NZFOI Condemns Antisemitic Graffiti

NZFOI condemns in the strongest terms the recent spate of antisemitic and hate‑motivated graffiti that has appeared across Aotearoa over the past several days. The violent antisemitic message spray‑painted on a Nelson footbridge—described by the New Zealand Jewish Council as a “direct call for violence”—is deeply disturbing and has no place in our society. Scoop

These incidents have not occurred in isolation. In the same week, police arrested a man in Papatoetoe, Auckland, after graffiti inciting racial violence was discovered, and a second piece of threatening graffiti carrying the same message was found in a public toilet in Royal Oak. RNZ

Acts like these—whether targeting Jewish New Zealanders or any other community—undermine the safety, cohesion, and shared values that bind us together. They create fear, embolden further hatred, and erode the sense of trust that every person in Aotearoa deserves.

We stand in solidarity with Jewish New Zealanders and with all communities affected by hate. We echo the call of the New Zealand Jewish Council: there is no place in our society for messages that dehumanise or call for harm against any group. RNZ

NZFOI urges community members to speak out against all forms of hate, support those targeted, and work together to ensure Aotearoa remains a place where everyone can live safely and freely.

NZFOI Curriculum Refresh Feedback to Ministry of Education

NZFOI Curriculum Refresh Feedback
Anti-Semitic Graffiti Posted in Te Aro, Wellington. 2025.

NZFOI: The Ministry of Education is currently refreshing the Years 1–10 Curriculum and has invited public submissions on its draft proposals. We have taken this opportunity to contribute to the process. Below is the full text of our submission.

24 April 2026
5:00pm Deadline Submission

To:
The Curriculum Refresh Team
Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga | Ministry of Education
Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Submission on the Social Sciences Curriculum Refresh (Years 1–10) and the Need for Senior Civics Education (Years 11–13)

Tēnā koutou,

On behalf of the New Zealand Friends of Israel Association Inc., I welcome the opportunity to provide feedback on the Social Sciences Curriculum Refresh. Our organisation is committed to promoting understanding, dialogue, and the safety and wellbeing of Jewish New Zealanders. We appreciate the Ministry’s work in strengthening Social Sciences education and its emphasis on human rights, democratic values, and informed civic participation.

The draft Year 10 Social Sciences sequence already includes the Holocaust within the History strand. This is an important foundation. However, international evidence shows that Holocaust education is most effective when it is not taught as an isolated historical event, but as part of a broader understanding of human rights, democratic systems, and civic responsibility — all of which are central to the Ministry’s Civics and Society strand.

Our submission therefore focuses on strengthening the Holocaust content already present, ensuring historical accuracy, and connecting it to contemporary issues of antisemitism and civic participation. We also strongly recommend the development of a dedicated Civics course for Years 11–13, where students have the maturity to engage with these issues in depth.

1. Strengthening Holocaust Education Within the Year 10 Framework

The draft curriculum correctly includes the Holocaust under World War Two. To ensure clarity, accuracy, and alignment with the Ministry’s stated goals, we recommend:

A. Clarifying the historical specificity of the Holocaust

The Holocaust was the Nazi regime’s systematic attempt to annihilate the Jewish people. Other groups — including Roma, disabled people, Poles, Soviet POWs, LGBTQ+ people, and political dissidents — suffered terribly under Nazism and must be taught with dignity and accuracy. Each group’s experience should be taught distinctly, not collapsed into a single narrative.

This approach aligns with the Ministry’s emphasis on:

  • analysing evidence
  • understanding multiple perspectives
  • recognising injustice
  • learning how human rights frameworks developed

B. Connecting Holocaust education to contemporary antisemitism

Because of antisemitism, a portion of our society is being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes even violently attacked simply for being Jewish. This is a contemporary human rights issue that fits squarely within the Civics and Society strand.

Students should learn:

  • how antisemitism operates today
  • how to recognise antisemitic tropes
  • how conspiracy theories spread
  • how to respond safely and appropriately
  • how to support peers who are targeted
  • how to report incidents
  • how to uphold democratic values and human rights

If we want justice — and surely we do — then we must teach students how to stand up for it.

