Review: Spies of No Country by Matti Friedman

Matti Friedman has built a reputation as one of the most compelling interpreters of Israel’s early history. A Canadian‑Israeli journalist and former AP correspondent, he writes with a reporter’s precision and a storyteller’s instinct for the human detail that reveals a larger truth. In Spies of No Country, he turns his attention to the Palmach’s Arab Section—the tiny, improvised precursor to Israel’s modern intelligence services—and uncovers a story that is both humbler and more astonishing than the sleek mythology that later grew around the Mossad.

The first surprise is how primitive it all was. Today’s popular imagination, shaped by the James Bond franchise and decades of Mossad legend, assumes espionage is synonymous with gadgets, global reach, and surgical precision. Friedman dismantles that assumption from the opening pages. The men he profiles—Gamliel Cohen, Isaac Shoshan, Havakuk Cohen, and others—were not trained in high‑tech tradecraft. They were barely trained at all. They operated with forged papers that could fall apart in the rain, radios that barely worked, and cover stories held together by nerve and improvisation. Their missions were improvised, their support minimal, and their survival far from guaranteed.

What made them uniquely suited to this work was not sophistication but identity. These were young Mizrahi Jews—men from Aleppo, Damascus, and other Arab cities—who had grown up speaking Arabic and absorbing the rhythms of Middle Eastern life. Yet in the Yishuv of the 1940s, dominated culturally and institutionally by Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, they often felt like outsiders. Friedman shows how the Arab Section gave them something they had not previously been offered: purpose, belonging, and a chance to turn the very thing that marginalized them—their Mizrahi background—into a strategic superpower.

Their success, as Friedman presents it, was a blend of audacity, instinct, and perhaps good fortune. Some readers will see providence in their survival; others will see the improbable luck that often accompanies the bold. Whatever the interpretation, the results were remarkable. These young men infiltrated Arab cities, gathered intelligence that shaped the 1948 war, and helped lay the foundations of a state that did not yet formally exist.

But Friedman refuses to romanticize them. The book is as much about failure as triumph. The Arab Section’s work was riddled with danger, and the margin for error was razor thin. Being a Mizrahi Jew raised in a Muslim environment did not guarantee mastery of every dialect, custom, or social nuance. A misplaced word, a gesture slightly out of place, or a moment of hesitation could—and sometimes did—lead to exposure and death. Friedman treats these losses with gravity, showing how the same qualities that made these men invaluable also placed them in situations where the risks were almost unbearable.

What emerges is a portrait of espionage stripped of glamour and restored to its human scale. These were not super‑agents but teenagers and twenty‑somethings improvising their way through history. Their achievements were extraordinary precisely because they were so fragile, so dependent on courage rather than machinery, and so deeply intertwined with questions of identity, belonging, and sacrifice.

One of the most poignant threads Friedman draws out is the dislocation these young agents experienced when they finally returned from their long stretches undercover in Beirut, Damascus, and other Arab cities. Some had slipped across borders when Israel wasn’t yet a state at all—when the Yishuv was fighting simply to survive—and they came home to a country that had been transformed in their absence. Israel was now sovereign, a member of the United Nations, already building institutions and a national identity. Yet for all their service, they still didn’t quite fit in. The very skills that had made them indispensable in the shadows—Arabic fluency, Middle Eastern mannerisms, the ability to disappear into Muslim-majority societies—were not traits the new, largely Ashkenazi state celebrated or understood. They returned as heroes who were not fully recognized, men who had risked everything for a homeland that had changed without them and still struggled to find a place for them.

Spies of No Country is ultimately a story about the birth of Israeli intelligence, but it is also a story about the birth of Israeli society—messy, diverse, improvised, and shaped by people whose contributions were long overlooked. Friedman gives these men the recognition they deserve, and in doing so, he reminds readers that the foundations of modern Israel were laid not only by generals and politicians but by young Mizrahi Jews who risked everything in the shadows.

