A popular proverb says that a half-truth is a whole lie. The latest episode of SVT’s Utrikesbyrån about Hamas was a good example of that. That does not mean it wasn’t interesting. It was. Nor is there any doubt that the three participants — former Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, political scientist Marco Nilsson and Middle East analyst Bitte Hammargren — knew what they were talking about. But when it came to the analysis of Hamas, we were given only a half-truth.
The questions the presenter Rebecca Randhawa asked were: what is left of Hamas, will they lay down their arms, and who will govern Gaza. The first and the third questions are almost impossible to answer. Even Israeli intelligence does not know what remains of Hamas’s military capability, and Gaza’s future governance depends on a complicated geopolitical process. The second question, however, can be answered based on a deep understanding of what Hamas is, the choices it has made in the past, and what its ideological and political DNA is.
According to Löfven, Hamas’s power is the result of a paradox. Despite being one of Israel’s greatest enemies, its power originated with Israel’s political leadership. “Such an organization receives support (from Qatar, for example) simply because Israel wants to avoid the Palestinian Authority (PA) gaining any power.” Hammargren agreed and said that Hamas was a political asset for Israel. “Netanyahu’s line was that by letting Hamas grow in Gaza we don’t have to hear about a Palestinian statehood,” she said. This is a common analysis and it is partly true. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders do indeed oppose a two-state solution. Because of this, his strategy was to weaken the PA, and many argue that one of the ways he did this was by allowing Hamas to grow. But this is only half the truth.
The other half, and the real reason Hamas rose to power and was able to retain it, is much simpler. The source of Hamas’s power is support from large parts of the Palestinian people. Even now, after two years of destruction and death that are a direct consequence of Hamas’s decision to massacre Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, Hamas is still supported by many Palestinians. The international support from Qatar and Iran that Löfven and Hammargren mentioned is also not hard to understand. Iran’s regime has a long-term goal of eliminating “the Zionist entity,” and Qatar built its international position on supporting its ideological Muslim Brotherhood allies. Sure, Netanyahu miscalculated Hamas’s capacity and misread its intentions, but it was not he who made Hamas’s ideology popular, and it was not he who turned Qatar and Iran into dangerous regional destabilizing powers.
But where is Hamas heading? Utrikesbyrån’s two-and-a-half-minute clip tried to provide background. According to the clip, “Hamas removed the demand that Israel be destroyed, but still does not recognize the state of Israel.” This is not even a half-truth. Hamas is absolutely committed to the destruction of Israel. Yes, it created a new charter for foreign audiences, because the old document contained antisemitic propaganda that was not particularly popular on university campuses and in some Western circles. But even the new charter demands “all of Palestine” from the river to the sea, it does not accept the Oslo Accords or the two-state solution, and it still endorses “armed resistance,” which has been a decisive part of Hamas’s nature long before October 7. That includes blowing up buses and restaurants full of civilians as well as kidnapping, torturing and murdering Jews of all ages, genders and backgrounds. One interesting thing Utrikesbyrån did not mention is that Hamas activists have on several occasions been arrested in Europe for planning attacks on “Jewish targets.” Worth mentioning if anyone took the “new charter” seriously.
Despite (or perhaps because of) the violence, Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006 in both the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians are not blind or politically incapable — they knew exactly what they were voting for. According to Utrikesbyrån’s experts, Netanyahu could have fought Hamas by strengthening the PA. It’s an interesting theory. Only problem is that it’s not true. Not during the years when Hamas was building its reign of terror, anyway. The reasons are that Netanyahu was not Israel’s prime minister at that time. Between 1999 and 2009 the prime ministers of Israel were Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. The first was an outspoken advocate for a two-state solution, the second ended the occupation of Gaza, and the third was probably the one who offered the PA the most generous territorial compromise. Hamas was not impressed. It continued to build the fundamentalist, jihadist, genocidal faction within the Palestinian nationalist movement. Hamas did not need Netanyahu for this. It was fully capable of doing it on its own, while many Israelis were still considering peace and reconciliation.
Utrikesbyrån downplayed all of this. In the program there were no blown-up buses, no tunnels, rockets, high-tech international propaganda campaigns or brutal executions of Palestinian “collaborators.” October 7 was only mentioned in passing, as another point on the timeline. No hostages, no burned neighborhoods, no executed families. This is not a complaint that they “forgot October 7,” but a critique of incomplete analysis. How can one answer the question about Hamas’s intentions without taking into account that the organization recruited thousands of people who were willing not only to kill but also to commit gang rapes and sexualized torture in the name of Allah?
Netanyahu can and should be criticized for many things, but not for this. Sure, he did not destroy Hamas before October 7, and through his incompetence and corruption he may have contributed to the opposite. Israelis should hold him accountable for that. But this is far from the cause of the catastrophe. Hamas began building its advanced military capability long before Netanyahu, it remains standing, and many Palestinians still support it. Let us imagine that Netanyahu had decided to wipe out Hamas back in 2014. Now that we know that not even the destruction of Gaza did the job, would Stefan Löfven have supported an Israeli offensive on that scale? Would the Obama administration have allowed it? Would the UN have accepted it? Of course not. Everyone can complain about Netanyahu and everyone can criticize Hamas, but in the end — whose responsibility is it to eliminate Hamas, and who will support such an effort?