2. Teaching Students How to Push Back Against Antisemitism

One of the most important objectives of Holocaust and Civics education should be to teach students how to respond safely and appropriately when they encounter antisemitism.

This does not mean confrontation. It means:

  • recognising harmful stereotypes
  • understanding why they are dangerous
  • knowing how to challenge misinformation
  • knowing when and how to seek help
  • knowing how to support classmates who are targeted
  • knowing how to report incidents through appropriate channels

This aligns directly with the Ministry’s commitments to:

  • student wellbeing
  • anti‑bullying frameworks
  • digital citizenship
  • safe school environments
  • the development of confident, connected, actively involved young people

3. The Case for Civics Education in Years 11–13

The Ministry’s draft states that Year 10 Social Sciences “prepares students with the knowledge and practices to access related curriculum subjects for Years 11–13.” This creates a natural pathway for a dedicated senior Civics course, where students have the cognitive maturity to engage with:

  • democratic institutions
  • human rights frameworks
  • extremism and radicalisation
  • propaganda and media manipulation
  • contemporary antisemitism
  • the responsibilities of citizenship

Holocaust education should be a core case study within this senior Civics course, enabling students to connect historical injustice with contemporary civic responsibilities.

Older students are developmentally ready to:

  • analyse complex political and ethical issues
  • understand the consequences of democratic failure
  • evaluate competing perspectives
  • participate meaningfully in civic life
  • prepare for voting and public engagement

A senior Civics course would therefore strengthen the Ministry’s goals of producing informed, thoughtful, and active citizens.

4. Summary of Recommendations

For Years 1–10

  • Strengthen Holocaust content already present in Year 10.
  • Clarify the Holocaust’s historical specificity.
  • Teach the persecution of other victim groups distinctly and accurately.
  • Integrate Jewish life and culture, not only Jewish victimhood.
  • Teach students how to recognise and respond to prejudice.
  • Connect Holocaust education to human rights and democratic values.
  • Provide teachers with training and high‑quality resources.

For Years 11–13

  • Develop a dedicated Civics course.
  • Include Holocaust education as a central case study.
  • Teach contemporary antisemitism, conspiracy culture, and online radicalisation.
  • Teach students how to push back safely and appropriately when they encounter antisemitism.
  • Connect historical lessons to democratic participation and critical media literacy.

5. Key takeaways

Holocaust education is not simply about teaching a historical event. It is about equipping young New Zealanders with the knowledge and moral clarity to recognise antisemitism — a threat that continues to harm Jewish communities today — and to repudiate it wherever it appears.

Because of antisemitism, a portion of our society is being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes violently attacked simply for being Jewish. That is an injustice. A curriculum committed to equity and citizenship must prepare students to recognise injustice and to act.

The Curriculum Refresh is a rare opportunity to strengthen this essential part of our national education. We urge the Ministry to adopt the recommendations above to ensure that Holocaust and Civics education in Aotearoa is accurate, meaningful, and future‑focused — and that it prepares young people not only to understand injustice, but to stand against it.

Ngā mihi nui,

Tony Kan
President
New Zealand Friends of Israel Association Inc.
Charities Commission Registration No: CC 43880

 

Social Media, State Actors, and the Battle for World Opinion on Israel

Over the last five years, social media has transformed from a digital town square into a geopolitical battlespace. Nowhere is this clearer than in the global conversation about Israel. What once unfolded through journalism, diplomacy, and long‑form analysis now happens through 15‑second videos, anonymous accounts, and algorithm‑driven outrage. And while many in the West still treat social media as entertainment, hostile states treat it as a weapon.

The new information battlefield

During the October 7 attacks and the Gaza war that followed, platforms like TikTok, X, Instagram, and Telegram became the primary source of information for millions. But “information” is generous. Much of what went viral was unverified, emotionally charged, or outright fabricated. Israel often found itself responding to false claims within minutes simply to prevent them from hardening into “truth.”

This shift has had measurable consequences. In 2023, for the first time since polling began in 1998, more Americans sympathised with Palestinians than with Israelis. That change did not happen in a vacuum. It was accelerated by digital ecosystems optimised for emotional impact, not accuracy.

