF has entered schools, hospitals and UN facilities whenever they have evidence that Hamas has operated from them. The Western public unaware of this dynamic have voiced outrage.

Unfortunately, in war, and in particular urban warfare, civilian fatalities are inevitable. In all conflicts, experts have said up to 10% of civilians will refuse to evacuate.

In 2022, the UN said in recent history, for every combatant killed in urban warfare, 9 civilians die. Israel has taken more steps than any other modern military force to minimize civilian deaths.

They do this by forewarning the civilian population before beginning operations in a particular neighbourhood. This allows civilians to evacuate but it also means Hamas evacuates too as human shields are not effective unless they are in close proximity.

This minimizes civilian deaths but also has the effect of prolonging the conflict.

Even after Hamas has been defeated, its leadership in exile, and all hope of any remaining hostages extinguished; the hatred, prejudice and intolerance is so deeply ingrained among Palestinians and Arabs that it will take at least a whole generation of re-education to dislodge it.

Evidence of how deeply ingrained these beliefs are include:

  • The mass celebrations in the 48 hours after October 7 were widespread, yet they only ended once news that Israel was massing several hundred thousand troops to enter Gaza, and the prospect of widespread devastation became apparent.
  • Children’s drama and education teach antisemitism
  • Reports of Palestinians who have realized that Jews are not demons after all, Hamas’ authoritarianism is the real enemy of the Palestinian people.

There are likely to be several phases before a stable solution can be fashioned.  The war is an opportunity for the civilian population to be freed from Hamas’ tyranny:

  1. A short-term period of Israeli administration while law and order is restored.  The more guerilla attacks from the tunnels etc there are, the longer they will likely stay.
  2. A period of UN administration while Gazan civilian society re-organizes itself and democratic elections can be held.
  3. The re-organization must include an independent police, an independent militia and an independent civil service.  To establish these institutions, the period of UN administration could be lengthy.

Why did October 7 happen?

The Problem: Hamas’ waning support

Hamas has expressed a number of motives for planning and executing the October 7 massacre.

Revitalize Arab support for Hamas: For a number of years their Arab allies had been losing their patience with Palestinian intransigence after repeatedly rejecting offers of statehood multiple times, Over the years, Israel was becoming an economic force in the Middle East and Iran was expanding its regional influence, building a bridge of vassal states toward the Mediterranean. Improving relations with Israel would help these Arab states counter Iran’s influence and provide an opportunity for economic betterment through trade with Israel. The Abrahamic Accords gave tangible evidence that such talk had evolved into action.

Revitalize Western support for Hamas: The Russo-Ukrainian War had not only diverted the West’s attention but also diverted much of their appetite for financially supporting the Palestinians as the need to re-arm grew to meet the Russian threat.

Revitalize domestic support Hamas: Hamas like all authoritarian regimes maintains its control through intimidation and repression. Despite receiving considerable foreign aid, it diverts most of it to the prosecution of its winner-takes all, fight to the death war and into its leader’s private bank accounts. Hamas’ cruelty and deteriorating living standards meant growing public dissastisfaction.

The Solution: To start a war and survive.

To rebuild support it must win hearts and minds.

To win hearts and minds, it must build an effective propaganda campaign from a one-off attack on a scale that makes it impossible for Israel not to ignore it.

In developing an attack to solve these problems, Hamas does not need to win a conventional military victory. A conventional military victory is beyond its reach anyway.

All it needs to do is to survive to win.

Just in case the killings were not sufficient, Hamas instructed its people to record their acts and post them widely on social media.

The extensive 500-700 km of tunnels and its human shields tactic would ensure its survival.

Unlike Hamas’ attack which was over in a day or two, the tunnels would ensure Israel’s campaign would be comparatively long and arduous.

This dynamic leans into the nature of the news cycle where audiences have relatively short memories and great sympathy for underdogs and the downtrodden.

The wokes would then pick up the underdog story and amplify it.

The enduring nature of any Israeli campaign and the inevitable civilian casualties that urban warfare brings would produce more than enough nightly images of wounded, dying and dead children.

These nightly images would serve to spark, fuel and reinforce the horror and anger that Western audiences will inevitably feel over Israel’s perceived cruelty.

Teams of Hamas operatives were charged with taking photographs of wounded, dying and dead children and making them available to “accredited” Gazan photo-journalists contracted to mainstream media outlets such as CNN, BBC and Aljazeera.

Indeed, the greatest risk Hamas faced was the chance that not enough victims would be killed on October 7 to incite a war.

