קטגוריה: In English

Mahmoud Abbas in Stockholm

Published in i24News (French and Arabic versions also available): http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/60752-150211-analysis

There's an old Jewish joke which is particularly appropriate to describe Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' visit to Stockholm today (Tuesday, February 10th). It tells of two people in conflict with one another who go to a rabbi for resolution. The first visits the rabbi and makes his case. The rabbi is impressed and says "you're absolutely right". Later on, the second person presents his case too and receives a similar response. When the rabbi's wife, who overheard the conversations with both men, asks how they can both be right, he simply answers: "you're right too".

When it comes to Mahmoud Abbas' Stockholm visit, there are three sides to the story, The Swedes, the Palestinians and the absent, but still dominant, Israelis. Just like in the joke, they're all right, but being right doesn’t necessarily lead anywhere.

On the surface the Swedes make a good point. A few months ago they recognized Palestinian as a state. The theory was that by doing this they're making the parties, Israel and the Palestinians, less unequal which will eventually help lead them back to the negotiating table. Today Swedish PM, Stefan Löfven,  at a joint press conference with President Abbas spoke of the importance of striving towards a two-state solution but he also spoke about the Palestinians' responsibilities. The Swedes, it seems, are trying to use their influence and are donating generously to help Abbas fight corruption, promote human rights and gender equality and generally strive towards democracy and peace. Sceptics may claim these policies won't work, but at least the Swedes are trying.

But there's a less public side to Sweden's policies. Stefan Löfven's government is a week one. It was almost sent back to the polls after its budget was voted down a couple of months ago and it was saved because it struck the so called "December agreement" with the opposition. Though this deal limits the influence of the far right wing populist "Sweden Democrats" party, it also seriously limits the government's ability to implement its policies.

But what is true about domestic policies may not be quite so true when it comes to foreign ones. Löfven's Palestine policy holds many political advantages for him. First, it's a compensation for his own party’s left wing and his coalition Green Party partners, for the right wing orientated domestic policies he's adopting. These come at no serious cost since the opponents to his Middle-Eastern policies know that the deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is so serious that there's no way a Swedish pro-active diplomatic effort can make a difference. Sure, right wing opposition politicians may make the occasional statement against the recognition of Palestine but they're saving their ammunition for where it really matters.

But there's an even bigger picture when it comes to Swedish foreign policy. This country of just 10 million is lately raising its international profile. A recent study by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that it's second only to Germany in pushing through its foreign policy ideas in the EU (it shares second place with the UK). Sweden also seeks to win a seat on the UN's Security Council in the 2016 elections. It's been twenty years since the last time it had one, and an active policy and global headlines on one of the world's most publicized conflicts doesn’t hurt these Swedish ambitions. All this doesn’t mean that Sweden is using the Palestinians in a cynical or opportunist way. The ruling Social-Democratic party has always been serious about promoting peace, freedom and human rights worldwide. Still, it seems the Palestinian issue is also a convenient and not a very risky way to bring this relatively small country to the front of the world's stage.

But what do the Palestinians themselves have to gain from a presidential visit to the far north? It's now clear that Palestinian policy makers have decided that peace negotiations with what they see as an unwilling Israeli partner under a biased American leadership are a waste of time. After the failure of the Kerry talks they're putting their faith in the UN, the ICC and unilateral statements of recognition from parliaments and governments across Europe. These strategies are meant to raise the price paid by Israel for continuing the occupation of the West Bank in terms of international legitimacy. The Palestinians assume that the Israelis won't make any concessions without international pressure in forms of boycotts, upholding of trade agreements, diplomatic sanctions and legal processes against it.

Like the Swedes, the Palestinians are right too. As far as they're concerned, they're putting an end to years of futile peace talks which gave them close to nothing and what's worse, while they were negotiating Israel continued building settlements and enjoyed the fruits of Palestinian security co-operation and non-violent methods of resistance. Abbas and his people are tired of peace initiatives thrown their way and are entitled to turn to the world for support. But just like the Swedes, Abbas has narrow political interests too.

Abbas desperately needs a win. Recent polls show he's losing support at home. The unity government formed by his own movement, Fatah, and rivals Hamas in 2014 didn’t bring unity at all. The two movements are still very much in conflict and Abbas has no control over the Gaza strip. He's also receiving international pressure for failing to fight corruption and setting a date for elections. The negotiations with Israel gave him no achievements whatsoever and they lost him domestic support. So with no chance of winning in Gaza city, Jerusalem or Ramallah, he turns to The Hague, New York and Stockholm for photo opportunities with world leaders. And with Israel withholding his tax revenues, he returns from abroad with promises of state building contributions and humanitarian aid.

The Israelis, the third party in this political drama, are naturally suspicious of this Swedish generosity towards the Palestinians. They recently caused Swedish FM, Margot Wallström, to cancel a visit to Israel, this only a few months after recalling and returning their ambassador to Stockholm. Israel claims recent Palestinian policies are proof that they're not really interested in a two-state solution and the Swedes shouldn’t be encouraging this. "If he's serious about peace", wrote Israel's ambassador to Sweden, Isaac Bachman, in a local daily, SvD, "Abbas should travel to Jerusalem, not to Stockholm". He also blamed the Palestinian president for making unreasonable starting conditions to negotiations and encouraging violence and terrorism.

Yes, the Israeli government is right too. It's not surprising that it demands a unified negotiating partner who's committed to peace and recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. But it's obvious that Israel's domestic politics are a part in this debate too. No political elements in Israel are really concerned with the Palestinians at the moment. There will be a general election in March and, sadly, promoting peace doesn't win votes in Israel these days. Quite the opposite. Many analysts claim Israeli PM Netanyahu is devoted to "containing" the conflict, not solving it, and none of his opponents seem likely to amaze the world with a bold and creative peace plan which will enter history books and not the never ending list of failed peace initiatives.

But none of this is really important. A meeting between an almost desperate 80 year old Palestinian leader with over-enthusiastic Swedish policy makers while a reluctant Israeli government is standing on the sidelines will change nothing on the ground. If the two-state solution is indeed the only game in town, it will take much more than this, both in terms of local Palestinian and Israeli willingness to compromise and in terms of international involvement, funding and assurances. Until then, as in the old joke, all sides will have to make do with just being right.

פרסי נובל – לא בדיוק מה שחשבתם

English Follows

השנה לא זכה אף ישראלי בפרס הנכסף. מאוכזבים? הנה מבט מעט ביקורתי על הפרס ששם את הדברים בפרופורציה…

פורסם במוסף הארץ: http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/.premium-1.2503371#article-comments

English: http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.630209

התקופה שבין תחילת אוקטובר לאמצע דצמבר היא זמן הנובל. בשבועות אלו, בין ההכרזה על הזוכים להענקת הפרסים, תופס הפרס היוקרתי כותרות ראשיות בכל העולם. הטקס פחות או יותר קבוע, תחילה באות הספקולציות בדבר זהות הזוכים, אח"כ באות כתבות הפרופיל על המועמדים שנבחרו ופועלם. בסוף, לקראת העשירי בדצמבר, יום הענקת הפרסים, מגיע סיקור האירועים הנוצצים בסטוקהולם ובאוסלו – הטקסים המרשימים, ההרצאות המתוקשרות והנשפים החגיגיים.

היחס הציבורי לפרסי הנובל איננו מפתיע. מדובר, אחרי הכל, בפרס היוקרתי בעולם המהווה סמל להצטיינות מדעית והתעלות רוחנית. הפרסים מעוררים השראה ועניין מאז 1901 אז הוענקו לראשונה בהתאם לצוואתו של הממציא, הכימאי והיזם השוודי אלפרד נובל. לפני מותו החליט נובל להשקיע את רוב הונו בקרן שתעניק מדי שנה פרסים לאנשים שתרמו לאנושות ע"י המצאות ותגליות מדעיות, יצירה ספרותית וניסיונות להשכנת שלום עולמי. מאז ועד היום חולק הפרס, העומד כיום על כ-1.1 מיליון דולר לקטגוריה, ל-860 אנשים ול-22 ארגונים.

עד כאן הכל בסדר. אך יש משהו מעט מעוות בהתייחסות הישראלית לנובל. ראשית, ישנה אובססיה מוגזמת בנוגע למספר הישראלים והיהודים שזכו בפרס. אין ספק שהמספר גבוה יחסית, אבל המרדף השנתי אחרי מקור הגאווה הלאומית הזה הוא מעורר חמלה. זהו חיפוש אחר נחמה זמינה ומהירה. למי אכפת מעוני, מיתון ופערים חברתיים כאשר לכלכלן מפרינסטון שקיבל את המדליה הנכספת ממלך שוודיה הייתה אמא יהודייה? למי אכפת מהסכסוך האלים עם הפלסטינים כשהכימאי מקליפורניה שזכה בפרס היוקרתי מכולם היה פעם קצין בצה"ל? כל הבעיות נכנסות לפרופורציה בפני הטיעון המנצח: אחד מכל חמישה זוכים בנובל הוא יהודי, כמה פרסים כבר הביאו הערבים?

מעבר לזה יש לנובל כוח מכופף מציאות – פרופסור מהטכניון מחליט שהוא רוצה להיות נשיא המדינה? אנחנו נתעלם מחוסר ניסיונו הפוליטי ונתייחס אליו ברצינות רק מפני שהוא זכה בנובל. מתמטיקאי מהאוניברסיטה העברית לא מקבל תואר דוקטור לשם כבוד מאוניברסיטת חיפה? נתעלם מהעובדה שזוהי סוגיה פנימית של העולם האקדמי ונהפוך אותה לשערורייה לאומית כי הוא זכה בנובל. כל זה היה סביר אם פרס הנובל באמת היה אמת המידה האולטימטיבית לתבונה, אבל האם זה אכן המצב או שאנחנו לוקחים אותו קצת יותר מדי ברצינות?

בחינה ביקורתית של פרס הנובל מגלה בעיקר אנכרוניזם ופרובינציאליות ככל שזה נוגע לתהליך בחירת הזוכים. ההחלטה בדבר הגופים הבוחרים את הזוכים התקבלה לפני כ-120 שנה ע"י אדם אחד, אלפרד נובל עצמו. אין לאיש סמכות לעדכן או לשנות את ההחלטה וכך מתקבלות ההחלטות על הפרסים היוקרתיים בתבל ע"י גופים שכמעט כל חבריהם שוודיים (או נורבגים במקרה של פרס נובל לשלום). מדובר כמובן בגופים רציניים מאוד ואין סיבה להטיל דופי במקצועיותם אבל הם נטולי פרספקטיבה גלובאלית. זוכי הנובל מהווים לכן את האליטה של האנושות כפי שהיא נראית מהצפון הרחוק של אירופה, לא פחות ולא יותר מזה. בעוד רבים מזהים את פרסי הנובל בפיזיקה, רפואה וכימיה עם הישגים אקדמיים מזהירים המייצגים את האנושות כולה, יש לזכור כי בהחלטה על זהות הזוכים לא משתתפים נציגי הארוורד, אוקספורד ו-MIT, גם לא שופטים סינים, הודים או רוסים אלא אנשי האקדמיה השוודית, שע"פ רוב המדדים הבינלאומיים אף אחד ממוסדותיה אינו מצליח להתברג אל בין חמישים האוניברסיטאות הטובות בעולם.