It is obvious that Stefan Löfven in no way supports Hamas. In Utrikesbyrån he spoke very clearly about the necessity of a political process with a reformed Palestinian Authority moving toward a two-state solution. But putting the blame for the situation on the Israeli government while ignoring Hamas’s inherently genocidal nature is a classic half-truth. It leads people to believe in conspiracy theories about secret Israeli involvement in the massacre of its own citizens, and more importantly — it shifts the focus to the wrong side. To reach a lasting ceasefire it would be wiser to focus on the “de‑Hamasification” of Gaza and support moderate forces on both sides that can help their communities recover from this two-year trauma and build a future together.
In an article in SvD this week, Göran Rosenberg shared his concerns about the Jewish world. Many, myself included, share some of his worries — for example, concern over Israel’s extremist settler movement and the situation in Gaza. But several of his claims are dangerous and misleading.
"The Israel project is morally dead," writes Rosenberg. The project, not the country. That’s an extremely important nuance. If Israel is a project, then it can either succeed or fail, in which case, like any other failed project, it loses its right to exist. But Israel is not a project; it is a country. A country with a political right and left, babies and pensioners, gangsters and hipsters, programmers and midwives, people sitting in traffic jams and people demonstrating against the government. That is the entire point of Zionism — Jews have the right to be like any other people and have an unconditional right to self-determination. Israel should not be the only country in the world whose existence is conditional, and the right to self-determination of its people can't be dependent on their ability to meet Rosenberg’s moral standards.
What are Israelis supposed to do now that "the project has failed"? Pack their bags and leave? Vanish into thin air? Go up in smoke? That’s exactly the propaganda Hamas spreads through Western protest movements — if Israeli Jews are so morally bankrupt, then it’s not about regime change or electing a new government, as it is with Russians or Iranians. Instead, the Jews must disappear. Or die.
It's no coincidence that Israel's worst enemies — those who want to wipe it off the face of the earth — refuse to acknowledge it as a state among states. The Iranian regime calls Israel 'the Zionist regime' or 'the occupying regime of Jerusalem'. Hamas speaks of 'the Zionist entity' or 'the occupation', and the Houthis in Yemen refer to 'the Zionist enemy'. Always an abstract creature — an entity, a project — never a state. Even Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were allowed to be states. But not Israel.
Rosenberg writes that Israel’s “genocide in Gaza” is now putting Jews in other countries into an “existential crisis” and that voices like his are being silenced. Besides the fact that he regularly writes in one of Sweden's main daily newspapers and is far from being silenced, there's a much more important falsehood in his claim. In fact, in a broader context, the opposite of what he writes is true — Israel, with all its sins, is the answer, not the problem (and the problem can be explained in one word – Auschwitz). Historically, there have been Jewish non-Zionist movements, but the reason most of them disappeared has nothing to do with silencing voices. It has to do with the fact that Zionism understood antisemitism better and offered a concrete answer based on international law. The other solutions vanished in the Holocaust. What alternative does Rosenberg propose? Another socialist utopia? Or should we return to the pogroms on European streets?
Then there’s the conflict with the Palestinians. Rosenberg is right that Israel has oppressed the Palestinians for decades and made every conceivable mistake. But the Palestinians have too. They are not the eternal victims Rosenberg sees them as, and their violence is not a natural "expression against oppression". The violence started long before Israel was founded — before the occupation, before the oppression — and much of it is imported. Just as Israel receives American support, the Palestinians received support from the Nazis in the 1940s, from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s, and more recently from dictators and jihadists in Qatar, Iran, and Yemen — countries that have no territorial conflict with Israel, but still support fascist, chauvinistic, and corrupt Palestinian movements.
We can all enjoy philosophical discussions about the Jewish intellectual world, but the bigger problem right now is those who persistently blame Jews and Israelis for all the world’s problems. Some even build nuclear weapons to "wipe out the Zionist entity". It’s true that polarization within the Jewish world and anti-democratic tendencies in Israel are serious, but most Jews are more concerned about genocide-prone regimes that are after Jewish blood. Even if Rosenberg finds it uncomfortable or unpleasant, Israelis still have the right to face these challenges and build themselves a future.
Swedish public radio has reported that the two agents, a man and a woman who were expelled from Sweden in 2022, were linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards and that among their intended victims was the chairman of the Jewish community
Swedish public radio reported on Tuesday that Iran had planned to kill Swedish Jews using agents who had infiltrated into the country in 2015 by pretending to be refugees. In its investigative report, Radio Sweden said that the agents, a man, and a woman, were linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and that among the targets of their plot was Aron Verständig, the chairman of the Swedish Jewish community's umbrella organization, the Official Council of Swedish Jewish Communities.
"This involves a plan by another country to murder a Swedish citizen, and that has me boiling," Verständig told the public radio station. "It felt very unpleasant. I was worried and as a father of young children, I felt a major responsibility for my children's safety." In a Facebook post, Verständig added: "From my standpoint, there was never any doubt that I would continue living life as usual. I hope that what was disclosed today doesn't cause anyone to be less open regarding their Jewish identity."
Another person who was in the Iranian agents' crosshairs was a U.S. citizen, and according to the Swedish prosecutor's office, the FBI was involved in the investigation.
The two alleged Iranian agents – Mahdi Ramezani and Fereshteh Sanaeifarid– were arrested in the Stockholm area in April 2021, the radio station reported. The Swedish prosecutor told reporters that the authorities hadn't managed to gather sufficient evidence against them at the time to indict them, so it was decided to expel them to Iran in 2022. Their expulsion was reported in the past, but the circumstances of the matter weren't disclosed at the time. The Iranian embassy in Stockholm refused to comment.