 

Why the US and Israel want to prevent a Nuclear Iran

Few issues in global security are as charged, or as misunderstood, as the determination of the United States and Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. To many, it looks like power politics or regional rivalry. In reality, it’s about something far more basic: survival in a world where nuclear weapons and apocalyptic ideology can collide.

The World That Shaped Our View of Nukes

To understand today’s fears, it helps to start in 1945. By mid–World War II, Japan’s military government showed no sign of surrender. American planners expected hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties and millions of Japanese deaths in a full-scale invasion of the home islands. Every serious assessment pointed to a fight to the death.

In that context, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were seen as the least catastrophic option. They forced a rapid surrender and avoided an invasion that could have been far bloodier. Under the law as it existed then, the bombings were not illegal. There were no treaties banning area bombing, no codified proportionality rules, and no legal framework for weapons of such unprecedented destructive power.

Why Those Same Attacks Would Be Illegal Today

Modern Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) take a very different view. Nuclear weapons are inherently indiscriminate. They cannot be directed only at military targets, they cause long-term radiation effects, and they inflict suffering on a scale that modern humanitarian law does not accept.

Today, proportionality is judged strike by strike, not war by war. You cannot justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on the grounds that it might prevent a larger number of deaths later. Civilian immunity is central, and nuclear weapons violate that principle by design. Under the current legal framework, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would almost certainly be considered unlawful, even if the strategic logic were identical.

How Modern Enemies Exploit the Law

Urban warfare adds another layer of complexity. Armed groups such as Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights violations, often fight without uniforms, embed themselves in civilian neighbourhoods, and use human shields. They operate from hospitals, schools, mosques and apartment blocks precisely because they know modern militaries are bound by rules they themselves ignore.

The attacker still has to verify targets, minimise civilian harm and apply proportionality. The defender’s violations do not cancel the attacker’s obligations. This creates a moral and tactical asymmetry: the side that follows the law is constrained; the side that violates it is not.

Most modern jurists accept this imbalance. They argue that weakening these protections would lead to catastrophic civilian suffering. The law is designed to restrain the powerful, not the powerless. It is imperfect, but the alternative is a return to total war.

Why Nuclear Weapons Break the Entire Logic

Nuclear weapons sit outside this framework. They are not just another tool in the arsenal. They are existential. A single detonation can destroy a city, collapse a health system, poison the environment and destabilise an entire region. Once used, the question is no longer who wins a battle, but whether societies can survive.

Deterrence worked in the Cold War because both sides wanted to live. The United States and the Soviet Union feared mutual destruction. The same basic logic applies today with other nuclear states: they may be rivals, but they are not suicidal.

The problem arises when nuclear weapons are paired with apocalyptic ideology. Elements within the Iranian regime frame history and conflict in eschatological terms. Martyrdom, redemptive suffering and the idea of a purifying crisis are not just rhetorical flourishes; they are part of the worldview. Groups like Hamas also draw on themes of martyrdom and sacrificial struggle.

Deterrence assumes that the other side values survival. But if a leadership believes that destruction can serve a divine purpose, or that martyrdom is victory rather than defeat, the entire logic of deterrence begins to fail. You cannot deter someone who is willing to burn the house down while still inside it.

Why the US and Israel Draw a Red Line at Nuclear Iran

This is the core reason the United States and Israel fear a nuclear Iran. It is not simply about regional influence or prestige. A nuclear-armed Iran would not just shift the balance of power; it would undermine the basic assumptions that have kept nuclear weapons unused since 1945.

Even if Iran never launched a nuclear strike, the mere possession of such weapons would radically change the strategic landscape. It would embolden Iran’s network of allied militias and proxies. It would increase the risk of miscalculation. It would make every crisis in the region potentially existential.