גם תהליך הבחירה עצמו הוא לא מודרני במהותו. אין ספק שטוב שפרס יוקרתי כמו הנובל לא יושפע מרייטינג ולחצים. טוב שזוכי הנובל לא נבחרים באס.אם.אסים או לייקים בפייסבוק, אבל הממסד הסקנדינבי לוקח את זה צעד אחד רחוק מדי. ע"פ התקנון רק לקבוצה מצומצמת מאוד של אנשים מותר להציע מועמדים: חברי האקדמיות השוודיות ווועדות הפרס שלהן, זוכים לשעבר בפרס נובל ובכירים מתחומים מסוימים מאוד בעולם האקדמי. בפרס נובל לשלום נוספים גם חברי פרלמנטים, ממשלות ובתי-דין בינלאומיים. רשימה זו משאירה את הכל בתוך המשפחה. זהו מצב סביר בפרסים המדעיים אך בפרסים האחרים השיטה מצמצמת את רשימת הזוכים האפשרית ואת הדיון בה. אך הדיון איננו אפשרי בכל מקרה מכיוון שרשימת המועמדים והפרוטוקולים של הדיונים נשמרים בסודיות במשך חמישים שנה. מסוקרנים לדעת מי היו המועמדים לקבל את פרס נובל לספרות או לשלום? אין בעיה, בתנאי שאתם מתעניינים רק בשנים שלפני 1964. רוצים להציע מועמדים לפרסים של שנה הבאה? הרגישו חופשיים לעשות זאת, בתנאי, כמובן, שכבר זכיתם בפרס בעצמכם או שאתם שייכים לאליטה הנבחרת של העולם האקדמי או הפוליטי (לא יעזור לכם אם אתם נניח פעילים חברתיים ידועים, רופאים, סופרים מפורסמים, עיתונאים, ראשי-ערים, שופטים, מנהיגי עובדים, תעשיינים או סתם אזרחים שיש להם משהו לתרום לדיון).

פרס הנובל לספרות הוא דוגמא מצוינת לתהליך הבעייתי. ההחלטה על זהות הזוכה מתקבלת בגוף שהוקם ב- 1786 ומונה 18 חברים. חברי הוועדה ממונים לכל החיים, גילם הממוצע הוא מעל שבעים וכולם שוודים למהדרין. אין להתפלא שתוצאות תהליך הבחירה מעוררות תמיהות – מצד אחד מועמדים שהם כמעט מובנים מאליהם לא זוכים בפרס, מצד שני, לעיתים, בניסיון מוגזם להפגין אקטואליות או קוסמופוליטיות, זוכים מועמדים אזוטריים וכמעט אנונימיים. ספרות איננה מדע מדויק והעדפות ספרותיות הן עניין של טעם ובכל זאת, קשה למצוא הצדקה לכך שסופרים כגון טולסטוי, צ'כוב, מארק טוויין, ג'יימס ג'ויס ומרסל פרוסט לא זכו בפרס כשהיו בחיים (הנובל מוענק רק לזוכים חיים) בעוד שרשימת הזוכים מאותה תקופה כוללת שמות של סופרים שנעלמו מדפי ההיסטוריה. ב-1974, שנה בה היו מועמדים, בין השאר, גראהם גרין, וולדימיר נבוקוב וחורחה לואיס בורחס, הזוכים היו שני סופרים שוודיים, אייווינד יונסון והארי מרטינסון. לא שיש פסול בכך שסופרים שוודיים יזכו מדי פעם בפרס אבל השניים האלו היו גם חברי הגוף הבוחר עצמו. ובכלל, יותר שוודיים זכו בפרס נובל לספרות מאשר זכו בו סופרים מכל יבשת אסיה, אפריקה או דרום-אמריקה למשל. באופן כללי פרסי הנובל הם יורוצנטריים למדי – 468 מתוך 860 הזוכים הם ילידי אירופה. הייצוג הנשי גם הוא לא מרשים במיוחד – בסה"כ 46, קצת יותר מ-5% מהזוכים.

אם יש סימני שאלה לגבי התאמתה של האקדמיה השוודית לבחירת זוכי פרס הנובל לספרות דומה שהגוף המקבל את ההחלטות על פרס הנובל לשלום הוא מוזר עוד יותר. הרעיון של אלפרד נובל, שהיה רדוף תחושות אשמה על כך שהמציא את הדינמיט, היה פשוט – הענקת פרס למי שתרם ל"אחווה בין אומות, ביטול או צמצום צבאות וקידום תהליכי שלום". רעיון נאצל אמנם אך בידי מי הוא הפקיד את ההכרעה על הענקת הפרס? האם בידי מומחים בעלי שם עולמי למדע המדינה? האם בידי וועדה של אנשי רוח ומומחים לענייני דיפלומטיה, צבא או ביטחון? התשובה היא כמובן לא. פרס נובל לשלום מוענק ע"י תת-וועדה של הפרלמנט הנורבגי, מדינה בת כחמישה מיליון תושבים שהיא כמעט חסרת חשיבות, ניסיון או השפעה בזירה העולמית. הרכבה של הוועדה בת חמשת החברים לא נקבע ע"פ מומחיות או ניסיון אלא ע"פ, לא תאמינו, מאזן הכוחות בין המפלגות השונות בפרלמנט הנורבגי.

גם כאן תהליך הבחירה הניב תוצאות מוזרות החל מבחירתו של קורדל הול, מזכיר המדינה של רוזוולט שככל הנראה היה אחראי לסירובה של ארה"ב לקבל אנייה של מאות מבקשי מקלט יהודיים מאירופה ב-1939, ועד בחירתו של נשיא ארה"ב, ברק אובמה, שנכנס לרשימת המועמדים 12 ימים בלבד אחרי שנבחר לראשונה, כלומר לפני שהספיק לעשות פעולה כלשהי שתצדיק את זכייתו. זכיות אלו מצטרפות לזכיות אמורפיות משהו של גופים כמו האיחוד האירופי או האו"ם בעוד מאהטמה גנדי, שהיה מועמד חמש פעמים, לא זכה בפרס מעולם.

אבל אפילו מעמדו של פרס נובל לשלום הוא סביר יחסית לזה של פרס הכלכלה. אלפרד נובל בחר באופן ברור וחד משמעי חמש קטגוריות לפרס. אלו לא כללו כלל ועיקר פרס לכלכלה. ב-1968 הצליח הבנק השוודי המרכזי, באקט מבריק של יחסי ציבור לקנות בכסף רב פרס מטעמו שיחולק במקביל לפרסי הנובל המקוריים. נכון, באופן רשמי הוא נקרא "הפרס למדעים כלכליים של הבנק השוודי המרכזי לזכרו של אלפרד נובל" ולא פרס נובל, אבל מי כבר שם לב לפרטים שכאלו? באופן מעשי הצליח הפרס להשתרבב לפסטיבל השנתי בסטוקהולם בניגוד לכוונותיו של אלפרד נובל, כאשר כמה מהזוכים בו בוודאי לא יכולים להיחשב לכאלו שקידמו את הערכים הנאצלים שבשמם ייסד נובל את המפעל.

אך כאשר מדובר בכסף הפרס לכלכלה הוא רק קצה הקרחון. קרן הנובל המממנת את הפרסים היא קרן פרטית שנוסדה ב-1900, ארבע שנים אחרי מותו של נובל. באופן אירוני מקור כספי הקרן שמחלקת את פרס השלום היוקרתי בעולם הוא בהון שמקורו ברווחים מהפטנט על דינמיט וממפעל תעשייתי בשם בופורס (Bofors) שהיה בבעלותו של נובל וייצר תותחים וכלי נשק. כיום פועלת הקרן באופן מעשי כבית השקעות המשקיע באפיקי השקעה שונים כולל קרנות גידור שונות כאשר הרווחים משמשים לתשלום ההוצאות הכרוכות בחלוקת הפרס. הונה בסוף 2013 היה כ-473 מיליון דולר והיא פטורה מתשלום מיסים בשוודיה וממיסים על השקעות בארה"ב.

מטבע הדברים יש לקרן אינטרסים עסקיים ופיננסיים חובקי עולם, היא הקימה גופים עסקיים ומלכ"רים שונים שלכל אחד מהם יש נכסים, הנהלות ומועסקים, וכמו כל קרן אחרת היא עושה ככל יכולתה לשפר את רווחיותה. לפני שנתיים היא אפילו קיצצה את גובה פרסי הנובל מכ-1.4 מיליון דולר לכ-1.1 לקטגוריה. דרך אחרת לשפר רווחיות היא גיוס תרומות. המרכז החדש הנבנה בסטוקהולם, שישמש כמטה וכמוזיאון, נבנה בעיקר מתרומות של שני גורמים מרכזיים במשק השוודי – משפחת וולנברג (שבבעלותה חלקים גדולים מהמשק השוודי והשפעה פוליטית רבה) ומשפחת פרשון (מייסדי H&M). צריך להיות תמים מאוד כדי לחשוב שההשקעות הפיננסיות, הפורמציות המשפטיות והפוליטיקה הפנימית שלהם לא ישפיעו בדרך כזו או אחרת על תהליכי בחירת הזוכים. וועדות בחירת הזוכים מופרדות אמנם מהקרן והן עצמאיות ובלתי תלויות אך בעבר כבר עלו טענות בדבר השפעת הצדדים הפיננסיים של מפעל הנובל על בחירת הזוכים כמו גם טענות על השקעות הקרן באפיקים שאינם מתאימים לרוח הפרס.

כל זה אינו מהווה הוכחה לשחיתות או פחיתות כבוד לפרס. יש לפרסי הנובל זכויות והישגים רבים והם תורמים רבות למטרות ראויות. אבל ייתכן שהגיע הזמן לשים אותם במקומם הנכון – זהו מפעל פרטי בעל מבנה מיושן ואינטרסים שאינם מוכרים לציבור הרחב המעניק פרסים בעיקר לגברים אירופאים מבוגרים ע"פ השקפותיה ועמדותיה של האליטה האקדמית בחלק ממדינות סקנדינביה. כשמסתכלים על זה ככה זה כבר לא נראה כל כך נורא שהשנה אף ישראלי לא זכה בפרס.

Anachronism and provinciality: Welcome to the Nobel Prize selection process

Prizewinners represent humanity’s elite as it appears from the recesses of northern Europe.

This year’s Nobel Prize winners will pick up their awards in a few days, so it’s no wonder media stories about the institution and the recipients are proliferating. After all, the prizes have been arousing interest since 1901, when they were first bestowed based on the will of Swedish chemist and entrepreneur Alfred Nobel.

Before Nobel died, he invested most of his fortune in the foundation that each year awards money to extraordinary contributors in science, literature and peace. Since then, the prize, which today totals about $1.1 million, has gone to 860 people and 22 organizations.

That’s fine, of course, but there’s something slightly off about the way Israelis relate to the phenomenon. First, there’s an outrageous obsession about the number of Israelis and Jews who win. No doubt the tally is high, but this annual search for sources of national pride is pathetic. It’s a search for quick and easy solace.

Who cares about poverty and social gaps when a Princeton economist with a Jewish mother receives a medal from the king of Sweden? Who cares about the violent conflict with the Palestinians when the medal-winning chemist from California was once an officer in the Israeli army? All our troubles seem smaller when we remember that one in five prizewinners is Jewish. How many times have the Arabs won?

Aside from that, the prize has incredible power. A Technion professor decides he wants to be president of Israel? We’ll forget that he has no political experience and take him seriously if he's got a Nobel.

A Hebrew University mathematician doesn’t get an honorary Phd from the University the Haifa? We’ll forget that that’s an internal matter among academics and make it into a national headline. After all, he has a Nobel Prize.

All this would be reasonable if the prize were the ultimate criteria for intelligence, a but a critical look at the selection process reveals nothing but anachronism and provinciality.

The guidelines for the selectors were drawn up almost 120 years ago by a single person, Alfred Nobel himself. No one is authorized to update these rules, so the decisions about the most prestigious prize in the world are made by a board whose members are exclusively Swedish (or Norwegian for the Peace Prize).

Of course these are serious, respectable people and there’s no reason to doubt their professionalism, but they lack global perspective. Thus the prizewinners represent humanity’s elite as it appears from the recesses of northern Europe.

While the prizes for physics, medicine and chemistry are considered the highest achievements of all humanity, the selection process doesn’t include any people from Harvard, Oxford or MIT, or any judges from China, India or Russia. It’s just academics from Sweden, a country whose academic institutions wouldn’t make the top 50, according to most international standards.