The Iranian plot revealed a major failure on the part of Sweden's immigration authority, which had granted the pair status as Afghan asylum-seekers, and later resident status. This was despite the fact that in 2016, the immigration authority received two anonymous tips that the pair were Iranian and not Afghani, and that the Iranian man was working for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The immigration authority declined to comment on this specific case, but a spokesman said, "What's important is that ultimately, the correct decision was made."
In addition, in recent months, there has been an increase in reports of antisemitic incidents in Sweden, including demonstrations with antisemitic content, calls for boycotts, antisemitic comments in the media and on social media and abuse and harassment at schools and universities.
"Antisemitism has gone sky-high since October 7," Verständig told Haaretz last week, in reference to the Hamas attacks in a string of Israeli border communities that day, "and many people have been experiencing fear, insecurity, and anxiety. A survey that we carried out in November shows that many Jews have considered leaving Sweden. The government has reacted in an excellent way – but in civil society, reactions are sometimes very different."
The discourse within the Swedish and European left is important even if you're not part of it and the insane embrace of Hamas by so-called left-wing radicals, climate change fighters, human rights activists and western intellectuals and academics must be challenged.
Imagine this powerful image: in a country which is slowly being taken over by right-wing nationalists, it's becoming harder to speak truth to power and to speak up for the underdog and the repressed. But then, from the trenches of the opposition, rises a fearless figure. He knows he'll be arrested and tortured if he's caught crying out, and so he does what intellectuals from resistance movements allways do under tyrannical regimes. He uses sarcasm, he sharpens his pencil and cleverly plays with words to produce a text which is radical and subversive, but at the same time meticulously designed not to be flagged down by the authorities. That way the avant-garde academic doesn’t get in trouble with the all-powerful secret service henchmen who are hunting down traitors.
Sweden 2024. While a war is going on in Gaza and in Israel, the whole political elite is powerfully supporting Israel. It's blue and white from left to right and it's not allowed to speak up for the Palestinians. And then, a single voice of a brave dissident rings out. He wrote a text. It's called "I Condemn Hamas" and it's brilliantly designed by a rhetorical trick – the title is mainstream and boring, everyone condemns Hamas. The content seems to be the same, but under the surface lies the explosive message – it's the exact opposite of condemning Hamas, it's actually supporting it (Malm, Anders, Jag Fördömer Hamas, Parabol, 01/11-23). At last the opposition has a voice – Andreas Malm has weighed in. It's a powerful text and a powerful image. The only problem is that none of it is true.
Malm's claim is clear – everyone's condemning Hamas, mainstream media, politicians and public discourse in general. He, on the other hand, thinks this is false. Hamas may have killed civilians, kidnapped children and burned down residential buildings on October 7th, but according to him this isn't unique. It's all been done before by Israel. Malm doesn't claim this directly. He does it by sarcasm. The same kind of sarcasm is pointed at the Swedish discourse. "In Sweden there are strikingly few who have condemned Hamas in the past few days. Those who have done it have only done it once, so that we now wonder if it was really meant honestly", he writes creating an illusion which is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, Sweden is one of the countries in which the Hamas did surprisingly well. At least for an organization which is internationally recognized as a terror organization.
Hamas supporters have spoken openly in conferences and seminars in Sweden, money has been raised for Hamas freely in Sweden; just in the last few months there have been dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrations with speeches supporting Hamas or at least not condemning them including demonstrations celebrating the events of October 7th on the day they happened. Unlike other countries, these demonstrations are not only legal, they're supported by some of the political elite and many in the media, in the cultural world and in civil society. Malm's style implies that Swedish publicists have to condemn Hamas or they'll be cancelled. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Malm himself is a writer who has supported Hamas publicly in several newspapers, magazines and publications. As far as I know, he's yet to be arrested, censored or fired. In Sweden it’s allowed to burn the Koran, join parties which support North-Korea and have Neo-Nazi marches on Yom-Kippur. No one's preventing anyone from supporting Hamas. Indeed, I recently met Hamas supporters in Sergels Torg. They were members of two perfectly legal Swedish movements, RKU, the revolutionary communist youth movement and NMR, the friendly neighborhood neo-Nazis. Who knows, perhaps Andreas Malm himself was there supporting them both.
However, the Swedish context is only the beginning of Malm's mistake. The claim that the massacre on October 7th was more of the same, that it was Palestinians retaliating with the same kind of violence Israel uses, is worth studying. "What happened on Black Saturday, October 7th was something new in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", Malm writes using his smug self-satisfied irony, "it redraws the political and moral map of the Middle East for good. Gunmen stormed into communities and shot children to death with rifles. They did not care at all about the age of the victims. Hundreds of civilians were killed – people with no connection to any military activity, murdered simply because of their identity. Entire families disappeared". If this wasn't so true, it would be real cutting-edge political satire. But Malm's satire, is in fact the sad truth. Nothing like October 7th ever happened before in this conflict. Israelis and Palestinians never killed so many people in one attack or in one day. Not in Kafar Qasim (1956), not in Deir Yassin and Tantura (1948), not in Hebron (1996) and not in the bombings of Gaza in previous years. There were never so many acts of torture and violence against civilians, never so many people kidnaped and never such brutality. And yes, October 7th did redraw the political and moral map of the Middle-East for good. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Israel made many mistakes in the last few decades; like any other army it has committed war crimes during conflict, some of its civilians, especially in the West-Bank are violent extremists and its occupation of the West-Bank continues to be a hindrance to peace in the Middle-East. But October 7th was unique. It's not only about the brutality or the number of victims. The really scary number is the number of the people who committed the crimes. Unlike 9/11 which was executed by a small Jihadist vanguard of 19 Al-Quade operatives, and unlike Utøya which was the work of one (Andreas Malm cracks a little clever joke making the comparison), October 7th was carried out by about 3,000 people. Many of were sipplied with written instructions about how to murder, torture and kidnap civilians, some were also provided with drugs and with body cameras. This wasn’t a spontaneous, heat of the moment action. It was a planned strategy. On October 7th the world saw a society capable of drafting 3,000 people who were 100 percent committed to murder.