The nightmare scenario is not only an Iranian missile. It is also the possibility that nuclear materials, technology or even a device could find their way into the hands of a non-state group with apocalyptic theology and nothing to lose. A state can be deterred by the threat of retaliation against its cities and infrastructure. A dispersed movement with no capital, no conventional economy and a cult of martyrdom is far harder to deter.

The Hard Truth About Law, Power and Survival

The atomic bombings of 1945 were justified in their time because they prevented a far greater catastrophe. Under today’s laws of armed conflict, they would be illegal. Modern law intentionally restrains powerful states, even when adversaries exploit those restraints. Jurists accept this because the alternative is unregulated destruction.

But nuclear weapons break the entire system. They are strategic, not tactical. They are existential, not proportional. When combined with apocalyptic ideology, they create a threat that no legal framework can reliably contain.

That is why the United States and Israel fear a nuclear Iran. It is why they use diplomacy, sanctions, covert action and, at times, force to slow or disrupt its nuclear programme. This is not simply about dominance or prestige. It is about preventing a world in which nuclear weapons sit in the hands of actors who may not be deterred by the prospect of mutual destruction.

In that sense, the red line on a nuclear Iran is not just a strategic preference. It is a civilisational necessity.

And if prevention fails…

But this is also why appeals to LOAC ring hollow in the real world. LOAC can restrain responsible states, but it has no power to restrain a regime that already commits war crimes as doctrine. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, nothing in LOAC prevents it from using them. The only actors bound by proportionality, distinction, and necessity would be the very states trying to stop a nuclear attack — not the regime initiating one.

And once a nuclear weapon is used, the conflict leaves the LOAC framework entirely. A nuclear detonation triggers the right of unrestricted self‑defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. At that point, the priority is not legal theory but preventing a second strike. The likely consequence is regime‑ending retaliation, regional escalation, or nuclear coercion that destabilises the entire Middle East. This is why the world cannot simply “live with” a nuclear Iran. After the first use, every option becomes catastrophic — which is exactly why prevention, not reaction, is the only responsible path.

 

 

Review: The Sword of Freedom – Israel, Mossad, and the Secret War by Yossi Cohen

Yossi Cohen’s The Sword of Freedom is marketed as an inside look at Israel’s Mossad: high-stakes operations, secret wars, and the shadow struggle against Iran. On that level, it delivers. Cohen recounts, in vivid and sometimes cinematic detail, operations such as the remote-controlled assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist and the daring theft of the Iranian nuclear archive. These episodes are gripping, polished, and clearly designed to showcase the reach and precision of Israel’s intelligence services.

But to read this book only as a Mossad memoir is to miss its deeper purpose. Beneath the operational anecdotes and cloak-and-dagger atmosphere, The Sword of Freedom functions as a kind of political “stretch application” – or perhaps more accurately, a “reach application” – for the office of Prime Minister of Israel. The Mossad stories are the vehicle; the leadership narrative is the destination.

Cohen consistently presents himself not merely as a former intelligence chief, but as a statesman-in-waiting: articulate, globally connected, morally certain, and strategically far-sighted. Each chapter is structured so that the operation described becomes a parable of leadership. A covert action against Iran becomes a lesson in resolve; a diplomatic back-channel becomes a lesson in statecraft; a high-risk decision becomes a lesson in moral clarity. The message is subtle but unmistakable: these are not just stories about what he did, but arguments for what he could be trusted to do in a higher office.

Several reviewers have picked up on this dual character of the book. One reviewer remarked that it “reads less like a conventional intelligence memoir and more like a carefully crafted leadership profile,” noting how often Cohen shifts from operational detail to broad reflections on Israel’s destiny and the qualities required of its leaders. Another observed that the book “feels at times like a campaign biography in disguise,” pointing out how frequently Cohen places himself at the centre of pivotal moments, framed as the decisive, steady hand in times of crisis. A third review commented that Cohen “seems to be auditioning for a larger role on the national stage,” highlighting the way he moves from Mossad operations to sweeping political and moral conclusions.