All in the family

No doubt it’s a good thing that the winners aren’t chosen by text-message voting or Facebook likes, but the Scandinavians take this one step too far. According to the guidelines, very few people are even allowed to suggest candidates; only Swedish academics and their prize committees, former Nobel Prize winners, and other senior figures in the academic world. For the Peace Prize, parliament members and international court officials are added to the mix.

This leaves it all in the family. It’s a reasonable method for the scientific prizes, but for the other categories it slashes the list of possible winners. In any case, a precise discussion about the problem is impossible because the candidate lists and protocols for discussing them are kept secret for 50 years.

Are you interested in who was short-listed for the peace or literature prize? No problem, just make sure you’re talking about 1964 or before. Want to suggest a candidate for next year’s prize? Go ahead, if you’ve already won or belong to the global elite in academics or politics. It won’t help if you happen to be a famous social activist, doctor, author, journalist, mayor, judge, industrialist or just a regular citizen with something to say.

The Nobel Prize for Literature is an excellent example of the skewed process. The winner is chosen by a group that was founded in 1786 and has 18 members. The members are appointed for life, their average age is 70 and they’re all Swedish.

No wonder the results are usually surprising – on the one hand, writers who seem a shoo-in don’t win, and the attempt at cosmopolitanism and staying current gives us nearly anonymous winners.

Literature isn’t a science, and literary preference is a matter of taste, but still, it’s hard to justify that authors like Tolstoy, Chekov, Twain, Joyce and Proust never won, while the winners list from those days includes names that have fallen off the pages of history.

In 1974, for example, when people like Graham Greene, Vladimir Nabokov and Jorge Luis Borges were candidates, the winners were two Swedes — Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson. Not that there’s anything wrong with Swedish authors winning the prize from time to time, but these two guys were members of the group that made the selection.

Also, the prize has been awarded to more Swedes than people from all Asia, Africa or South America, for example. Meanwhile, 468 of the 860 winners have been European, while the number of female winners has been unimpressive – 46, just above 5 percent.

A strange peace

If there are concerns about Swedish academia’s ability to choose prizewinners for literature, the body that chooses Peace Prize winners is even stranger. Alfred Nobel, who felt guilty for inventing dynamite, had a simple idea: a prize for those who “have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

A lofty idea, but who bestows the prizes? Leading international experts on political science? A council of experts on diplomacy, strategy and security?

The answer is no, of course. The Peace Prize is awarded by a subcommittee of the Norwegian parliament — one without much influence in the international arena, in a country of 5 million. The five-member committee is chosen not based on expertise or experience, but, believe it or not, on the balance of power among Norway’s political parties.

Here as well, the selection process has yielded strange results, starting with the selection of Cordell Hull, Franklin Roosevelt’s long-serving secretary of state, who apparently was responsible for Washington’s decision not to give safe harbor to a ship containing hundreds of Jews fleeing Europe in 1939.

The choice of U.S. President Barack Obama is also curious; he made the candidate list only 12 days after being sworn in. The European Union and United Nations have also been awarded prizes, but not Mahatma Gandhi, even though he was a candidate five times.

Meanwhile, the selection process for the Peace Prize can be considered reasonable compared to the one for economics. Alfred Nobel chose five clear categories for the prize, and none of them were economics. In 1968, Sweden’s central bank, in an act of PR genius, bought itself a prize to award alongside the original Nobels.

True, it’s officially the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, not a Nobel Prize, but who pays attention to that? In effect, this award weaseled its way in despite the wishes of Alfred Nobel. It can be said that many laureates never advanced the lofty ideals that inspired Nobel to create his prizes in the first place.

And since we’re talking about economics, let’s not forget that the Nobel Prizes are a business. The awards are funded by a foundation that got its unitial capital from profits on explosives and weapons, and currently operates as an investment firm with global  interests (while being tax-exempt in Sweden and the United States).

Nobel Prize laureates have made many important contributions and are surely worthy of praise. But it might be time to put this thing in perspective – we’re talking about a private foundation with an outdated structure with private interests. It mostly honors old European men, based on the elitist and academic perceptions in Scandinavia. Looking at it that way, it’s not such a shame no Israelis won this year.

Why is Scandinavia staying committed to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while the world turns away?

While other countries are giving up on the Middle East, Scandinavia still has it high on its agenda. Why?

published in i-24 News: http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/53190-141203-analysis-scandinavia-a-center-for-anti-israel-forces-in-europe

In recent months many Israelis have become increasingly worried about Europe's attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The latest troubling indication was a document obtained by the Israeli daily Haaretz outlining sanctions and other diplomatic steps considered by the EU against Israel.

This document is part of a wider trend. Lately, European governments have been criticizing Israeli policies, parliaments across the continent are discussing a unilateral recognition of Palestine, coverage in European media has been increasingly hostile and NGOs and academic institutions are not only filling Europe's squares with demonstrations, they're promoting boycotts and sanctions too.

The Scandinavian countries have been particularly active: a few weeks ago Sweden recognized Palestine, just before that Danish Foreign-Minister said Denmark may reconsider its trade agreements with Israel and there were massive demonstrations in Stockholm, Copenhagen and Oslo against Israel's use of force in the recent Gaza conflict. Some of these were accompanied by violence against pro-Israel and Jewish targets.

These events give the impression that Scandinavia has become a center for the anti-Israel forces in Europe. Some Israelis even believe that anti-Semitic sentiments are overshadowing Scandinavia’s traditional   friendship and support towards their country. But is this really the case?

The Scandinavian countries have been European leaders in terms of Foreign policy since the end of WW2. They are heavy contributors to the EU and UN, their politicians have moderated in many conflicts, their governments are generous donors to developing countries and they've led the way as moral authorities in many international issues such as the fight against Apartheid and the Vietnam War.

This has been true with the Israeli-Arab conflict too, from Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte’s involvement in the 1940s until Norway's part in the Oslo Accords. But what happens when there are no substantial peace talks to support, and both sides in this bloody conflict seem to be giving up on negotiating and falling into a new spiral of hatred and violence?

While other countries are giving up on the region, Sweden, Norway and Denmark still have it high on their agendas. They discuss it in every possible forum; they send millions of dollars for humanitarian aid, reconstruction and state building and their media keeps it in the headlines at all times. So much so that one may wonder why they're not giving up?

First there's the Scandinavian electorate. For most voters in Scandinavia foreign policy is much less important than domestic social and economic issues. But when foreign policy is discussed, especially regions far away, Scandinavians want to see foreign policy used to spread ideas, ideals and aid around the world rather than pursuing narrow national interests.

It's not true, as many claim, that forces as simple as a natural support of the underdog are at the heart of Scandinavian decision making processes. It's also wrong to assume that support for Arabs anywhere by Middle-Eastern immigrants in Scandinavia plays an important role. The first claim is too simplistic and the second makes no political sense. These days many conflicts in the Middle-East dominate Scandinavian headlines. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't more important than what's happening in Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Middle-Eastern immigrants to Scandinavia have a multitude of religious and ethnic identities and hold different opinions, concerns and alliances. Israel isn't the devil in Scandinavian eyes. At least it's not the only devil.

It is however true that many Scandinavians see the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts through moral rather than political eyes. Scandinavian politicians know this and sometimes use foreign policy as their moral alibi – they support the oppressed and victims of violence; they direct resources to the well-being of women and children and open their gates to refugees. This humanitarian aspect is an important side of Israel's image in Scandinavia.

Of course there's more to it than that. There's a wide network of commercial, military and scientific cooperation. Obviously this carries some weight in the political discourse but even as a leading start-up nation Israel needs its European partners more than they need it. It's not that the superstructure of the Israel-Scandinavian relationship doesn’t have a financial or trade orientated base; it's just that the base isn't wide enough to become the force driving foreign policy.

Still, understanding Scandinavian motives doesn't necessarily address Israeli concerns – is Scandinavia in effect anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, and if it is, should Israelis be worried by its influence on other EU countries?

The problem with these questions is that they're the wrong ones to ask. An updated, realistic view of the conflict shows that in terms of potential political solutions, it isn't between Jews and Arabs any more. At least it's not about their right to exist or their historical narratives. Putting aside apocalyptic scenarios, both sides are there to stay, living side by side on a small and extremely explosive piece of real-estate. The question is how to do it.

The current stage of the conflict is between the supporters of a one-state solution and a two-state one; both sides have Jewish and Arab supporters, both sides have left and right wings, both sides have religious and secular camps.

The one-state solution has models ranging from a modern secular "state of all its citizens" with no official national identity, to various models of bi-national states based on demographics – a country divided by cultural autonomies, a Jewish biblical kingdom, an Islamic Caliphate and various other nightmare scenarios.

The two-state solution is also a vague concept. The Oslo Accord's model was far from perfect but that doesn't matter much anymore since these days a two-state solution of any kind is a dying concept on both sides of the green line, and support for the complicated negotiations involved in achieving it is almost negligible.

This is where the Europeans come in. The real reason why Scandinavian policies worry many Israelis these days is not that they're anti-Israel; it's that they are in favour of a two-state solution.

Meeting in Stockholm at the end of October the leaders of the Nordic countries made it very clear. Although they had tactical differences (mainly about the question of the right timing for recognizing Palestine) there was a wide consensus. Like Cato the Elder, the Prime-Ministers and Foreign-Ministers of all the Nordic countries repeated the same mantra – a two-state solution is the only solution, and Israel must stop building in the occupied territories.

It's worthwhile, therefore, to consider the idea that Scandinavian countries are not driven by pro-Palestinian sentiments (even though they support the Palestinian right to self-recognition) or by anti-Semitism (though Scandinavians are certainly not immune to it). Rather, they see the conflict through ethical eyes of northern European democrats who also tend to have a practical and positive approach to politics. They see the two-state solution as the only political tool which can serve western democratic values and they're now pressing harder since the sides to the conflict are moving further away from it and retreating to pre-modern tribal clashes based on religion and ethnic identity.

This is also true in a wider European context. The EU non-paper containing potential sanctions against Israel is meant to be a response to Israeli measures which threaten the viability of a two-state solution. It's not a punishment for Israel's use of force in Gaza and it's not an acknowledgment of Palestinian arguments. It's a strong, almost desperate, call to the sides to return to the negotiation table and work towards a two-state solution.

Will these steps make a difference? It's hard to say since these are the last days of Israel's current government and the Palestinian Authority faces more hardship and internal conflict. Most observers agree the situation on the ground is getting worse while the world is losing interest. In these conditions those who still believe in co-existence of two modern national states should be encouraged by the statements from the old continent. These may sometimes be clumsy, awkward and unpleasant but the politicians who make them may be the last ones on the planet who still care.

Why did Sweden recognize Palestine?

Published in i 24 News: http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/49502-141102-analysis

Last week most people who are interested in the Israeli – Palestinian conflict struggled to understand what the Swedish government was trying to achieve by recognizing a Palestinian state. The recognition seemed to come out of the blue, with no international support and little chance of making a difference. Independent states need recognized borders, a currency, an infrastructure and an army. The Palestinians have none of these and no Swedish statement can change that. Middle East politics, after all, are not a new-age seminar – you can't just wish states into existence.

On the other hand, while peace negotiations are at a standstill and the sides are still licking their wounds after another bloody war in Gaza, Sweden's new government claims it's time to try a new approach. Margot Wallström, Sweden's FM, said at a press conference last week that Sweden isn't taking the Palestinian side, rather it's taking the side of the peace process. "This will make the parties less unequal", she said, "and we're still hopeful that they will return to the negotiating table". Basing the move on historical precedents (like Kosovo) and on the fact that more than 130 countries have already recognized Palestine she added: "we are supporting moderate Palestinian forces and contributing to hope at a time when tensions are increasing and no peace talks are taking place".