Andreas Malm perhaps hasn't heard the story told by David Tahar, father of Adir Tahar, an Israeli soldier who was killed on October 7th. Tahar told Israeli Chanel 14 that before the funeral he insisted on seeing his son's body even though army officials advised against it. The reason was that apparently after he was killed Hamas fighters decapitated Adir and took his head back home to Gaza. A few weeks later, after receiving intelligence from captured terrorists, an Israeli military unit retrieved the head. It was hidden in a bag with some tennis balls and a few documents inside an ice-cream shop freezer in Gaza. Apparently the head was up for sale. The price was 10,000 US Dollars. I know there are many who don't believe Israeli media and think that Zionists fathers are so perverted that they can make up this kind of story for propaganda purposes. So here's another one. This time from the New York Times.
Sapir, a 24-year-old accountant who attended the rave party near Kibbutz Reim on October 7th gave a testimony which was reliable enough for the NYT which told the story of what she saw from her hiding place (Gettleman, Schwartz and Sella, "Screams Without Words": How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7", The New York Times, 28/12-23). Sapir says she saw "a young woman, blood running down her back, pants pushed down to her knees. One man pulled her by the hair and made her bend over. Another penetrated her. Every time she flinched, he plunged a knife into her back. Sapir said she watched another woman "shredded into pieces". While one terrorist raped her another pulled out a box cutter and sliced off her breast. "One continues to rape her", she said, "the other throws her breast to someone else, and they play with it, throw it, and it falls on the road". She said the men sliced her face and then the woman fell out of view. Around the same time, she said, she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women.
These are just two testimonies from October 7th. There are thousands more. One could always claim, as Malm does in earlier texts, that all this violence should be seen in context. But this kind of violence has no context. If it was really about freedom, or fighting the occupation there would be no need for mass rape, kidnapping babies and removing body parts. The atrocities, the rockets, the tunnels and the complete subordination of Gazans to Hamas militants are all far darker and more sinister than Malm's theories. It's not the price paid for Israel's colonialism. If for no other reason, because this isn't colonialism. Israel isn't Algeria.
According to Malm, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians isn't a war between two indigenous peoples which have a legitimate claim to the same territory and therefore are engaged in a violent conflict. Instead, there is one legitimate native nation and for over a century it has been fighting an occupation by invaders who came from other countries as colonizers. The invaders are supported by imperialist powers and they are now committing genocide. This kind of aggression according to Malm must be, should be and always has been resisted with violence. In fact, Malm's latest text is one of many in Parabol making the same claim.
These texts rarely even mention the events of October 7th which I would suggest is a sign of total moral bankruptcy. But that's me and I may be biased. The problem here is different, it's about intellectual honesty. The description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a story of a colonial power murdering the natives is incredibly shallow and misleading. It's perfectly ok to oppose Israel's policies (as I do myself most of the time), it's perfectly ok to name-drop Edward Said and Franz Fanon, make comparisons to Apartheid South-Africa and quote Israeli officials making outrageous genocidal statements which can then be quoted at the ICJ in the Hague. But people who have studied the region, as I guess Malm has, know very well that Jews, not only Palestinians are natives to it. And no, I'm not referring to Jesus and Abraham. Biblical stories cannot be a base for international geo-politics. I'm referring to facts completely ignored by the whole post-colonial discourse.
Take Gaza, for example, in the place where Rimal, the political center of Gaza City used to stand, a synagogue was built in the year 508 AD. We know that the figure in the center of the ancient mosaic which was found there is King David. How do we know this? Because his name is written there. In Hebrew. Gaza has a long bloody history – Romans, Christian Crusaders, Arab armies, the Egyptians, Napolean's army, the Ottomans and the British Mandate all controlled Gaza. During this history, Jews lived in Gaza, they didn't arrive in ships in the 1940s. They were there during the time of the Romans, 2,000 years ago, they were there in the Middle-Ages and during the time of Islamic rule, then again in the 14th and 15th century and under the rule of the Ottoman empire. Some were still there even after WW 2.
As in many other areas in the region, for thousands of years, Jews thrived and declined in Gaza, they were expelled and fled, they killed and were killed, built and destroyed, returned, immigrated and emigrated. Arabs in the region have a similar, though somewhat shorter, story (I'm referring to them as Arabs, because the name Palestinians wasn't used in the way that we use it today until after WW2). The story of the region being a land inhabited by indigenous Palestinians who were attacked by American, European and Russian Jews arriving from abroad after the Holocaust and kicking out the natives is a fairytale. Concepts like colonialism and indigenous peoples aren't abstract. Unfashionable as it may seem, these things have actual meanings beyond TikTok clips made by demonstrators wearing fashionable red, white and green scarfs. They can be discussed in terms of archeological findings, origin and descent, historical continuity of settlements, language and culture, collective ancestral ties to a territory and to natural resources, self-identification, experiences of subjugation and discrimination and so on. It may be frustrating, but when it comes to Israel, to the West-Bank and to Gaza, both Jews and Palestinians are natives. They're all a combination of immigrants and people who are decedents of families who haven't left for generations. And they've all suffered from violence, massacres, displacement and trauma.