None of this makes the book less interesting; in many ways, it makes it more revealing. As a pure institutional history of the Mossad, The Sword of Freedom is selective and highly curated. Cohen avoids the internal frictions, bureaucratic struggles, and strategic missteps that would complicate the heroic narrative. What he offers instead is a streamlined version of events that consistently reinforces a particular image of himself: bold but measured, ruthless when necessary yet guided by a strong moral compass, deeply rooted in Jewish identity yet comfortable on the global stage.

Where the book is most striking is in its treatment of Iran. Cohen frames the Islamic Republic not only as a strategic adversary, but as a civilisational threat that demands exceptional clarity and resolve from Israel’s leadership. The implication is clear: the kind of leader who successfully orchestrated these covert operations is the kind of leader Israel will need in the years ahead. The past operations become, in effect, a résumé for a future role.

Readers who come to The Sword of Freedom expecting a comprehensive, warts-and-all history of the Mossad may feel that the institutional story is thinner than the marketing suggests. But readers interested in the future of Israeli politics will find something else: a carefully constructed self-portrait of a man who plainly sees himself as a contender for national leadership. The book is less about the Mossad as an organisation and more about Yossi Cohen as a brand.

In that sense, the cover is only half right. Yes, this is a book about the Mossad and its secret war. But more than that, it is a public, polished, and deliberate reach application for the highest office in the country. The operations are the backdrop; the real subject is the man who wants to be seen as Israel’s next sword of freedom.

Holocaust Education Is Everywhere — So Why Isn’t It Working?

The Ministry of Education has released its draft Social Sciences curriculum for Year 10. On the face of it, the Holocaust content looks solid: Nazi antisemitism, Kristallnacht, ghettos, mass shootings, extermination camps, resistance, liberation — the usual landmarks.

And yet, something isn’t adding up. Around the world, Holocaust education has expanded dramatically over the past two decades, but antisemitism hasn’t gone away. In many places, it’s getting worse. That’s not just an overseas problem. Jewish New Zealanders are being shouted at, pushed around, and occasionally assaulted simply for being Jewish. You don’t need a PhD in history to see that something isn’t working.

So what’s going on? And what might we need to think about here in Aotearoa?

What the experts keep saying

If you look at the work of people who’ve spent their lives studying this — Yehuda Bauer, Deborah Lipstadt, Matti Friedman, the teams at UNESCO, IHRA, Yad Vashem — a pattern emerges.

They’re not arguing over details. Their concern is that we teach the history, but we don’t teach students how to recognise the same patterns when they appear today.

Students often get the events, but not the underlying logic. They learn the horror, but not the warning. They learn what happened, but not how to recognise the same currents when they appear in their own world — in jokes, in slogans, in conspiracy theories, in the way people talk about “them.” Students learn Jewish death, not Jewish life.  Jews are often presented as victims, not as a living people with culture, agency, and continuity.

These gaps matter.

The Holocaust was meant to destroy the Jews

One point the experts are almost unanimous on: the Holocaust needs to be taught with clarity. It was the Nazi project to annihilate the Jewish people. That’s the core of it.

Other groups suffered terribly under Nazism — Roma, disabled people, political dissidents, LGBTQ+ people, and others — and their stories deserve to be taught properly, in their own right. But when everything gets folded into one big, blurred narrative, students lose the ability to understand why Jews were targeted then, and why antisemitism still has such a long half‑life now.

Clarity isn’t exclusion. It’s accuracy. And accuracy is what lets students make sense of the present.

The missing skill: what to do when you see antisemitism

One thing that rarely appears in any curriculum — here or overseas — is the practical side. Students need to know what to do when they encounter antisemitism.

Not confrontation. Not speeches. Just the basics:

  • spotting harmful stereotypes
  • understanding why they’re dangerous
  • knowing how to challenge misinformation
  • knowing when to get help
  • knowing how to support someone who’s being targeted

This isn’t a political agenda. It’s the same logic behind anti‑bullying programmes and digital citizenship. If we want young people to recognise injustice, they need tools, not just stories.