Israel, as expected, sees this move as biased and hostile and now there is a serious crisis in the relationship between the two countries. But should Israelis really see Sweden's recognition of a Palestinian state in such a negative light? Does it really have to drive a wedge between the two countries?

First and foremost it must be said that Israel's biggest fear, the fear of other countries following Sweden, wasn't realized. Though Wallström claimed Sweden is "proud to lead the way" for other countries, this didn't happen. So far even the Swedish parliament has shown a strong opposition to the move and the Prime Ministers of the other Nordic countries aren't eager to follow. In a summit in Stockholm last week they all announced that although they're committed to a two state solution they're not ready to recognize a Palestinian state just yet.

"We believe there should be an agreement on a two state solution before we recognize a Palestinian state" said Norway's PM, and Denmark and Finland's PMs agreed entirely. So policy makers in Jerusalem don't need to worry too much about a domino effect yet. The ambassador in Stockholm was recalled in order to show other countries that the price for recognizing Palestine at this point is high, but it's unlikely that either Berlin or Paris will go where even Copenhagen and Oslo won't.

Then there's the money trail. When Swedish-Israeli relations come up in the press it's usually about an Israeli scientist coming to Stockholm to receive a Nobel Prize, a hate crime in Malmö or a Swedish activist arrested in the West Bank. These stories attract lots of traffic on news websites so they're popular subjects for public debate. But there's a deeper and less discussed side to the relationship between the two countries.

During the last few years Israeli and Swedish researchers, business-people and entrepreneurs have been cooperating more than ever. Sweden and Israel share many attributes that make joint ventures attractive to both sides. They have a similar sized population, their economies depend on exports and they're amongst world's 20 leading countries in research and development per capita. Research institutes and hospitals in the two countries are now strategic partners while CEOs from both countries' leading companies, industrial leaders and cyber and weapons developers travel regularly on the Tel-Aviv – Stockholm line. One Swedish admirer of the way Israel invests in innovation wrote an article a few months ago in the Swedish press about his "inspiration from methods used in Israel". The writer's name is Stefan Löfven, and he's Sweden's new PM. His approach is not exactly the sign of an anti-Israel BDS activist.

Will the close relationship in these areas change as a result of the latest crisis? Probably not. Anyone digging deeper than the amusing metaphor of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a piece of IKEA furniture will find a surprising stability in Sweden-Israel relations. "We can continue with trade, innovation, technology and sciences" said Israel's ambassador to Sweden in a TV interview last Thursday. Sweden's FM couldn’t agree more. "We are hopeful that our excellent cooperation will continue in all areas including trade and economic cooperation". She said in a Stockholm press conference.

So, all in all, it seems that although the Swedish statement sparked a diplomatic crisis, its actual effect is limited. It didn't do much for the Palestinians, it didn't lead the way for other countries to recognizing Palestine – and the Swedes don’t even intend to open an embassy in Ramallah. The Swedish recognition certainly didn't persuade Israel's government to stop building settlements and it may not even have a lasting effect on bilateral relations between the two countries.

So why did they do it? The Swedish government isn't naïve. Nor, as many Israelis suggested, is it influenced by Sweden's increasing Muslim population. That's not how Swedish politics work. The truth is that the Swedish statement is just as much for domestic consumption as it is for world diplomacy and it should be seen in the right historical perspective. The Social-Democratic party, which returned to power after eight years in opposition, is proud of its foreign policy history which it claims aims not only to serve Swedish interests but also to make the world a better place. In a press conference with foreign correspondents FM Wallström spoke of needing "courage to be a government in these difficult times" which indicates that recognizing Palestine is actually a party statement meaning: We're back in town and we're still serious about human rights, freedom and peace on earth.

But it's not all about ideals. As many analysts suggested, the new government leans on a very narrow parliamentary coalition and recognizing Palestine can be seen as an attempt by the Social-Democrats to please their left wing partners while in other areas they're busy negotiating with the right. Sweden has far bigger policy concerns than the Middle-East and a quick, bold move on the Palestinian front gives the new government political leverage on more important issues such as defense spending, healthcare, jobs and education.

This may all seem like a rather cynical analysis of the issue, but what it actually means is that the bad blood between Israel and Sweden is the result of a specific political environment which won't last forever.

Israeli disapproval aside, there's something to be said about Sweden's ethical and practical approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its will to engage in a region that most other countries have given up on is admirable and it isn't simply empty rhetoric. FM Wallström announced last Thursday that Sweden is to considerably increase foreign-aid for so called "state building" from just under 70 million USD to over 200 million USD in five years, this in addition to Sweden's substantial humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

With all this good will, if Sweden acts carefully and does not alienate Israel, it could be exactly what the region needs – an impartial and unaligned international partner, which sends humanitarian assistance when needed and engages in international funding and assurances for a lasting, stable and fair peace in the future. Although it doesn’t look like it now, Sweden, with its activism, its economic stability and strong international status could in fact be part of the solution.

It's interesting to point out that one of the most important breakthroughs in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict took place in another Scandinavian capital, Oslo, twenty years ago. If Sweden and Israel don't fall into a spiral of aggressive statements, boycotts and confrontations, who knows – perhaps the next stage in the peace process could be the Stockholm Accord.

From Genocide to the World Cup: The amazing Story of Darfur United

Published in Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/.premium-1.2465272

The ConIFA Football World Cup, which took place in June this year, attracted fewer spectators than the FIFA World Cup in Brazil that started a few days later. The tournament took place in Östersund in Northern Sweden in a stadium Which only seats 6,600 people. Its participants were teams representing nations and peoples who are not part of FIFA. Some teams represented states not recognized by the international community like the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Iraqi Kurdistan, others represented ethnic minorities and stateless people like the Tamils from Sri Lanka and the Sámi people of northern Scandinavia. The tournament ended with a dramatic penalty shootout in which a team representing separatists from the French-Italian border beat a team from the Isle of Man.

For most teams participation was a multi-cultural celebration and a rare opportunity to participate in an international tournament. However, the tournament also had a political side to it. Because acceptance by FIFA, the federation managing international football, involves a difficult political struggle, participation in the alternative world cup in Sweden was, for many teams, an assertion to bring issues to international attention. Every team had its own agenda – independence aspirations, demands for cultural autonomy or human rights struggles.

However, for one team the tournament in Sweden was something more concrete and existential. For them it was more than a festival of folklore and culture, it was an opportunity to tell the world their story and even start a new life. The Darfur team arrived from the refugee camps in Chad to which they had fled from the genocide which has been raging in their country for well over a decade. Unlike the other competitors, they came from a place where it was almost impossible to play football. Some escaped from burning villages, others survived massacres by cruel militias, many lost family members. Despite all this, 15 players succeeded, with the help of an American NGO called i-ACT, to overcome the horrific events of their past, and all the financial and diplomatic challenges and finally arrived at the tournament in Sweden. The fact that they came from different refugee camps, belonged to different tribes, spoke different languages and connected, despite everything, to one team, granted the team its name – “Darfur United”.

***

Since 2005 the American NGO i-ACT has been assisting survivors of the genocide in Darfur mostly by creating personal connections with refugees who escaped Sudan and running educational and social programs in the refugee camps in Chad, Sudan’s western neighbor. The NGO also deals with raising international awareness to the situation in Darfur and Chad through projects of documentation and appeals to American public opinion .

“From our first visit to the refugee camps on the Chad-Darfur border, we became aware of the refugees' love for football and of the power this sport had to create a space where they stopped being refugees or victims", says Gabriel Stauring, co-founder and director of i-ACT, "when they had a ball and arranged some rocks to be the goal posts, they got to experience joy.” A few years later the i-ACT team took the idea a few steps further. “The idea for Darfur United first came about when one of our teammates, Ian, who had traveled to the camps with us told us about a tournament that was to happen in Iraqi Kurdistan in June of 2012. It was a tournament for teams representing groups of people that were not represented in the football world by FIFA. It seemed like an impossible dream to make this happen, given the enormous challenges, but our team loves those challenges, when they work towards our mission of putting a face on the numbers”.

Putting a face on the harsh statistics and numbers of victims in Darfur is one of i-ACT’s main goals and the faces of the Darfur United players represent the young generation in the refugee camps in Chad. One of them is 26 year-old Abdul-Hamid who comes from a small village in Geneina, Western Darfur. “One morning in the summer of 2003” he recalls, “Members of the Janjaweed militia (An armed militia that operates in Western Sudan and Eastern Chad supported by the Sudanese government) came to my village. Some arrived in vehicles, others rode horses and camels. It was at around 5 am and the militants, who were armed with guns and RPGs, while shouting that all Africans should be driven out  of Darfur, they started killing the inhabitants and burning the village. When they were finished, helicopters came and dropped bombs on the burning village. There were around 500 residents in the village and only 4 families managed to escape”. Abdul-Hamid escaped with his parents and they found shelter in one of the refugee camps in Chad.

19 year-old Saleh has a similar story. He too remembers the Janjaweed raid on his village in Rahad El Berdi in the summer of 2003. “First they gathered our animals”, he says, “They killed anyone who resisted, then they raped the women. Finally, the helicopters came and dropped bombs as the Janjaweed militants circled the village and shot anyone who tried to escape.” Saleh, who was nine at the time, managed to escape the village and was reunited with his parents and sisters three days later in a nearby village. One of his sisters was shot in her abdomen and died soon after. As he was escaping, Saleh saw bodies of other family members lying in the streets. Like Abdul-Hamid, Saleh and his parents also escaped to Chad and found refuge there.

At around the same time, now 26 year-old Ismail from Ed El Kheir in North-Western Sudan, also arrived in Chad. He too escaped his hometown in 2003 while it was burning and surrounded by the Janjaweed. He was saved by his aunt and uncle, leaving his mother behind. After walking for a week, he arrived at Touloum refugee camp together with tens of thousands of refugees. “We lived in small tents, without electricity, running water or toilets.” He says, “The food ration we got for a month usually lasted around five days and there was a big shortage of medicines”.  But the hunger and diseases were not their only problem. Ismail tells of mistreatment by the Chad authorities, of women being raped when they left the camp and of a deficient education system. “ It’s a very sad life” he says, “a life of idleness, without hope”.

“In the beginning the condition at the camp was acceptable” Abdul-Hamid, who was living in Farchana refugee camp, adds, “Aid organizations provided food and medicines and it was relatively safe. But now the Chad government took over the camps, the good medicines are taken by the authorities and there is a lack of food and a serious water shortage”. Abdul-Hamid says he witnessed rapes of women who were out collecting firewood and kidnappings of young men, probably as a method of recruiting them as fighters. One of these kidnappings was especially traumatic for him “My brother was kidnapped from our tent in April this year” he says, “After a few days we were given his blood-stained clothes and we were told he had been killed”.

***

The genocide perpetrated by the Sudanese government in the Darfur region started in 2003 with the eruption of a civil war in the area. This was one of several civil wars that started in Sudan as a result of ethnic and political struggles and disputes over resources and land. As part of the Darfur war, president Omar al-Bashir’s dictatorial administration, which has been in power since 1989, employs different methods of direct and indirect violence on the civilian population. The military, aided by the Arab militias – the Janjaweed, have attacked the inhabitants of Darfur with aerial bombings, land raids, burning villages, looting, systematic rape, executions, poisoning water sources and more. Moreover, there are systematic expulsions, uprooting, land occupation and forced demographic changes, while the situation in the IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) and refugee camps in Darfur and Chad deteriorates. There is a serious shortage of water, food and medicines and the refugees also suffer from violence, kidnappings and rape.