And there's another similarity between the Jewish national movement (aka Zionism) and the Palestinian one. They both have a genocidal wing. These are the people on both sides who don't accept the idea of territorial compromise in order to achieve peace. The people who are willing to go as far as killing or expelling the other group in its entirety. They're usually religious fanatics, they're extremely violent, they totally oppose democracy and human rights, they're willing to kill and die for the cause and they've always been around. On the Jewish side, they began to become a serious threat after Israel's 1967 victory with the rise of the settler movement in the occupied West-Bank. These days they're becoming stronger, they're getting closer to government circles, but they're still far from being anywhere near a majority in Israeli society.
On the Palestinian side, things seem to be worse. If on the Zionist side there was a right-wing revisionist leader, Zeev Jabotinsky, who had a connection with Mussolini in the 30s, the leader of the Arab nationalists in Palestine at the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent WW2 in Berlin and in Rome, he collaborated with the Nazis and the Fascists, he personally met Hitler, Himmler and Mussolini and was a supporter of the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem". Al-Husseini was just the beginning. The Palestinian National movement has always had an active and extremely popular genocidal side to it. It's not because of Israel, because it started many years before Israel even existed. And it's not unimportant because what we saw on October 7th was a direct result of the same kind of ideology.
That's what's really amazing about Andreas Malm's text. Hamas is the genocidal wing of the Palestinian national movement and its ideological roots go all the way back to Nazi Germany. Although it was seen as a traditional grassroot, social and religious movement when it was founded in the 80s, it's now a modern, extreme right-wing movement combining Jihadism, high-tech disinformation campaigns, a financial empire of global investments, leaders who live a life of luxury outside the region, modern weapon systems and powerful alliances with the world's most tyrannical regimes. Anyone imagining the Hamas as a young David standing up to the Israeli Goliath is living in a naïve lullaby.
But Andreas Malm isn't naïve. He knows very well that the geo-political realities show that Hamas and indeed the Palestinian national movement is far more complicated than just a victim of western colonialism. He knows about the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005 which means there was no occupation of Gaza for almost two decades. He knows that the blockade on Gaza is just as much an Egyptian policy as it is an Israeli one and that many Arab countries want Israel to destroy Hamas. He knows that the Hamas charter is an antisemitic and fundamentalist text. He knows that Hamas has crushed the secular Palestinian national movement in Gaza and that it sees the Palestinian Fatah movement as an enemy which is almost as bad as Israel. He knows about Hamas' brutal war against the Palestinian Authority and he knows about the unprecedented Hamas military buildup and take-over of civil society in Gaza.
The reason that I know that Malm knows all this is because of other texts that he wrote. Reading them one learns a lot about his way of seeing the world, though I must admit, it's sometimes a confusing task. Although he seems well versed in Middle-Eastern politics, when it comes to moral statements and political conclusions, his considerations are so complicated, it's hard to keep track. Although Israel is always wrong (that's the constant) when it comes to Palestinians, Arab states and Islamic super powers, the target is painted around the dart after it's been thrown.
In a text he wrote a few years ago (Malm, Andreas, "Därför Hamas", Expressen, 15/01-09) he claims one can have two thoughts at the same time, like the Palestinian left which allies itself tactically with Hamas but at the same time supports the opposition in Iran while the opposition in Iran is fighting the Iranian regime at the same time the Iranian regime is funding Hamas. It's ok if you need to read the last sentence again.
Malm's reasoning is not that unique. He supports Hamas and its fight against what he called the "corrupt Fatah politicians" and Mahmoud Abbas, who's an Israeli and American "marionet". If this sounds familiar it's because this is exactly the same logic used by Israeli PM Netanyahu who for years has been undermining the Fatah controlled Palestinian Authority by allowing Hamas to stay in power in Gaza so that he wouldn't have to take real steps towards a two-state solution. Surprisingly enough, Malm and Netanyahu are on the same side. They'll both do anything to avoid compromise and consolidation.
In another text from 2009 Malm referred to Hamas as a liberation movement which is "forced to resort to every possible form of resistance" (Malm, Andreas, "Vi bör följa Iran och stödja Hamas i kampen mot Israels folkmordspolitik", Newsmill, 04/01-09). In the same text he quoted Nir Rosen, who claimed that "Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication" (Rosen, Nir, "Gaza: the logic of colonial power", The Guardian, 29/12-08). Malm is entitled to write these kind of statements even if they encourage violence and are fascist in nature. I only hope that most Swedes, including those who support the Palestinians, can see beyond this tragic war mongering, since it's clear to anyone what this means politically. Hamas will continue murdering Israelis; Israel will have to retaliate and will do so forcefully – and more Palestinians will be killed. If there's anything that hasn't changed in the last few decades it's this dynamic.
Hamas is not the only problem. In another text Malm openly supported Hezbollah (Malm, Andreas, "Därför Ska Vi Stödja Hezbollah", 11/08-2006), an Islamic movement funded, trained and inspired by the Iranian Ayatollahs and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which was involved in suicide attacks, political assassinations, bombing of civilians and hijackings in Lebanon and other countries. I don't know how Malm manages to pull off being a left wing radical and supporting two of the most conservative, fascist, chauvinist, fundamentalist, hierarchical, anti-democratic, homophobic and xenophobic movements in the history of the known universe, but I know that explanations along the lines of "I can't be expected to condemn actions taken by the weak and oppressed” can't work anymore after the massacre of October 7th which was a tectonic, world-changing event. Not condemning it, or in Malm's case, condemning it sarcastically, means supporting it.