State actors are exploiting Western vulnerabilities

Foreign governments have learned that social media allows them to influence Western societies at almost no cost. Russia’s bot networks are well‑documented. China’s algorithmic shaping of TikTok content is now a matter of national‑security concern in the United States. And Iran—often underestimated in this space— has become increasingly sophisticated.

One of the most revealing examples came when Iran shut down its own internet during a 12‑day internal crisis. Almost immediately, the volume of social‑media posts advocating Scottish separatism collapsed. That wasn’t a coincidence. It was a glimpse into how foreign actors seed and amplify divisive narratives abroad. When the servers went dark in Tehran, the “grassroots” Scottish nationalism online suddenly evaporated.

This is the world we now inhabit: a world where adversarial regimes can reach directly into Western societies and widen every existing fault line—political, racial, religious, generational—because division weakens democracies.

The herd instinct and the illusion of consensus

Human beings are social creatures. We instinctively assume that if thousands of people are saying something, it must be true—or at least partly true. Social media exploits this instinct mercilessly.

When users see a flood of posts vilifying Israel or demonising Jews, the sheer volume creates an illusion of consensus. But volume is not evidence. It is often automation.

AI‑driven botnets can generate thousands of posts per minute, each containing a sliver of selective truth wrapped in emotionally charged framing. These posts mimic human behaviour, recycle trending language, and create the impression of a global groundswell. In reality, it may be a handful of operators in Moscow, Tehran, or Beijing pressing a button.

This is not public opinion. It is manufactured perception.

And once people fall into these digital stampedes, they become trapped in algorithmic silos so deep they can no longer see out of them. They stop encountering opposing views. They stop trusting mainstream institutions. They stop believing that disagreement can be honest.

A society that cannot talk to itself cannot defend itself.

War may not interest the West—but war is interested in the West

Many in the West understandably want nothing to do with conflict in the Middle East. But geopolitical adversaries are deeply interested in them. Iran, Russia, and China all view Western freedoms—speech, religion, equality, democratic governance—as existential threats to their own systems.

This is why Iran calls the United States “the Great Satan.” Not because of culture or history, but because a free society is a standing rebuke to tyranny. As long as the West remains free, Iran will continue pursuing nuclear capability and sponsoring proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to destabilise the region and  weaken Western resolve.  And it’s working.  In the last two conflicts in the Middle East, the US has lacked the resolve to complete the mission.  

Tyrannies do not fear Western armies as much as they fear Western ideas.

Weaponising Western empathy

One of the most effective tools used against the West is its own moral instinct. Free societies value compassion, fairness, and human rights. Authoritarian regimes understand this—and exploit it.

They flood social media with emotionally charged content designed to provoke outrage, guilt, or moral confusion. They present themselves as victims while hiding their own abuses. They manipulate Western audiences who assume that everyone values truth the same way we do.

But in many parts of the world, truth is not a virtue—it is a tactic.

How free societies defend themselves without sacrificing freedom

The answer is not censorship. It is discernment.

People must learn to slow down, cross‑check, and seek independent sources. They must look for the overlap between credible accounts rather than trusting the first viral post that appears in their feed. They must understand that not everyone online shares Western values—or Western respect for truth.

We must be as gentle as doves and as wise as serpents.

A free society can survive lies. What it cannot survive is naivety.

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.  

How Headlines help Anti‑Israel Bias Escape Scrutiny

Headline push Anti‑Israel Bias

Most people never read past a headline. In the age of scrolling, swiping, and instant reactions, the headline is the story for a huge share of the audience. It shapes the emotional response, sets the frame, and often becomes the public’s memory of the event, regardless of what the article actually says.

That is why headlines matter so much in reporting on Israel. And it is why complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) and the NZ Media Council so often fail, even when the headline is blatantly misleading or inflammatory.

A recent Stuff story is a perfect example.

The Stuff Headline That Does the Damage

Stuff ran the headline:

“Human rights experts join rising chorus that accuses Israel of genocide in Gaza.”

It is a headline designed to hit hard. It implies a growing, authoritative consensus. It frames Israel as a state facing a swelling global indictment. And it uses the most explosive word in the political vocabulary: genocide.

But the article itself tells a different story. Buried further down, readers learn that:

  • The International Court of Justice has not found Israel guilty of genocide.
  • The UN “experts” are not judges, not investigators, and do not speak for the UN as a whole.
  • The legal question is unresolved and contested.