A thought for New Zealand: what about senior Civics?

The Ministry’s draft curriculum stops at Year 10, but it also says Year 10 Social Sciences prepares students for senior subjects. That opens a door.

By Years 11–13, students are ready for the deeper questions:

  • how democracies fail
  • how propaganda works
  • how prejudice becomes policy
  • how extremism spreads
  • how human rights frameworks were built
  • how to participate meaningfully in civic life

This is where Holocaust education becomes more than history. It becomes civic literacy — the kind that helps young adults understand the world they’re about to vote in, work in, and live in.

Young people want meaning.  They have a thirst for justice.  A senior Civics course isn’t a radical idea. It’s a practical one.

Some ideas that might be worth considering

After looking at the international research, the Ministry’s draft, and the reality facing Jewish New Zealanders today, a few ideas seem worth putting on the table:

  • Strengthen the Holocaust content already in Year 10 by making the purpose clearer, not just the events.
  • Teach the persecution of other groups distinctly, so their experiences aren’t lost in generalisation.
  • Make the link between historical antisemitism and contemporary antisemitism explicit.
  • Connect students to living Jewish communities.
  • Give students practical tools for responding safely when they encounter prejudice.
  • Explore a senior Civics course where these themes can be taught with the depth and maturity they require.

None of this requires tearing up the curriculum. It’s about sharpening the focus so the history does what it’s meant to do: help young people understand the world they’re stepping into — and their responsibility to stand up for justice and ensure that no community is left to face intimidation, harassment, or violence because of antisemitism.

Tony Kan
President
NZ Friends of Israel Association Inc

The latest newsletter is out!

The latest newsletter is out and it may be downloaded from here: Download Newsletter.

We continue to have email deliverability issues to email accountholders from the following services:

  1. Gmail
  2. Hotmail
  3. Yahoo
  4. Xtra

If you know someone who should be receiving the email and uses one of these email services, feel free to forward the newsletter to them.

Otherwise they may miss out on upcoming events.  For the next event, see page 8.

DUE TO THE RISING COST OF POSTAGE, THIS IS THE LAST NEWSLETTER THAT WILL BE POSTED TO MEMBERS.  IF YOU’D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE OUR NEWSLETTER, SEND AN EMAIL TO NEWSLETTER@NZFOI.ORG

IF YOU ALREADY RECEIVE THE NEWSLETTER BY EMAIL, YOU’RE ALL SET.

IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WHO RECEIVES IT BY POST, CHANCES ARE THEY MAY NOT BE THAT FAMILIAR WITH TECHNOLOGY.  PLEASE HELP THEM OUT.  

Thanks again for your support.  

The latest newsletter is out!

NZFOI Newsletter 202602
NZFOI Newsletter 202602

The latest newsletter is out and it may be downloaded from here: Download Newsletter.

We continue to have email deliverability issues to email accountholders from the following services:

  1. Gmail
  2. Hotmail
  3. Yahoo
  4. Xtra

If you know someone who should be receiving the email and uses one of these email services, feel free to forward the newsletter to them.

Otherwise they may miss out on upcoming events.  The next event is on Saturday, January 31, see page 8.

Thanks again for your support.  

Independence Day 2025 creates moment of reflection

Tony Kan (President, NZFOI), HE Ambassador Alon Roth-Snir and Kate MacPherson (Committee Member)

This week, our President, Tony Kan and Kate MacPherson travelled up to Wellington to attend the reception to mark the 77th Anniversary of the Independence of Israel.

To a packed house, the Ambassador spoke about our common values, and the opportunity to forge a stronger relationship between our countries through trade and fighting intolerance.

Jo McKeagan, the Principal Advisor to the Deputy Secretary (Middle East and Africa) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke on behalf of the NZ Government. Most notable of all, this year there was no mention of the creation of an independent Palestinian State, a commitment to a two state solution, or a call for Israel to moderate its military conduct.