This period isn't easy for the global political left. Just like in the 1950s when left-wing activists, politicians and intellectuals had to decide whether to stay faithful to the Stalinist flagship even after it was exposed as a sadistic killing machine of gulags and mock trials, today's left must decide if its alliance with the dictators, Jihadists and militants from Gaza, Teheran, Beirut and Doha is more important than its ideals. Those who have the courage to choose their ideals and abandon their old murderous allies will not have Andreas Malm's problem. They will be able to proudly say "yes, I condemn Hamas".
This is a tectonic and world-changing event, carried out by thousands of people supported by hundreds of thousands of people, as well as by movements, states and regimes. Not condemning it is supporting it. And the results are inevitable. Because of the horror that these people have inflicted on the world, an even darker night is to come before we will see the light.
A is my friend. He is a Burmese expatriate from Myanmar living in Europe. He is an academic, an educated and friendly person, and a veteran human rights activist. As a journalist who writes, among other things, about countries where acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations take place, I consult with various experts. A is one of them. This is the letter I sent him last week.
Hello, A. I am writing in response to your letter regarding the “colonial character and genocidal policy of Israel.” As you can imagine, I am quite busy these days, and as someone who is far away from his family in Israel, I am distracted. I am responding to you despite all this, mainly because your words opened with a reference to Auschwitz, a place where many of my family members were murdered about 80 years ago.
According to you, Israel is using the Holocaust as a “blank check” to justify the imprisonment, bombing and starvation of 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, almost half of whom are children. "In these circumstances, 'never again' is a hollow phrase," you write. “It becomes a call for uncontrolled violence, battle cries and a campaign of revenge and extermination." In the past and under different circumstances, I must admit that I might have agreed with you.
A, you must remember that we got to know each other after several occasions when you very generously shared with me your expertise, knowledge and experience regarding Myanmar. When I first contacted you, I wrote that as a journalist working in a free country, I felt obliged to tell the story of the victims of atrocities there – amongst others, the Rohingya people other minorities who have been suffering from genocidal policies for years since the military coup in 2021.
Since I am not an expert myself, I reached out to you, just as I reached out to many other experts, witnesses and human rights activists who could shed light on other places I wrote about, such as China, Ethiopia, Syria, Iran, Mexico, Belarus and Iraq.
This is an important point. As you know, there are complicated conflicts in many of these places about which there are different opinions. Still, my feeling was that we shared a real commitment to expose and fight certain types of acts which cannot be excused under any circumstances, regardless of the different narratives that explain the conflict. I mean the kind of actions that cannot be permitted even if there is no agreement on the history of the conflict or even on the identity of those responsible for it.
These actions include those that took place in Rakhine province in Myanmar, which I wrote about with your kind help. The barbaric murder, torture and rape of innocents that happened in your country is inexcusable. Political, ethnic, religious or demographic claims simply cannot justify throwing babies into fire, torturing children to death in front of their parents, and the mass rape of women before their execution. I thought we agreed on that.
This week, I received a long email from you, Dr. A. Extremely long. Long enough to clarify your words or even to add something along the lines of: "despite all this, of course I condemn [Hamas’ actions],” or even "despite the absolute truth of the Palestinian claims and genocidal policy of Israel, I do not justify killing civilians."
But there was none of that. Somehow, your post references 100 years of conflict prior to October 7 (including explanations using maps, cartoons, pictures, and quotes). And there is a reference to the days after October 7.
But the day itself, when over a thousand people, most of them civilians, were brutally murdered and over 200 people, again most of them civilians, were kidnapped, was completely absent. And it's strange given the fact that, as I recall, we share an interest in cases of throwing babies into fire, torturing children to death in front of their parents, and the mass rape of women before their execution. Yes, to make the point clear to a person from your background, for one historical moment, Israel's Gaza envelope region became Myanmar's Rakhine.
A, since I received your message, I have been trying to understand why you do not recognize October 7th. I understand your opinion about the essence of Zionism and the essence of Israel. I don't agree with it, but I understand your point. Still, there's that little matter of “under all circumstances.” Perhaps there is a certain type of fascist, fundamentalist, racist, and violent organization that, against your usual leftist positions, you actually do support.
But if so, what are the criteria? Is it because they are jihadists? Is it a matter of religion? Or that according to the accepted code of the post-colonialist discourse, the "natives" have certain Jew-killing privileges because of the many years of oppression they have endured? Oppression, which, as you know, I have never denied.
And maybe you are one of those who do not believe the photos, the direct testimonies of survivors, the explicit confessions of the attackers and the unwatchable and undeniable videos. Do all these not meet your strict standards? Strange, because we never applied such strict standards when I wrote about Myanmar.
Do you think it's all a conspiracy of Western governments spreading fake news? Is it all the settlers’ lies, supported by American imperialists? Are you really not affected by the testimonies of Israeli women, children and elders, many of whom, by the way, are peace activists who built their homes in socialist communes that are not in any way located in the West Bank or in any way disputed. Unless the very existence of Israel is disputed, a position I assume you hold since you treat Israel as a settler and colonialist entity.