Although the atrocities in Sudan have been well known for many years, the international community avoids enforcement of international law and is indecisive when it comes to a clear involvement to save the people of Darfur. Nations and companies breach the arms embargo that has been imposed on the area and continue doing business with Khartoum. International armed forces protect oil wells but not the local population, and the international aid agencies sent to Sudan are unable to cope with the situation on the ground. These agencies lack means to protect the survivors of the genocide as well as their own people, and due to pressure from the Sudanese government, they cannot produce the exact mortality figures from the IDP camps. The UN and African Union mission in Darfur that was established in 2007 is ineffective and some even claim it has become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. It is estimated that around 300,000 to half a million of Darfur’s population has perished, and that Two to three million residents have been displaced from their homes.

Against this harsh background of violence, deprivation and loss it is not easy to find consolation or hope. However, Gabriel Stauring’s team tried and is still trying to support youth like Abdel-Hamid, Saleh and Ismail. “One day they sent a message  to our camp” Ismail says, “they wanted us to send the five best football players from our camp to Djabal camp. That’s how 60 players from the 12 camps in Chad got together and met in the Djabal camp's school. First we introduced ourselves and then the i-ACT team told us about the tournament in Sweden. The next day we started the training that, in the end would select the fifteen best players“.

“In Camp Djabal, they have a dirt football pitch with metal goals and no lines”, Says Stauring, “many of the players did not have shoes and have never played with shoes actually. But, they have been playing like this since they were kids, usually with homemade balls that they put together from rags and plastic”. Stauring’s team included the coach Margo Baker who was in charge of the training and selection process. After a month of training the fifteen players finally selected began their long journey to Scandinavia.

“I was the only one who was chosen from my camp” says Ismail. “After the training we were taken to N’Dhamena, Chad’s capital, where we received the documentation needed for the travel, bags and football uniforms. We stayed at a hotel for four days, during which I had a chance to call home and say goodbye to my family. I told them I was going and that I was lucky to get this opportunity”. Logistically, it was not an easy journey. First they had to go through the bureaucracy of attaining approval and documents from the government of Chad. Then they needed to obtain visas to Sweden through the French embassy in Chad and purchase the tickets. Because of the selection process and the bureaucratic procedures “it was all very last minute and very stressful” as Gabriel Stauring recalls. Finally the diplomatic efforts succeeded and the Darfur United players started their journey from one of the poorest and most dangerous countries in the world, northwards to Sweden, one of its richest and most peaceful ones.

***

“The landing in Sweden was strange” said Ismail. “First of all, the sun almost never set (in June, Östersund has about 20 hours of daylight D.S). Also, people were very nice to us. Unlike in Chad, we were treated as human beings”. “It was an amazing journey but also a challenging experience”, Stauring adds, “The natural environment in Sweden was also something they had never experienced. We landed in Stockholm and took a bus from there to Östersund. From the minute you leave Stockholm, all you see is amazing forests and so much water, so many rivers and lakes. Even though the players were exhausted from the long travel, they could not stop looking out the bus windows.”

The very next day after landing, the Darfur United players participated in their first match against Padania, a team of separatists from northern Italy. Darfur United lost 0:20. “Everything was different” Saleh explains“, In Chad we played barefoot in the sand. When we got to Sweden nothing was the same. We were playing against real players on grass fields, with shoes and football uniforms, but we didn’t get enough practice, we were not well organized, we didn’t have a game plan and we were physically weak. After 30 minutes of playing I wouldn’t have been able to score a goal even if I was standing in front of an empty goal”.

These differences  between the Darfur United players and those of the other teams led to unimpressive results on the field – to say the least. They conceded  61 goals in four games and didn’t score a single goal in return. But despite the unflattering results Ismail is content “As far as I’m concerned we won”, he explains, “We came from the camps, some of us lost family members, and when we came to Sweden we could forget about our sadness for a while. That was a great victory for us”. “I’m proud of what we achieved” adds Saleh “It’s true that  we were not on the same professional level as the other teams but we did make the long journey from the dirt fields of Africa to a real competition against professional players in Europe”.

The matches were only part of their encounter with Europe. “A relatively large group of Darfuris that live in Sweden showed up at the very first practice session. The players were welcomed as celebrities by this group”, says Gabriel Stauring. “The international media was also very interested in the team, so it was wonderful for the players to be able to tell their stories and talk about Darfur and the challenges faced by their families in the refugee camps”. “They treated us very well here” Saleh adds “We felt like we were famous and I experienced the best conditions I ever had in my life: hotels, regular meals and lots of attention. But I missed my family and thought about them a lot. Sometimes, when we would eat at the buffet and five people would eat the amount of food that would feed an entire village, it was hard for me to eat”.

Despite the hardships and loss, the tournament was considered a success. “Darfur United gave them  a sense of united identity and something positive to rally around”, Says Gabriel Stauring, “It is also just plainly for bringing joy. It is hard to put a value on what it means for a young man to represent his people and to step on to a field and play the sport he has loved for as long as he remembers. It's also impossible to measure what it means to boys, girls, women, and men to have their own team to root for. Darfur United gives them hope”. Beyond all this, Stauring claims that the project also has a political aspect, “The little information and news that comes out of Darfur is overwhelmingly negative, so here was something hopeful and positive that could also be used to shine a light on the crisis and the people from this forgotten land”.

***

For most of the Darfur United players the tournament in Sweden was also the beginning of a new life. Six of them decided to escape to Norway and seek asylum during the tournament. They were eventually brought back to Sweden, where they joined seven other players who asked for asylum in Sweden after the tournament. In fact, in their final match Darfur United had only 9 players, one of them being their interpreter. Despite the pressure by the Chadian refugee agency and the UN Refugee Agency, only 2 players returned to Chad at the end of the tournament. “We did not approve or disapprove”, Says Gabriel Stauring, although it is possible i-ACT activities will be hampered by the fact that the players did not return, “We do not consider the refugees to be prisoners or have any different rights than any other person, no matter where they are from. The ones that decided to stay did it the right way, asking for asylum through official channels”.

The authorities in Sweden are quite generous and sympathetic compared to those of other countries. “We were treated very well by immigration authorities”, Ismail says as he recalls his first encounter with at the immigration office in Gävle where he issued his asylum claim. “They checked our documents, gave us a room for one week, interviewed us and let us have legal representation and an interpreter. Then they sent us to different locations while our cases are being processed. I was sent with two other players to Söderhamn where we are waiting for the asylum process to be concluded”. Ismail calls the location where he is staying with his friends “A five-star refugee camp”. The conditions are good; they started studying Swedish and spend most of their time playing football, of course. They even participated in a local marathon and got excellent results.

As their claims are being processed by the Swedish authorities, the Darfur United players are starting to make plans for their new lives. But they don’t forget the ones they left behind. Abdel-Hamid is planning to go to university and one day perhaps return to Sudan and get into politics. “I hope the world intervenes, that there will be peace in Sudan and that life will return to the way it was”, he says and adds with a smile “Maybe then I will be Sudan’s Education minister”.

Saleh dreams of becoming a professional football player. “Now I have strength”, he says, “I need a good coach to give me the tools I need and one day I hope to defeat Barcelona and Inshaalla, even participate in the real world cup”.

***

Meanwhile, in Chad’s refugee camps, i-ACT continues to use football as a tool for rehabilitation, education and social change. In the past year boys and girls in Djabal camp have participated in a football academy set up by i-ACT which also took care of training local coaches, men and women who are all camp dwellers. By 2016 i-ACT plans to establish similar academies in all 12 camps in Chad. In each academy, they say, some two thousand children and youth will be able to practice. The NGO claims that the game has therapeutic qualities and that it's an educational instrument and a basic human right. The academies, they say, are a great tool to achieve these goals.

However, there is a broader and grimmer context. “There are over 300,000 refugees from Darfur in camps on the Chad-Sudan border”, Says Gabriel Stauring, “Violence in Darfur has continued and even increased, so there will continue to be a flow of displaced people. Some make it to the border, but others move to other areas inside of Darfur. Conditions in the camps are deteriorating. Food rations have been cut by more than half, so families are suffering from extreme food insecurity. There have also been cuts in education, medicines, and other medical services”.

Even though the situation in Darfur and the refugee camps in Chad continues to deteriorate, it seems as if the world had lost interest. “The international community has forgotten Darfur”, said Ismail, “the situation there and in the refugee camps in Chad is getting worse and worse. The Sudanese and Chad governments are making life in the camps more difficult and there are reports on murders and kidnapping of children for their recruitment. Despite all this no one hears about the situation in Darfur and Chad, and Omar al-Bahir’s (President of Sudan who was charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity) case is  not being perused at the ICC (International Criminal Court). Ismail claims that the world’s silence sends a clear message: “It gives the government a green light to continue its crimes”, he says, “That’s why my duty is to remind the world and tell my story”.

An Israeli Cross – David and Daniel Stavrou

Israeli CrossIt all started a few years ago when my brother Daniel, who lives in London, and I visited Karl Marx's grave at Highgate Cemetery (as oddly and suspiciously enough we often do). Beneath the giant monument we decided to write something together. We started the project by finding historical characters and episodes we were interested in (French Prime-Minister, Leon Blum's, arrest by the Nazis, Theodor Herzl's visit to Eretz Israel, Leonard Cohen's visit to the Sinai Peninsula during the Yom-Kippur War and many more). Then we wrote letters to each other about how these historical motifs are connected to our lives outside of Israel, to immigration, to politics and identity. As time went by we wrote about other things too, the music we love, the people we share our lives with, our past, our present and our future.

We began with e-mail messages and Skype conversations. Later, as the project developed, we embarked on a fascinating journey of historical research, joint travels to Germany, Israel, Sweden and England and using our language (Hebrew of course) as we never used it before – we wrote poems, rhymes, fiction and nonfiction, we even wrote a short play.

When we were done, a few years after the idea first came up, we put the pieces together and we finally had a manuscript. Though we sent it to various Israeli publishers, it was not without hesitations. The book, after all, didn’t seem to be too commercial. It wasn't a novel or a collection of short stories; it wasn’t poetry or drama, fiction or nonfiction. It had a bit of all of the above but wasn't any of them.

And then we found Indiebook which fit perfectly. Erez  Shwaitzer edited the book and took care of both a printed and electronic edition and now, a few years after its journey began, "An Israeli Cross" is making its first steps in the world.

So here's the bottom line – Both Daniel and I have already been published before. I write for the Israeli press and Daniel has published a couple of novels and a poetry book. This, however, is a very special project for us because it's about the things that really matter, because it allowed us to write in ways we've never written before and most of all because we wrote it together. If you too find this interesting please share it with Hebrew readers you know and accept the gratitude of two brothers who wrote a rather strange and unconventional book and would appreciate anyone who would like to read it.

Here's the link to the book on Indiebook's site: http://goo.gl/0Ntz0n

.

Gaza conflict needs help, not empty rhetoric

As the rhetoric rises at demonstrations in Swedish cities, it's time to rethink and cast a critical eye over much that is written and said about the conflict in Gaza.