Hamas’ propaganda campaign looks to build the following key idea:

That Israel is callously killing civilians out of homicidal revenge on a scale that minimizes the October 7 attack.

Key ideas to support this base idea includes:

“Israel is fighting a war on children”

“Israel is callously victimizing innocent Gazan civilians through horrendous collateral damage and withholding humanitarian aid causing famine.”

“Israel has stolen our land.”

“All Jews are white settler colonialists.”

Thousands of Western citizens are being convinced that Hamas’ messaging is credible.

That credibility is built on public trust in Western media.

Unfortunately, Western mainstream media often do not inform their audiences that much of the information they present has not been independently verified and quote information supplied by the Gaza Ministry of Health without question.

So far (May 2024), Hamas’ propaganda campaign has been remarkably successful. Thousands have marched in support of Gaza’s “innocent” citizens, and in so doing fall into Hamas’ trap.

In so doing, they knowingly and unknowingly side with and enable perpetrators of tyranny, mutilation, rape, torture and massacres of innocent civilians to prolong their religious mission to destroy all Jews.

Bibliography

Hamas Says Goal of October 7 Attack on Israel Was to ‘Overthrow’ Status Quo (businessinsider.com)

The October 7th Catastrophe. Why Did It Happen? | Hillel Schenker | The Blogs (timesofisrael.com)

Memo to the ‘Experts’: Stop Comparing Israel’s War in Gaza to Anything. It Has No Precedent | Opinion (newsweek.com)

Gaza’s Underground: Hamas’s Entire Politico-Military Strategy Rests on Its Tunnels – Modern War Institute (westpoint.edu)

‘Hamas gambled with our lives’: Gazans dare to speak out – CSMonitor.com

Protests against Hamas reemerge in the streets of Gaza, but will they persist? | The Times of Israel

Proportionality Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means In Gaza (forbes.com)

How genocide is defined—and why it’s so difficult to prove (nationalgeographic.com)

How Hamas is winning the propaganda war against Israel (msn.com)

Conflicted Christians:  How to approach the Israeli-Gaza War 2023

Here we give some ideas on how to reconcile some of the issues that conflict Christians regarding the Israeli-Gaza War of 2023:

1. How do we reconcile scriptures that command us to “love our enemies” and “turn the other cheek” with ideas of justice, self defense and war?

In Romans 12 and 13 we have clues to the answer to this question:

In Romans 12 it says:

“Be patient in tribulation” Romans 12:12
“Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse you” Romans 12:13
“Repay no one evil for evil” Romans 12:17
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” Romans 12:18

“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will hea burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

These exhortations are right and true at an individual level.

Paul then takes the conversation up to a whole new level when he discusses the role of our governing authorities in Romans 13:1-6:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.”

In these verses, governing authorities bear “the sword” to:

• Protect the vulnerable;
• Punish wrongdoing; and
• Prevent further wrongdoing.

This framework can help you to make sense of Hamas and the Israeli government’s objectives and conduct in this war.

That is, how is Hamas or the Israeli government, protecting the vulnerable, punishing wrongdoing and preventing further wrongdoing?

2. From a biblical perspective, should we take sides?

There are a number of perspectives that can inform the Christian on this question.

We are to do justice: Micah 6:8 requires Christians to “do justice.”

Justice is rightly symbolized by a statue of a woman who is:

• Blindfolded: This is to show that justice is impartial. Christians should not take sides.

• Holds a set of scales: Good justice should be based on good evidence. But not all evidence is good and must be weighted or tested. In war, the first casualty is the truth. Thus we should not jump to conclusions. Information must be tested. Where has it come from? Is it verified?

• Holds a sword: Justice must punish wrongdoers and deter wrongdoers from further wrongdoing.

Christians are connected to Israel, and the future of Israel and Jews are tied up with the future of Christians: There are many Christians who connect Israel to Christianity from a eschatological (or prophetic) perspective. Inevitably these discussions take enquirers into realms of much speculation and conjecture. For this reason, we won’t go into this topic at all.

Paul says:

* Christians should call Abraham their father (Romans 4:16-17).

* Christians are fellow heirs of the Promises (Eph 3:6). And those promises relate directly to the Land of Israel (Gen 15:7).

* Christians are adopted into the family of God (Gal 4:4-7).

* The gifts given to Israel are irrevocable (Romans 11:26ff).

* The dividing wall between those with a Jewish heritage and non-Jewish heritage is broken down, united as one (Eph 2:13ff)

* Christians are in some way grafted in to the Jewish metaphorical tree (Romans 11:11ff).