And maybe I didn't understand what you meant. In this case, perhaps in the future, we can discuss the true nature of Israel. As you know from our previous correspondence, I never supported Netanyahu, I have always believed in compromise with the Palestinians and I am absolutely against any kind of war crime, including against civilians in Gaza. You also know that I am a social democrat and a person who is aware of the climate crisis and the hardships of the "global south.” But wait, here I am, once again falling into this trap. If I were not all of these things, if I were a Netanyahu supporter or a settler in the West Bank, would my massacre and that of my family members be justified?
Again, there's that "under all circumstances" nuisance. Even if the Jews were like the French in Algiers, and they are not, deliberate murder of innocents is always evil and mass murder is absolute evil. Among us Jews, even complete secularists like me sometimes recite from the ancient texts: “I have set before you today the heavens and the earth, life and death; I have set before you the blessing and the curse. Choose life, for your lives and for your descendants,” as it is written in the book that you call the Old Testament. Do you understand A? You chose life – without “buts” and without “maybes.” This is why I always opposed my own people murdering other innocent people. And you know what, I'm angry at myself for not resisting enough.
***
And so for the record, I want to mention that I believe that Jews, not just Palestinians, also have rights in the place where I was born. They have personal, social and national rights and they also have responsibilities that are well described in the Declaration of Independence of their country, our country, which was founded 75 years ago. You don't acknowledge that, which is probably the real reason you didn't mention October 7th in your message. If "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea," as they are now shouting in the streets near my house in Europe, the events of October 7th are probably not an accident in your eyes. They are the first step in the plan.
"Free from the river to the sea” means without the people who are living there now. This is not the two-state solution, nor a partition plan, nor a federation. I think with your education, you know exactly what it means. But in case it's not clear enough, I'll say it explicitly: Hamas is the genocidal wing of the Palestinian national movement, and it turns out that it has quite a few supporters. My friends say that such views stem from antisemitism, but I don't know what is hidden in a person's heart. How much darkness, how much hatred.
I also don't know what is hidden in your heart. But I know that October 7th was not another attack, another battle, another chapter in the bloody history of the Middle East. It cannot be solved with sentences like "I cannot be expected to condemn every action taken by the weak and oppressed.” This is a tectonic and world-changing event, carried out by thousands of people supported by hundreds of thousands of people, as well as by movements, states and regimes. Not condemning it is supporting it. And the results are inevitable. Because of the horror that these people have inflicted on the world, an even darker night is to come before we will see the light.
***
And so, as a wise man wrote during the World War II, you and I now stand on two sides. "My opinion is clear about your motives,” he wrote, “and you would do well to speculate on my motives.” And he added: "I have one more thing left to say to you, and let it be the last. I want to tell you how in the past we were so similar and today we are enemies. How could I have stood by your side, and and why everything between us is over now.”
And that's the thing. In Xinjiang and Syria, in Tigray and Iran, in Myanmar and Israel, acts like those committed by Hamas are not only the absolute lowest of what the human race is capable of. They also redefine the lines. If they do not fill a person's heart with unconditional anger and disgust, they place him outside the legitimate discussion of civilized people. If you can only find room in your heart for the pain of one side, that's your problem. But with your permission, I think I'll find myself a different expert on Myanmar.
Before I finish, I will ask just one last thing. Do me a favor – next time, please refrain from referring to Auschwitz. Not because I have a monopoly on the memory of the Holocaust or the memory of the victims. But because when it comes to the 1940s, those people on whose behalf you are currently campaigning, they tend to be something different than you imagine. When you remove the appearances of European leftist movements, those people tend to be supporters of the side that built Auschwitz, not of those led there to their deaths.
Sweden’s new foreign minister, Tobias Billström, talks to Haaretz about recalibrating foreign policy, the importance of ties with Israel and the new government's far-right partners
STOCKHOLM – Swedish foreign policy has been unique for many years in Europe. The Scandinavian nation hasn’t joined military alliances since it was a military power in the 17th and 18th centuries, and hasn’t been involved in a war for over 200 years (with the exception of occasional peacekeeping missions far away from its borders). In the second half of the 20th century, its policy of avoiding alliances and maintaining wartime neutrality created a foreign policy that in many ways wasn’t about serving Swedish national interests. Instead, it was about becoming a “humanitarian superpower” and endeavoring to make the world a better place.
Naturally, there were those both at home and abroad who criticized this policy. Some saw Sweden’s attempts to position itself on the right side of history as self-serving, opportunistic and hypocritical. Others claimed its private sector’s thriving arms industry was incompatible with a government preaching peace, love and understanding. Another problematic aspect was Sweden’s close ties with a host of dictators and oppressive regimes.
Still, for decades, Swedish diplomats were crucial in bringing wars to a close. Swedish policymakers were generous when it came to humanitarian aid, and vocal when it came to issues like the struggles against apartheid and the Cold War arms race.
This tradition was maintained in recent years as well. As well as being the only Western European country to recognize a Palestinian state, Sweden did its best to export progressive ideas like “feminist foreign policy,” taking radical steps against climate change and building stronger international institutions.
“Since I took office, I’ve been very clear that we need a recalibration of Swedish foreign policy,” says Sweden’s new foreign minister, Tobias Billström. “We need to make some very clear statements about our priorities. One priority, above anything else, is the NATO accession. With that we also have to think about our neighborhood – the Nordic states, the Baltic states and the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. This is where we’re putting our emphasis. It’s not a choice between being active in the international arena and being focused on our neighborhood. You can do both. What you can’t do is be everywhere all the time and be active in all aspects. We’ll have to prioritize.”