Published in The Local: http://www.thelocal.se/20140724/gaza-conflict-needs-impartial-unaligned-help-not-empty-rhetoric 

As usual it didn’t take long for events in Gaza and Israel to reach Swedish public attention. For the benefit of those who witnessed the demonstrations in Stockholm last week, read the statements made by Swedish politicians and followed the coverage in the Swedish media, here are a few recommendations and warnings about the way Swedes may see the conflict, and how they can do something about it.
First, don't believe the demonstrators who tell you that Hamas is a legitimate liberation movement. Hamas is a fundamentalist, racist, death-worshipping organization which uses terror and violence against both Palestinians and Israelis. It's in total control of Gaza which is not occupied by Israel; it has never agreed to the two state solution ; it doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist; it invests millions of dollars received from abroad in warfare instead of infrastructure, healthcare and education and it intentionally targets Israeli civilians. Hamas' aim is the total destruction of the Jewish state, not a compromise with it. Swedish Green Party MP Mehmet Kaplan's words last week were particularly revealing. "We shall free Jerusalem" he shouted at a demonstration in Medborgareplatsen. Yes, that's right, Jerusalem, not Gaza. But beyond the politics of borders and security arrangements ,if there's an hierarchy of evil-doers in this crises, Hamas, which uses intentional killing of children as a political tool justified by religious ideology, is no doubt on the top of it.
But don’t believe the official Israeli spokesmen quoted in the Swedish media either .Even if they're extremely well spoken, even if they have American accents and great catch phrases, don’t believe them when they paint a picture of a military operation which is defensive by nature, targeting only armed militants. Israel isn't out for Palestinian blood, but its overwhelming advantages in military technology and fire power make a bloodbath inevitable. Palestinians are being killed by the hundreds and there is a built-in asymmetry in the death toll. Israel's military operation in Gaza is causing a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the world's poorest and most densely populated areas. Because of this and because of Israel's modern defense systems, if there's an hierarchy of suffering, the Palestinians with their dead children, their thousands of displaced refugees, their bombed hospitals and demolished quarters are no doubt on the top of it.
But don’t believe the Palestinian story of a bloodthirsty Israeli government operating an army of professional killers either. The main reason Palestinian civilian targets are being hit is because Hamas militants choose to place their weapons and hide their troops behind, under and besides apartments, schools, hospitals and mosques. This has been proven time and again and Hamas leaders have even been seen publicly justifying the practice of using civilians as human shields in the name of the holy war against the infidels. Most Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza so far are young men in their late teens or early twenties, just out of high-school, put in a terrible situation wanting to protect their parents, girlfriends and siblings from missiles aimed at their homes. They are not bloodthirsty mercenaries.
But don't believe Israel's advocates who tell you that Israel, as the only democracy in the Middle-East, is a western, almost European society, promoting humanism, gay rights and religious freedom while it's attacked by its barbarian neighbors. Sadly, the plague of racism and extreme nationalism has entered mainstream Israeli society as well as its national media and corridors of power .Israel could have been, indeed it should have been, a force for progress, democracy and welfare in the Middle-East, instead it's becoming more and more adapted to the ugliest sides of the region with its growing fundamentalist religious movements and brutal xenophobic mobs, all in the service of international forces using the local population as clients for weapon manufactures and sellers of energy sources.
But don’t believe the Palestinians who tell you the conflict is between Jews and Arabs. It's not. This conflict is part of a wider political complex. Israel is now -at least temporarily – in a strategic partnership with Egypt which is why it agreed to an Egyptian ceasefire plan designed to counter an initiative by Qatar and Turkey. While the Arab world is in flames fuelled by tension between Sunnis and the Shiites, rivalries between Saudi-Arabia and Iran, and the falling apart of Syria and Iraq, radical Muslim organizations such as ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollahare are just as eager to kill rival Muslims as they are to kill Jews.
But don't blindly accept the Israeli narrative describing the Arabs as pathological rejecters of peace. Since the Oslo agreements in the early nineties Israel has rejected many peace initiatives both local and international, preferring Jewish settlement building in the West-Bank and a one-sided disengagement in Gaza. Meantime it has made the daily life of the Palestinians in both regions impossible and has weakened the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas.
But most of all – don't believe those who tell you that you don't get it, that you're ignorant, that you don't understand the complexity of the situation and that there's nothing you can do to change it. You can. But diplomatic statements, angry talkbacks and one-sided demonstrations in the streets of Stockholm won't do it.
There's nothing wrong with talkbacks and demonstrations. Showing solidarity with the victims of war and expressing popular support or outrage are worthy causes. But importing the Middle-East's violence, shallow cliché banners and ignorant hysterical screams won't help anyone. Neither will boycotts, sanctions and biased resolutions.
Swedes, however, can give a great deal to the people of Tel-Aviv, Gaza city, Sderot and Beit-Hanoun. They can teach them the inspiring pragmatism of the Swedish welfare state and its ability to invest in universal healthcare, education, an uncorrupted governing system and an open society. Forget about carefully crafted diplomatic lingo; forget about vocal, uncompromising support to one side only. Swedes can contribute the moral and political legacy of the likes of Raul Wallenberg and Olof Palme, they can shake off the ugly baggage of Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism still haunting them, and contribute their historical heritage of peacemaking and activism which takes a stand and saves lives wherever and whenever needed.
'What impressed me", wrote George Orwell about the Spanish Civil-War, "is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side". It seems many Israelis and many Palestinians have reached this point of apathy, distrust and despair. If anything, this should be what Swedish demonstrators, reporters and politicians together with their European allies, should contribute to this escalating crisis – impartial and unaligned help – not empty rhetoric of criticizing this and supporting that, rather humanitarian assistance and international funding and assurances for a lasting, stable and fair ceasefire.

Sweden's war in Afghanistan

המדיניות השוודית באפגניסטאן

Published in The Local – Sweden's news in English, December 2010 http://www.thelocal.se/30858/20101215/

 

One of those catchy phrases about foreign policy is the one in which Winston Churchill explains why he cannot forecast Russia's actions. "It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma", he said. Churchill knew what he was talking about, foreign policy can be complicated, and the war in Afghanistan is a perfect example. 

First, the conflict's history is long and full of twists and turns. Second, it's a war and like any other war it's a matter of life and death, which makes it an urgent moral issue, not just an abstract geopolitical one. Third, the story is told differently by different spectators, each holding a different narrative. The participants themselves meanwhile frequently say one thing while doing another, creating policy drowning in hidden interests and secret dealings. In fact, the dealings around the war in Afghanistan have turned out to be a war in itself, what a Frontline documentary called a war behind closed doors.

Afghanistan, which has been in a state of war or civil conflict since its ancient history, has seen many great powers fighting over it, from Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan to the modern British, Soviet and American empires. The current war started just months after 9/11 when a combined US and British military attack toppled the Taliban regime which supported Al-Qaeda. An Afghan anti-Taliban front then created a local government and an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was subsequently formed by the UN to secure Kabul. ISAF is now led by NATO and Sweden is one of over 40 countries who is part of it.

Despite ISAF's successes there are many who now claim that it's fighting a losing battle and that the war in Afghanistan can't be won. According to American journalist Bob Woodward even president Obama is sceptical. "I'm not doing 10 years" he supposedly told Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I'm not spending a trillion dollars".

With these doubts and with more and more ISAF member countries planning exit strategies, what is the wider context of Sweden's new wide political agreement on a an Afghanistan strategy shift, changing the military's mission from actively fighting insurgents to training and supporting local forces?

First, it's worthwhile taking a look at the two parties opposing the government's proposal. Though both the left-wing Vänsterpartiet and the Sweden-Democrats can agree the Taliban is a fundamentalist war-mongering movement, they want the troops home earlier than 2014. The Sweden Democrats don't prioritize solving problems far away from home, and Vänsterpartiet won't support any kind of military strategy.

This should be seen in context. It's an ongoing debate if the west should be responsible for imposing freedom and democracy on the rest of the world. On the one hand, there are doctrines of using economic and military power to export democracy, liberalism and human-rights. The shortcomings of these doctrines are obvious – their disciples tend to choose targets according to their own self-interests, they almost always invest more in short-term force than in long-term education, infrastructure and civil service and often they make the situation worse than it was in the first place.

On the other hand there are those who reject any attempt to meddle in the affairs of others. Who are we to decide what's right and wrong? they say, why should we impose our values on others? Perhaps the most telling argument against this political moral relativism is that if it had been implemented in the 1940s it would not have allowed the war against Hitler. Taking this argument further, it may have been these attitudes that made concentration camps and genocide possible in the first place, since it was precisely the disappearance of clear definitions of good and evil that led the way to politics of strong and weak and ethics of superior and inferior. If you can't define evil, you can't fight it, you just ignore it.

Swedish decision makers are somewhere between these arguments. Most of them agree that the Taliban is evil and I assume all of them know that back in 2001 the Taliban wasn't going anywhere without military intervention. The Sweden Democrat's position is therefore somewhat self-centered and indifferent. Vänsterpartiet's attitude, on the other hand, lacks a basic ingredient – the civilian aid it speaks of could never reach Taliban-led Afghanistan without an invasion. Take away the support for an invasion, and your policy becomes either naïve or complacent.

The government's position and new strategy is, I think, more morally balanced. But in the real world moral debates are usually a disguise for other motives. It all goes back to the post 9/11 conflict within the Bush administration which ended up adding a war in Iraq to a relatively limited and reasonable reaction focusing on the actual terrorists and their hosts in Afghanistan.

The two-front war which shook an all ready trouble-ridden region, inevitably created political and social instability. This instability had many effects. When the part of the world which produces so much oil is in flames, for example, prices rise. That may be bad for car owners in suburban Stockholm but it's great if you're selling oil and even better if you're making money from the financial difficulties of industrial heavy oil users.

Though blaming greedy generals and over-eager military establishments is common practice, it's men in suits, not in uniform, who have hidden interests. There are many, in official offices and financial institutions rather than army HQs, whose livelihood or political aspirations depend on instability – advocates of nuclear weapons for example, opponents of regional peace negotiations and your usual suspects of international lenders, financial speculators, drug and arm dealers and money launderers.

So should Swedish politicians avoid destabilizing wars a long way from home all together? The answer, I think, is no. Once a war has started, the worst scenario for an occupied nation is a premature withdrawal which leaves it no chance of rebuilding. Take Iraq for example, even if the war was originally based on lies and deception, now that the old regime is gone and the country still isn't stabilized, the international community must take responsibility and help build a modern and stable Iraq.

This is also true for Afghanistan where the war made much more sense in the first place. Some in Islamabad, Tehran and even Washington and London have everything to gain from the chaos, but for most Afghans it's just a prolonged nightmare.

So it's no use obsessing about final dates. It's more important to create a situation which allows a safe home-coming for Swedish troops while not leaving Afghanistan in ruins. How is this done? As far as the military aspect goes it'll probably be wise to focus less on killing insurgents and more on protecting local populations while taking every possible measure to avoid civilian casualties. Politically, investments must be made in Afghanistan's industry and welfare and a wide international front must strengthen all branches of the local government and take tough measures against international actors supporting destabilizing forces.

Ultra-modern, super-organized, secular Sweden is a long way from Afghanistan. Stockholm's government offices and TV studios are safe; they're surrounded by prosperity and while the debate commences in parliament, first signs of Christmas decorations are popping up all over town. It's so easy to forget what it's all about. It's not about Lars Ohly's political loneliness or about Aliansen's brilliant parliamentary tactics. It's about one of the richest countries in the world participating in an international force in one of its poorest. It's about trying to make real people's lives better while other forces are cynically exploiting them. If Sweden can do this, its years of involvement in Afghanistan, I think, may both be valuable and as most people hope, soon be over.

?What do European Gaza activist hope to achieve

בעקבות ההשתתפות האירופאית במשט לעזה

Published in The Local – Sweden's news in English, June 2010 http://www.thelocal.se/27022/20100603/

As European activists return from Israel and stride towards the waiting microphones and television cameras, it's important to take a look behind the events which took place off Gaza and perhaps revaluate the way activists engage in one of the most complicated  regions on earth.

It's worth saying at the very outset that the nine people who died on the Mavi Marmara didn't deserve to die. This is true whether they acted violently or peacefully, whether they were terrorist sympathizers or not, whether one agrees with their politics or not. The whole affair was handled badly by Israel to say the least and there are many questions about the legality and reasonableness of Israel's actions. Beyond that, however, there is a bigger picture.

Who actually profited from what happened? Well, most analysts agree that the biggest beneficiaries are the radical Islamists of the Middle East, notably Hamas, which won a major PR victory and gained valuable international legitimacy at the expense of moderate Palestinians and the Fatah leadership of the West Bank. Politically this is a boost for those Palestinians who object to peace negotiations with Israel, and prefer the more violent path of jihad.