A more accurate, less inflammatory headline could easily have been:

“UN-appointed experts repeat genocide allegations; legal bodies yet to rule.”

Same facts. Less heat. No distortion. But most readers never get that far. They see the headline, absorb the accusation, and move on.

Why Regulators Keep Saying “Not Guilty”

When NZFOI or others complain about biased headlines, the outcome is depressingly predictable. The BSA and Media Council almost always judge the entire article, not the headline that shaped public perception.

Their reasoning follows a familiar pattern:

  • A “reasonable reader” is assumed to read the whole article.
  • Headlines are allowed to be punchy or provocative.
  • Balance in the body text is treated as a cure for imbalance in the headline.

This approach made sense in the print era, when readers sat down with a newspaper and consumed the whole story. It makes no sense in a digital environment where headlines circulate independently on social media, often without any context at all.

The regulators are evaluating journalism as it exists on paper, not as it is consumed in the real world.

This allows headlines to help anti-Israel bias to escape scrutiny.

What the Research Shows About Headlines

Modern media research is unequivocal:

  • Many readers never click through to the article.
  • Emotional reactions occur at the headline level alone.
  • First impressions formed from headlines persist even when contradicted by the body.
  • Social media amplifies headlines in isolation, without nuance or context.

In other words, a fair body cannot fix a misleading headline. The harm has already happened.

This is especially true for Israel-related reporting, where words like “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “war crimes” carry enormous emotional weight and can inflame public sentiment instantly.

Why This Matters for Israel

Israel is uniquely vulnerable to headline distortion because:

  • Allegations are often presented as facts.
  • Headlines frequently omit legal context.
  • Nuance appears only deep in the article.
  • Social media spreads the headline, not the correction.

The Stuff headline is a textbook case. It primes readers to believe Israel is committing genocide, even though the article itself acknowledges that no court has made such a finding.

The headline becomes the verdict. The article becomes the footnote.

What Needs to Change

New Zealand’s media standards need to catch up with how news is actually consumed.

  • Headlines must be assessed as standalone communications. If the headline misleads, the complaint should be upheld, even if the body is balanced.
  • Newsrooms must stop using headlines as emotional weapons. Accuracy should not be sacrificed for clicks, especially on matters of war and public safety.
  • Regulators must recognise the real-world impact of framing. The “reasonable reader” of 2026 does not behave like the reader of 1996.

Until that happens, misleading headlines about Israel will continue to shape public opinion while escaping accountability.

 

Australia’s Hate‑Speech Debate and the Lessons Hidden in History

Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has authorised a Royal Commission in the aftermath of the Bondi Massacre. The Bondi Massacre has renewed calls for Hate-Speech Laws to be passed.

Australia’s renewed push to strengthen hate‑speech laws, after the Bondi Massacre, has stirred up a familiar conversation across the Tasman. Whenever one democracy tightens the boundaries of acceptable speech, its neighbours inevitably ask themselves the same questions: What exactly are we trying to prevent? Do these laws work? And how do we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past?

To answer those questions, it helps to step back and look at the long, winding history of how societies have tried to regulate dangerous speech — from medieval blasphemy laws to modern hate‑speech statutes — and how New Zealand found itself wrestling with these issues in recent years.

Before “Hate Speech”: The Era of Proto‑Laws

Long before anyone coined the phrase “hate speech,” societies were already policing words. But the targets were very different from today.

Early speech restrictions were designed to protect the powerful, not the vulnerable. Medieval and early‑modern Europe punished blasphemy, heresy, and insults to monarchs. Sedition laws protected the state. Public‑order laws punished speech that threatened stability. These weren’t hate‑speech laws — but they were the ancestors of modern speech regulation. They recognised that words could inflame, destabilise, or provoke violence.

They were, in a sense, proto–hate speech laws: early attempts to control dangerous expression, but aimed at shielding institutions and dominant religions rather than minority communities.

Weimar Germany: A Warning From the Middle Ground

By the early 20th century, democracies began experimenting with laws that looked closer to what we recognise today. The Weimar Republic had statutes against inciting hatred, insulting religious communities, and spreading inflammatory propaganda. These laws were used — sporadically — against Hitler and the Nazi Party.