Taken together, there is sufficient there to suggest that the future of those with a Jewish heritage, Israel and Christians are in some cosmic way tied together.

Though connected, Christians must still “do justice.”

3. OK, I get that we have to do justice, so but it seems unfair and tragic that over 35,000 Gazans have died when only 1,200 died on the Israeli side of the border on October 7?

First, we must weigh the evidence. The 35,000 figure is produced by the Gazan Ministry of Health. This organization is governed by Hamas who administer Gaza at the end of a deadly weapon. The figure doesn’t different differentiate between civilians and combatants, nor natural casualties such as death from old age, car accidents or cancer.

Secondly, we have already said that the Israeli government has a duty to protect the vulnerable, punish wrongdoing and prevent further wrongdoing. It’s the third leg that requires a war. Hamas has already promised that however long it takes, it is committed to carrying out more October 7-like attacks. The Israel government therefore has no choice but to eliminate Hamas otherwise other groups such as Islamic Jihad will be emboldened to copy these attacks too.

The UN has carried out research on urban warfare in recent history throughout the world. They found that for every combatant killed, about 9 civilians are killed too.

The IDF estimate they have killed over 10,000 Hamas combatants. If this and the 35,000 figure is to be believed, then the ratio in Gaza is about 1 to 3.5. A figure much lower than the UN’s historical finding of 1 to 9.

How is it so low? Because Israel is giving away the element of surprise and warning where it will attack in advance so that civilians can evacuate. But of course, this allows Hamas to evacuate too as civilians are no good as human shields if they are not nearby. Unfortunately, that also means that the war will be prolonged.

4. Is Israel targeting children?

War is hell. And civilians, especially in an urban battlefield, are tragically put in harm’s way.
In the first four months of the war it seemed like the majority of news items had a dead, dying or wounded children on display.

Yet there were three other major conflicts under way in the world, in the Ukraine, Myanmar and Yemen. There are children dying in those conflicts too, but they aren’t being covered in the same way.

The pictures and video footage are coming from Gazan photographers and videographers. Many of whom are affiliated or even controlled by Hamas.

Hamas knows that they cannot win a conventional military war, so this is a war to win hearts and minds after the Ukraine sucked the oxygen away from the Palestinian cause and Arab nations were tired of funding them when they were repeatedly rejecting offers of statehood.

Therefore, they are intentionally putting children in front of cameras to undermine support for Israel, promote the underdog story and reinforce their victimhood.

You are being played.

6. But why has Israel destroyed so many civilian structures, and fought in schools, hospitals and UN facilities?

The London Underground has some 160 km of tunnels. The NYC subway has 420 km of tunnels. Gaza is the size of Ashburton. Yet there are 500-700 km of tunnels dug under there. If there are so many tunnels, what percentage of civilian blocks have no tunnels? Very few. Putting tunnels and exit holes in residential buildings turns them into legitimate military targets.

Returning hostages and soldiers have said the tunnels are often some fifty feet deep or more. This is why Israel has used very large bombs to destroy them.

Under international laws of war, if a civilian structure is used for military purposes, it loses its immunity. Hamas believes it is acceptable to fight from residential apartments, and use schools, UN facilities and hospitals for weapons storage and operational command posts.

There are several interviews of captured Hamas operatives who have explained that they do so because Israel by and large, does not bomb schools, hospitals and UN facilities.

6. Has Israel committed genocide?

Nearly all independent commentators have examined this issue and decided that in the context of the October 7 attacks, and Hamas’ public statements that they intend to repeat them, then the measures Israel has taken to prevent further attacks, is justified and not an attempt to commit genocide.

Most people misinterpreted the International Court of Justice’s ruling earlier in the year. In fact, they said that its plausible for South Africa to have the right to bring a case, and that the Gazans had a plausible right to be protected from genocide.

They did not rule that the claim of genocide was plausible.

7. Are the Palestinians victims of colonisation?

At its heart, two tangata whenua cherish the same land. Both were offered statehood. One was willing to give coexistence a shot, and accepted. The other rejected the offer, and opted for a winner takes all, fight to the death. And there has been dying ever since.

Settler colonisation is about foreigners displacing tangata whenua from their homeland, not tangata whenua returning to their homeland.

The land was never stolen from them as the Arabs never had manu whenua over the Land. They gave up their opportunity for much of the land when they gambled on winning their winner takes all, fight to the death, and lost.

The Nakba is the basis for their victimhood, and it is a lie, a falsehood.

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