In Turkey, Islamist extremists are milking the incident to win easy points against secular and modernising forces. Iran is delighted that the world’s attention is being diverted away from its nuclear programme and arms deals with Hezbollah and Syria. As so often before in the Middle-East, the rhetoric of peace and freedom becomes a tool to strengthen despotic, terror-sponsoring regimes which scoff at both. This happened largely because, as Israeli author David Grossman put it, Israel acted like a puppet on strings pulled by a small fanatical Turkish organization.

It's hard to tell if this is what the European activists on the flotilla were hoping to achieve. If it wasn't, and their only aim was to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and protest against Israel's blockade, they must be extremely naïve if they call the flotilla a success. Assuming their intentions were good, they might want to consider a few changes next time they embark on Middle East mission.

First, it's always good to know who your partners are. In this case, the IHH, the Turkish movement behind the Mavi Marmara, has proven links to terrorist organizations and global Jihad. It is now obvious that their aim wasn't only humanitarian aid: they were looking for violent confrontation and sadly Israel gave them more than they needed to make their point. Now they have their martyrs. In reality, the flotilla was an unfortunate alliance of idealistic peace activists and hard-core Islamic extremists. Those genuinely wanting to help Palestinian refugees would do far better to act with bodies like the UN or the many local Palestinian or Israeli humanitarian organizations, which have been getting aid to Gaza and the West Bank for years.

Second, in a conflict as complicated as this one, context is king. Many of those who condemn Israel for its blockade of Gaza don't even know that Gaza is also blockaded by Egypt. But Egypt, an Arab and Muslim country, is not the target of demonstrations, boycotts or international vilification. It would be interesting to see an international convoy trying to enter Gaza through the closed Egyptian Rafah crossing instead of the regular Israeli route, and no one should hold his breath to see demonstrators burning Egyptian flags in the streets of Europe.

These days many Europeans see Israel as the sole aggressor whilst in reality, this is much more than a conflict between nations, it's a conflict within nations. The women of Gaza, for example, were victims of Gaza's armed men long before they were victims of Israeli tanks. The children of Sderot in southern Israel were victims of the neglect of various Israeli governments long before they became victims of Palestinian missiles. And the sight of the Turkish government acting as a spokesman for human rights is probably very strange to some of its neighbours and citizens, like the Greeks, the Armenians, the Cypriots and the Kurds. It's a long and bitter conflict between forces of democracy and social progress and fundamentalist fanatics serving powerful global economic masters. 

European activists wanting to act in this region must realize that this is not just a question of Israel vs. Palestinians or Jews vs. Arabs. Iran’s machinations, Syria's domination of Lebanon, the mockery of human rights in the Arab world, and the violence in Iraq are just some examples which demonstrate that Israel isn't the real problem. At least not the only one.

But Israel has become the neighbour everybody hates and that's its tragedy. It may have the most powerful army and the strongest economy in the region but in the long run it will never survive as a Jewish democracy without recognition from its neighbors and legitimacy from the world. And this is exactly what it is losing now. The Palestinians, on the other hand, need civilian development; they need industry, infrastructure and democratic institutions. These too can only come as a result of an international effort. If Swedish activists have perspective as well as good intentions, they should focus their efforts on these areas, not on provoking violent confrontations, however justified they may appear.

The last piece of advice for potential peace activists is this – peace is about understanding, compromise and reconciliation, not about winning an argument.  Peace can never be achieved without understanding both sides, even the side you're initially opposed to. True, five years after its disengagement from Gaza successive Israeli governments seem to display a constant lack of moral judgment and continue to make terrible mistakes, both political and military.

The seizing of the Gaza-bound flotilla was just another mistake, as many Israelis reluctantly admit. By now many Israelis also realize that the three year blockade of Gaza is both wrong and ineffective. But it also remains true that Israel has a right to defend itself, and a basic duty to its citizens to prevent ever-more powerful weapons being smuggled to its enemies by land and sea by Syria and Iran who continue to arm their puppet allies. It is also true that international law does acknowledge a nation’s right to impose maritime blockades and the right to intercept ships even in international waters.

Meanwhile Israel is changing. It has been under attack for too many years and has tried too many solutions. It signed peace agreements and withdrew from occupied-territories but the extremists on all sides invalidated these steps and led to yet more bloodshed. Every Israeli generation has seen full scale wars, military campaigns and endless terror attacks, everyone knows someone who was killed or injured, everyone is a soldier or a soldier's relative, and everyone is at war.  

And so Israel expels visitors just because they speak against it, it continues building settlements, irresponsibly risking its relationship with the US and it persecutes journalists and activists. Its government is wrapping itself in a warm blanket of self-conviction, behaving like it's the only victim, with truth being unconditionally and eternally on its side. Israelis have largely lost faith that the International community will ever be able to understand their unique position, and this is sadly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does all this sound familiar? If it does, it's because these words describe the Palestinian condition too. It's a tough situation and it won't be resolved without help from the outside. Surely European activists could support moderates on both sides, resist provocations and promote the only realistic answer – a two state solution. Surely they could do better than the Mavi Marmara.

Auschwitz wasn't on another planet

יום השואה הבינ"ל, גניבת שלט הכניסה של אושוויץ וראיון עם פרופ' יהודה באואר

Published in The Local – Sweden's news in English, January 2010 http://www.thelocal.se/24616/20100127/

When writing about Auschwitz, it's important to start with the obvious. The theft of the camp's notorious entrance sign was an appalling act and those who are responsible for it must be punished. In a broader context, on the occasion of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 65 anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, it is important to point out that the original camp site, along with the museum and archive which were built on it, are in need of serious renovation. If the site's educational projects, research activities and ceremonial events, are to continue, there is need of a large investment, of international support and of course, a better security system.

So much for stating the obvious.

There is however another way of looking at the theft of the sign which naturally raised many angry reactions. Interestingly enough, statements made after the event were of the kind usually made when religious sites are desecrated. It's easy to forget that Auschwitz is not a holy site. It is not a vandalized grave or a burnt down synagogue, in fact it's as far from a holy site as one can imagine. Birkenau (Auschwitz 2) may well be the largest Jewish graveyard in the world and the site where thousands of Poles, Roma, Russians and many others were murdered, but the entrance sign of the main camp, Auschwitz 1, which simply states "Arbeit Macht Frei" (work liberates) is perhaps one of most profound symbols of evil and one of the most symbolic representations of Nazism. So much so that it is almost tempting to cry out to the thieves and to all the Anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis who support them: "If you want it so badly, just go ahead and take it!"

 There is a reason why that sign is so symbolic. Auschwitz wasn't on another planet, as Jewish writer and Auschwitz survivor, Yehiel Dinur, once put it. It was made from the stuff of our very own planet. It took all the evils of this world and brought them to a new level. Though it developed new and monstrous techniques, it didn't invent anything new. It was the most accurate representation of the world view of the Nazi movement which, while being politically revolutionary, was based on old and conservative values. Like Nazism itself, Auschwitz was hierarchical, racist, and murderous all of which are typical aspects of the twentieth century. It was a world where human beings had no value, where every part of their body and belongings was used to make profit before they were annihilated. It was a world of cruelty and ruthlessness, but not less interesting, it was a world of lies. And this is where the "Work Liberates" slogan has its deeper meaning.

The lies in Auschwitz weren’t limited to the lies told to the victims who were told, for example, that they are entering the showers when they were standing at the doors of gas chambers. They were deeper, almost philosophical. Auschwitz had every aspect of human life. There was music, medicine and even a judicial system. There were work places, sex life, trade and industry. But these were all distorted. Any trace of humanity was sucked out of them. Music, for example, was transformed from an expression of beauty and human emotions to a soundtrack of slave marches and executions. In the so called "Joy Division", sex was transformed from a source of pleasure and expression of intimacy to violent and repeated rape. In the torture chambers of Block no. 11, the judicial system served might instead of right and in Dr. Mengale's Block medicine did not save lives, but practiced diabolical experiments to glorify a mythical ‘master race.’

And then there's work. Work can define us; it can give us pleasure, release our creative abilities or at least provide for us. Work can liberate. But in Auschwitz work was the exploitation of people struck by disease and hunger by corporations, some of which, sadly enough, still exist today. All this makes the stolen slogan not only cynical but also a pure symbol of everything wrong in this world. As such, perhaps we can do without it.

Many, myself included, were shocked by the theft of the sign. But was the response proportional? Is the symbol really so important? I have visited Auschwitz many times and have seen how the sign has turned into a tourist attraction and how groups of laughing teenagers from all over the world gather beneath it to have their picture taken. Visiting Auschwitz is important and Symbols are important too but they are not everything. It's important to remember that although the war ended in 1945 genocide, racism and oppression didn't. Perhaps it would be more effective if some of the attention given to the stolen sign were diverted to the atrocities in Darfur for example, or to the many cases of minority oppression and discrimination worldwide.

The Israeli historian Prof. Yehuda Bauer, who is one of the world's greatest authorities on the Holocaust, says: "There are many places in the world today where mass murder and even genocide are possible. Everyone knows about Sudan but there are other places like Burma (Myanmar) and East Congo. The situation in other regions like Iran, with its complex ethnical problems, The Balkans, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Iraq and some places in South America like Guatemala could also deteriorate into mass murder". Bauer, who is visiting Stockholm this week, serves as an senior adviser to many institutes including the Swedish Government, the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research and the International Forum on Genocide Prevention. "The Holocaust was an unprecedented event because of its totality, universality and the pure ideological motives behind it", says Bauer, "But it was not unique, since it was an act of human beings on other human beings, it can happen again".

Though Bauer's work with the UN and other international organizations to prevent future crimes, may be more important to future generations than the preservation of old Nazi concentration camps, it can be claimed that the stolen sign, like the camp itself, is important as a witness of what happened and can be used in the battle against those who deny the Holocaust. There is truth in this. But there will come a day when not much will remain of the original camp. What then?

Even today parts of it are falling apart despite all preservation efforts. Like it or not, physical artifacts, just like the testimonies of living survivors, important as they are, will have a smaller role in remembering and understanding the Holocaust in the future. It is, after all, an event from the past century, and sadly its' survivors are becoming fewer and fewer. Camps like Treblinka and Sobibor were totally destroyed and many documents and artifacts are already lost. Future discussion about the Holocaust will have to be based on books, museums and films, and if we want it to have a future at all, public debate, educational dialogue and historical research will have to take the place of visiting the sites themselves.

From a Swedish perspective, these observations are particularly important. The apparent involvement of a Swedish Neo-Nazi in the sign theft last month reminds us that there is a need to continue the efforts to fight racism, Anti-Semitism and undemocratic trends in Swedish society. Sweden's ambivalent role in WW2 makes this even more crucial. As a vital exporter of iron ore to the German war machine, and as an industrial and sometimes political and ideological Nazi allay, Sweden has a moral and political obligation to deal with its past even if it is also responsible for saving many lives through its diplomatical efforts and generosity to refugees.

"Anti-Semitism in Europe is getting worse", says Prof. Bauer and explains that it exists in the extreme Right-Wing as well as in the left and in parts of the second generation of Muslim immigrants who rebel against their communities by targeting Israel and the Jews. He points out Sweden's efforts in fighting these trends, "Sweden dedicated time and money and has created The Living History Forum, a government agency commissioned to promote democracy and human rights, with the Holocaust as its point of reference". There is of course still work to be done and Bauer claims that studying the core issues of the Holocaust and especially the dilemmas of its victims are crucial to this process.

As for the stolen sign, I don't really know what the thieves who climbed on Auschwitz's gate and removed the sign on that cold December night had in mind. Truth be told, I don't really care. I was shocked when it was taken and I'm glad it is now back. But that is stating the obvious again.