In stark contrast to last year, the event was not marked by attendees being harassed by shouting over megaphones and blaring sirens from Pro-Palestinian protesters. Apparently they went to the wrong address.

The reception was also cause to reflect on how things have changed over the last 12 months:

  • Iran had seen its decades long investment in building proxy enemies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Assad regime to threaten Israel, have been made combat ineffective. Their senior leadership either dead, in hiding or in exile.
  • Decades of economic mismanagement caused by the Mullah’s fixation on imperialism has left Iranian civilians impoverished and desperate: So desperate that advertisements to sell kidneys to make ends meet are a common occurrence, infrastructure such as water supply networks have become unreliable and the Iranian currency is one of the most worthless in the world.
  • Israel has demonstrated the effectiveness of its covert forces in identifying their enemies’ leadership, their location and to devise ingenious ways to nullify them.
  • Israel now controls the Philadelphia Corridor, preventing Hamas from smuggling in further arms and munitions.
  • Israel is implementing its own aid distribution system, which will severely curtail Hamas’ ability to divert aid for its own consumption. This will hamper its ability to continue the war.
  • The election of a conservative US Government meant that there was no indecision hampering the supply of arms and munitions.
  • Various thinkers, such as Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips, Tom Holland, and Nigel Biggar are beginning to realize that what makes the West so successful are Judeo-Christian values, precepts and beliefs.

On the other hand, there is a deep sadness and grief over the loss, suffering, and hardship caused by Hamas’ evil, which has taken all around them to doom.

In the immediate, it remains for Israel to end Hamas’ rule in Gaza, place it under administration and begin the slow hard slog to de-radicalize the civilian population. Hamas has used its 20 years to create an Islamo-Fascist state and the culture, unfortunately, now runs deep.

The threat of Iran gaining nuclear weapons is serious and Iran is likely to string out any negotiations reasoning that President Trump has less than four years in power. If the possibility of an agreement that prevents them from developing a nuclear weapon is not possible within this period, then it may be forced to take unilateral action.

Yes, in 12 short months, the balance of power has shifted in the Middle East, and there is much to draw hope from. Churchill said that in war, one must be resolute. But recent events show antisemitism is strong even among some members of NZ society but Israel’s example, should inspire us to show the same robust and resolute response.

The latest newsletter is out!

Masthead of NZ Friends of Israel Assoc Inc Newsletter

The latest newsletter is out and it may be downloaded from here: February Newsletter.

We continue to have email deliverability issues to email accountholders from the following services:

  1. Gmail
  2. Hotmail
  3. Yahoo
  4. Xtra

If you know someone who should be receiving the email and uses one of these email services, feel free to forward the newsletter to them.

Otherwise they may miss out on upcoming events.  The next event is on Tuesday, May 20, see page 8.

Thanks again for your support.  

UK political bias against Israel

Natasha Haussdorff testifies before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
Natasha Haussdorff testifies before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee

Natasha Hausdorff and Jonathan Sacerdoti valiantly explain the Middle East Conflict. Watch how the Labour Party MPs become impatient when they don’t get the answers they were hoping for. What they want them to say is that they would endorse their view that the Palestinians should be given a separate state. Instead Hausdorff and Sacerdoti said that Gazan society needs to change their belief that they must kill Jews.

The latest newsletter is out!

The latest newsletter is out and it may be downloaded from here: February Newsletter.

We continue to have email deliverability issues to email accountholders from the following services:

  1. Gmail
  2. Hotmail
  3. Yahoo
  4. Xtra

If you know someone who should be receiving the email and uses one of these email services, feel free to forward the newsletter to them.

Otherwise they may miss out on upcoming events.  The next event is on Thursday, March 6, see page 8.

Thanks again for your support.  Life and all things that make it good, depend on it.