But they were weak, inconsistently enforced, and applied by courts often sympathetic to nationalist rhetoric. They failed not because the idea of regulating incitement was flawed, but because the state enforcing them was collapsing.

This failure became a turning point. After the war, the world understood that propaganda and dehumanising rhetoric weren’t abstract harms — they were precursors to genocide.

After the Holocaust: The Birth of Modern Hate‑Speech Law

Modern hate‑speech laws are a post‑WWII creation. Germany led the way with strict bans on Nazi symbols, Holocaust denial, and incitement against groups. These laws influenced the European Convention on Human Rights, UN anti‑racism conventions, and the frameworks adopted by Canada, the UK, and others.

For the first time, speech regulation was designed to protect vulnerable minorities, not the state or the dominant religion. The moral logic was clear: if hateful propaganda helped pave the road to genocide, democracies had a duty to intervene earlier.

But even with this moral clarity, the practical challenges remained.

The Drafting Dilemma: Why Hate‑Speech Laws Are So Hard to Get Right

Even supporters of hate‑speech laws acknowledge the same recurring problems.

Definitions are slippery.
Words like “hatred,” “insult,” and “hostility” are subjective. What one person sees as critique, another sees as bigotry.

Enforcement can become political.
Police and courts must interpret emotional concepts. That opens the door to inconsistency — or misuse.

Ideas are not people.
Laws should protect individuals from harm, not shield belief systems from criticism. When religion becomes a protected category, the line between hate‑speech law and blasphemy law can blur quickly.

Effectiveness is mixed.
Countries with strong hate‑speech laws still experience rising extremism. The laws can reduce public displays of hate, but they rarely change underlying prejudice.

These tensions are exactly what Australia is grappling with now — and what New Zealand confronted recently.

New Zealand’s High‑Threshold Approach

New Zealand has some of the narrowest hate‑speech laws in the democratic world. Under the Human Rights Act 1993, only racial incitement is covered. The threshold is high: the speech must be threatening, abusive, or insulting and likely to incite hostility or contempt.

Religion, gender, sexuality, disability, and political belief are not included. Most offensive or hateful speech is not illegal unless it crosses into threats, harassment, or incitement to violence — all of which are already covered by the Crimes Act and other statutes.

This approach reflects a strong cultural preference for free expression and a reluctance to criminalise attitudes rather than actions.

The Push to Add Religion — And Why It Backfired

After the Christchurch mosque attacks, the Royal Commission recommended expanding hate‑speech protections to include religion. The government proposed amending the Human Rights Act so that “insulting” or “hostile” speech about religious groups could become a criminal offence.

The reaction was swift and intense.

Critics warned that criminalising “insults” to religion risked creating a de facto blasphemy law — just two years after New Zealand had formally repealed its old blasphemy offence. The concern wasn’t abstract. Around the world, laws protecting religion from “insult” have been used to:

  • Suppress theological disagreement
  • Silence ex‑believers
  • Chill academic study of comparative religion
  • Shield harmful practices from scrutiny
  • Protect ideas instead of people

Public submissions overwhelmingly argued that the proposal would undermine open debate, academic freedom, and the ability to challenge belief systems — all essential in a pluralistic society.

In the end, the Law Commission declined to include hate‑speech reform in its work programme, and the government withdrew the proposal entirely.

What Australia Can Learn From New Zealand’s Experience

Australia’s debate is unfolding in a global context where hate‑speech laws are common but their effectiveness is mixed. The New Zealand experience offers a quiet but important lesson: even well‑intentioned reforms can stumble when they risk suppressing legitimate debate, especially around religion.

The challenge is not whether to protect vulnerable communities — everyone agrees on that. The challenge is how to do it without sliding back into the old pattern of protecting belief systems from criticism, the very thing modern democracies have spent decades moving away from.

If Australia wants to avoid repeating history — both ancient and modern — it will need to draft with extraordinary care, clear thresholds, and a firm commitment to protecting people rather than ideas.

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.  

Enoch Lavendar: Hanukkah 2025

ICYMI or you’d just like to hear Enoch’s very personal Hanukkah message presented at our December meeting in Christchurch, you can watch it here.

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.