Beyond the obvious is another thought. In one of his books, Yehiel Dinur describes a vision of an Auschwitz prisoner. He is sitting in a truck full of prisoners on the way to the crematorium and he's looking at an SS officer. He realizes, to his horror, that under other circumstances the roles could have been reversed and he could have been the killer. The worst thing about Auschwitz, he realizes, is that it is man-maid, not the work of the devil and it lies within the potential of human behavior. He describes the truck passing under the German words "Arbeit Mach Frei" and in his mind the German words are transformed into Hebrew ones: "In the image of God created he him". The symbol of Nazism becomes the cradle of Humanism. Now that would be a sign no one could steal.

וגרסה עברית:

כשעוסקים באושוויץ חשוב לפתוח במובן מאליו. גניבת השלט משער המחנה לפני יותר מחודש היא מעשה נפשע והאחראים לו חייבים להיענש. זאת ועוד, יום השנה ה 65 לשחרור המחנה ויום השואה הבינלאומי, שיצוין השבוע ברחבי העולם, הוא הזדמנות נוספת להזכיר את מצבו הקשה של האתר בו נרצחו מעל למיליון וחצי בני-אדם ולקוות כי השמירה עליו תשופר, שהכסף הנדרש לשיפוצו יגויס בקרוב ושמאמץ ניכר יושקע בשימור המחנה ובהמשך הפעילות החינוכית, התיעודית והטקסית המתקיימת בו.

עד כאן המובן מאליו.

גניבת השלט "העבודה משחררת" עורר מטבע הדברים גל תגובות בישראל ובעולם. רוב התגובות הזכירו דברים שנשמעים כאשר מטרות יהודיות מותקפות בחו"ל. אך גניבת שלט הכניסה של אושוויץ איננה דומה לריסוס גרפיטי על בית-כנסת, להשחתת ספר תורה או לחילול קבר יהודי. מחנה אושוויץ איננו מקום קדוש, הוא מקום מקולל. שדות בירקנאו הם אמנם בית-הקברות הגדול ביותר של העם היהודי, אך דווקא השלט בעל הכתובת "ארבט מאכט פריי", הוא הדבר הרחוק ביותר מהיהדות או מהאנושיות שניתן לעלות על הדעת. הוא אולי הייצוג הנאמן ביותר של הנאציזם ושל הרוע עצמו. הוא ארור ומאוס עד כדי כך שמפתה לומר לגנביו כמו גם לכל האנטישמים, הניאו-נאצים והפשיסטים למיניהם שחוגגים את האירוע: "אם אתם כל כך רוצים את השלט הזה, בבקשה – קחו אותו!".

אושוויץ לא הייתה, כפי שאמר ק.צטניק, פלנטה אחרת. להיפך, אושוויץ הייתה בנויה מהחומרים של הפלנטה הזאת. היא לקחה את כל הרעות החולות של העולם המודרני והביאה אותן לקצה. היא פיתחה אמנם טכניקות חדשות, מפלצתיות, אך היא לא המציאה שום רעיון חדש. היא הייתה התגלמותו הנאמנה של האידיאולוגיה הנאצית, שהייתה מהפכנית אולי מבחינה פוליטית, אך התבססה על עקרונות שמרניים ומוכרים, החל מהפרקטיקה הניהולית ועד השימוש בפסיכולוגיה של התליינים והקורבנות. במחנה אושוויץ, כמו בנאציזם עצמו, היה כל מה שהיה רע במודרנה. הייתה בו ההיררכיה, הגזענות והרצחנות שאפיינו את המאה העשרים (ושלא חלפו עדיין מן העולם). נבנה בו עולם בו בני-אדם היו פחות מסך כל חלקיהם, חפצים חסרי ערך שכל חלק מגופם ורכושם נוצל למטרות כלכליות. היו באושוויץ אכזריות, חוסר חמלה ודיכוי אך  מעניין לא פחות, אושוויץ הייתה מבוססת על שקר. וכאן בדיוק תפקידה של הסיסמא הידועה לשמצה: "העבודה משחררת".

ההונאה באושוויץ לא התבטאה רק בשקרים שסופרו לקורבנות שנכנסו לתאי-הגזים מתוך אמונה שהם מקלחות. השקר של אושוויץ היה עמוק יותר. כמעט פילוסופי. באושוויץ היו הרי כל ביטויי העולם האנושי, היו בה מוסיקה, רפואה ומערכת משפט, היו בה מקומות עבודה, חיי מין, מסחר ותעשייה. אך מחולליה של אושוויץ לקחו כל מה שהיה לו פוטנציאל אנושי והפכו אותו על פיו. המוסיקה באושוויץ, למשל, הפכה מביטוי של יופי ורגשות אנושיים לפס-קול של מצעדי עבדים והוצאות להורג. בבית-הבובות המין הפך ממקור של עונג ואינטימיות לאונס סדרתי ואלים. במרתפי העינויים של בלוק 11, המשפט לא עשה צדק אלא הנציח את שרירות לבו ואכזריותו של השליט. בבלוק 10 של הדר' מנגלה הרפואה הפכה ממצילת חיים לגיהינום של המתת ילדים וקטיעת איברים.

ויש כמובן את העבודה. העבודה מעצבת את מי שאנחנו, היא יכולה להיות מקום של יצירה ומקור של פרנסה, היא יכולה להיות משחררת. אבל לא באושוויץ. באושוויץ העבודה הפכה לעבדות, לניצול של בני-אדם מוכי קור, מחלות ורעב ע"י תאגידים כלכליים שחלקם, למרבה הציניות, קיימים עדיין היום. כל אלו מבוטאים היטב בשלט "העבודה משחררת". זוהי יותר מציניות, זהו הביטוי הטהור ביותר של השקר והרוע של הנאציזם.

רבים הזדעזעו, ובצדק, מגניבת הסמל החשוב הזה. אך האם הפרופורציות הופרו? האם הסמל הזה באמת כל כך חשוב? אני ביקרתי באושוויץ פעמים רבות. ראיתי כיצד השלט הזה הופך לאתר תיירות וכיצד קבוצות מצחקקות של בני נוער מכל העולם מתקבצים תחתיו כדי להצטלם. אין ספק, הביקורים באושוויץ הם חשובים וגם סמלים הם חשובים אך הם לא מראית הכל. המלחמה אמנם הסתיימה ב 1945 אך מעשים של רצח-עם, גזענות ואפליה הם לא נחלת ההיסטוריה. ייתכן שלא היה מזיק אם מעט מתשומת הלב שלו זכה השלט הנאצי באושוויץ היה מופנה לנעשה בדרפור, לדיכוי מיעוטים או לצמיחתן של תנועות פשיסטיות ברחבי העולם.

פרופ' יהודה באואר, אחת האוטוריטות החשובות בעולם בנושא השואה, אומר: "יש מקומות רבים בעולם כיום שהרג המוני ורצח-עם אפשריים בהם. כולם יודעים על סודאן, אך יש מקומות נוספים כמו בורמה (מיאנמר) וקונגו המזרחית. המצב במקומות כמו איראן, על המורכבות האתנית שלה, הבלקנים, זימבבווה, קניה ועיראק ומקומות מסוימים בדרום-אמריקה כמו גווטאמאלה, יכול גם הוא להידרדר לרצח המוני". באואר, המבקר בימים אלו בסטוקהולם, משמש כיועץ בכיר לפורומים בינלאומיים שונים הנלחמים בתופעות של הרג המוני ורצח-עם. "השואה הייתה אירוע אי-תקדימי במובן הזה שהיא הייתה טוטאלית, אוניברסאלית, שיטתית ומונעת ע"י מניעים אידיאולוגיים טהורים", הוא אומר, "אבל היא איננה ייחודית. מכיוון שהיא בוצעה ע"י בני-אדם היא יכולה לקרות שוב".

למרות שעבודתו של באואר ושל אחרים חשובה אולי לאנושות יותר משימור מחנות-הריכוז הישנים, יש הטוענים שהשלט הגנוב, כמו שאר שרידי המחנה, חשוב כדי להילחם בהכחשת השואה. יש אמת בטענה זאת אך יבוא היום שבו לא יוותר הרבה מהמחנה המקורי ומשרידיו. כבר היום חלקים ממנו מתפוררים ויש שרידים שיתכלו למרות כל מאמצי השימור. השרידים הפיזיים כמו גם העדים החיים, חשובים ככל שיהיו, לא נותנים היום מענה להכחשת השואה וגם לא להבנתה. אחרי הכל, מדובר באירועים מאמצע המאה הקודמת ובקרוב לא יוותרו להם עדים חיים. מחנות חשובים כמו טרבלינקה וסוביבור נהרסו לחלוטין ע"י הגרמניים וחומר תיעודי רב נהרס ונעלם. אם חשוב לנו שהשואה ולקחיה לא יישכחו ניאלץ להתרגל ללמוד אותם דרך ספרים, סרטים ומוזיאונים ובעיקר דרך מחקר היסטורי, דיון ציבורי ושיח חינוכי.

מנקודת ראות שוודית אבחנות אלו חשובות במיוחד. מעורבותו לכאורה של ניאו-נאצי שוודי בגניבת השלט בחודש שעבר היא תזכורת לחשיבותו של המאבק בגזענות, באנטישמיות ובמגמות אנטי-דמוקרטיות בחברה השוודית. זכר התפקיד האמביוולנטי של שוודיה במלה"ע השנייה רק מחזקת צורך זה. כיצאנית ברזל חיוני למכונת המלחמה הגרמנית וכשותפה עסקית, ולעיתים גם פוליטית ואידיאולוגית של גרמניה הנאצית, לשוודיה יש אחריות פוליטית ומוסרית להתמודד עם עברה, אפילו אם היא הצילה אלפי בני-אדם בתקופת המלחמה כתוצאה ממאמציה הדיפלומטיים ונדיבותה כלפי פליטים. זוהי מחויבות היסטורית שנוגעת גם למגמות מדאיגות בהווה.

"מצבם של היהודים באירופה גרוע יותר היום משהוא היה בעבר", אומר פרופסור יהודה באואר ומסביר כי יש היום באירופה אנטישמיות מסורתית, דומה לזו הטרום-נאצית וגם אנטישמיות חדשה יותר. האנטישמיות לדבריו מגיעה משלושה מקומות מרכזיים: הימין הקיצוני, השמאל והדור השני והשלישי של מהגרים מוסלמים שמפנים את המרד שלהם בחברות המערביות הקולטות נגד ישראל והיהודים. שוודיה, מציין באואר, מקדישה מאמצים, זמן וכסף רב להילחם במגמות אלו אך יש עוד עבודה רבה. השימוש בגרעין הקשה של השואה, ובעיקר בדילמות של קורבנותיה, היא הדרך הטובה ביותר להמשיך את הדיון החשוב הזה.

אינני יודע מה בדיוק עבר בראשם של החוליגנים העלובים שטיפסו על השער של אושוויץ, הבריגו החוצה את שלט הכניסה וברחו איתו. למען האמת, זה גם לא אכפת לי במיוחד. המובן מאליו אומר שהשלט חשוב להנצחת הקורבנות ולפעילות החינוכית של המוזיאון וטוב שהוא הוחזר. אבל מעבר למובן מאליו יש מחשבה נוספת.

הסופר ק.צטניק בספרו "הצופן" מתאר חיזיון של אסיר, שלד בין שלדים עירומים, היושב במשאית בדרך לקרמטוריום ומביט אל קצין SS. האסיר מבין שהזוועה האמיתית של אושוויץ היא בכך שהיוצרות יכולות היו להתהפך ושהוא עצמו, בנסיבות אחרות, יכול היה להיות קצין SS. אושוויץ הרי איננה יצירת השטן, הוא מבין, אלא יצירת בני-אדם, שכולם שווים וכולם נבראו בצלם. "המשאית עוברת את שער אושוויץ שמעליו האותיות הגרמניות: ARBEIT MACHT FREI", כותב ק.צטניק את חזיון האסיר, "והן מתחלפות באותיות העבריות: "בצלם אלוהים ברא אותו". כך הופך סמל הנאציזם לערש ההומניזם. את השלט הזה אין איש יכול לגנוב.