This may be a seismic change on the national level but it’s not for Billström, who notes that his party “has supported joining NATO for years. And I believe that the question of neutrality ended in 1995 when Sweden became a member of the European Union.”
No Jerusalem embassy yet
Billström, 48, is an experienced politician despite his relatively young age. He has been a parliamentarian for 20 years, serving as migration and asylum policy minister from 2006 to 2014, and was a local politician before that. The role he now holds is one of his country’s most important considering current regional instabilities. He meets Haaretz at his Stockholm office, which is located in a beautiful 18th-century palace facing the Royal Opera House on one side and the Royal Palace and Parliament House on the other. He has just accompanied the king and queen of Sweden on a state visit to Jordan, one of his first on the job. He says he’d like to visit Israel one day and thinks that Sweden’s relationship with Israel is “excellent following the establishment of dialogue in 2021.” Still, no official visit has as yet been planned.
Eight years ago, one of the first steps of the previous government was to recognize a Palestinian state. What is your government’s position on the issue?
“The decision to recognize Palestine in 2014 was premature and unfortunate. However, the decision has been taken and this government doesn’t plan to revoke it.”
But it wasn’t just about recognition. The previous government was very active in this field: it appointed a special envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it actively opposed Israeli settlements in the West Bank; and it supported the Palestinian Authority and the two-state solution. Is Sweden’s new government still committed to these policies?
“On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the government stands firmly behind the EU policy. We want to see a negotiated two-state solution based on international law. That decision will remain. As for being active, we will continue to criticize the parties when called for, when violations of international law are committed and when human rights are abused. We’ll do that in the same way we criticize other states when it’s justified. This is in no way contrary to having excellent relations with Israel or Palestine. The government will at all times stand up for Israel’s legitimate security needs.”
Would Sweden consider moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to the capital, Jerusalem?
“Like the EU, the government will continue to respect the broad consensus of the international community and relevant UN Security Council resolutions and regard Jerusalem as a final-status issue. Pending a peace agreement, Sweden’s embassy will not be moved.”
Your government plans to cut foreign aid drastically in the next couple of years – will this affect Swedish aid to the Palestinians, and could this lead to a problem with Sweden’s Palestinian partners?
“Sweden’s development cooperation with Palestine, just like the EU’s, ultimately aims to build the conditions and promote a two-state solution in line with international law. This goal will remain. As we review our overall development cooperation, we will also recess our Palestine strategy, which applies to the period of 2020 to 2024.”
“The government takes terrorist accusations very seriously and several of these civil society organizations – which were listed by Israel as terror groups in October 2021 – receive support from the EU, the United Nations, Sweden and other donors. Together, the donors within the EU followed up thoroughly on the allegations and concluded that no substantial evidence was provided. The donors will therefore continue to support Palestinian civil society. We believe that a free and strong civil society is indispensable for promoting democratic values and the two-state solution. Needless to say, if Israel makes convincing evidence available that would justify a review in the policy toward these organizations, we would act accordingly.
“When it comes to antisemitism, it is of course unacceptable and it’s very important that the PA ensures that its textbooks fully meet UNESCO standards, and that the EU continues to be clear in its dialogue with the Palestinians to ensure that this is the case.”
Israel’s new government will be led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Are you confident that Israeli-Swedish relations, which have recently improved under another government, won’t deteriorate again under the new one?
“As Sweden’s foreign minister, I would like to see a good dialogue with countries we think we can maintain good relations with. The question of relations between Sweden and Israel is exactly about that: to have a dialogue on issues that we might disagree on – but we think it’s still a good thing to sit and talk about them.
“It’s not up to me as foreign minister of Sweden to say anything about Israel’s domestic policy. The people of Israel have a right to elect their government, just as the Swedish people have a right to elect our government. The important thing is to understand that in Sweden we cherish dialogue and would like to see it maintained.”
“It’s up to the Israeli government through its ambassador here in Sweden to choose with whom it wants to talk. As foreign minister, the case is very clear: the Swedish constitution says that foreign policy is shaped by the government, which keeps parliament informed. This means that since the Sweden Democrats are not part of the government, their influence is limited to exactly that – namely, parliamentary control, just like all the other parties represented in the Swedish parliament.”
A personal Holocaust story
As well as relations with Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, another Swedish policy to draw attention during the previous government’s term was the one concerning antisemitism and Holocaust remembrance.
For over 20 years, since a Swedish initiative started the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 1998, Sweden has been considered a world leader in this field. Last year, the government organized a major international conference in Malmö dedicated to Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism. It also decided to open a new Holocaust Museum and accept the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its examples (which some have slammed for equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism).
When asked if his government is just as committed to combating antisemitism and preserving the memory of the Holocaust, Billström says: “Certainly! Combating antisemitism is very important and the new government is fully committed to doing so.”
Since Sweden is still struggling with many instances of antisemitism in schools, in some Muslim environments and in far-right circles, Billström knows the problem is still unresolved. “I will always be a very strong advocate against antisemitism,” he says. “We are working very closely with Israel on this. I appreciate the very fruitful cooperation with Israel during the IHRA presidency, and we’re looking forward to continuing the cooperation during Israel’s presidency in 2025.
“I would also like to make a personal remark on this,” he adds. “My grandparents in Malmö took in a Jewish family that escaped from Denmark across the Öresund strait, during the period in 1943 when the Gestapo tried to round up the Jews. I grew up with this story. I have this very nice diploma that says two trees were planted in their memory in Tzippori [in northern Israel] as thanks from this family. My grandmother and my mother, who remembers playing with the kids of this family, told me this story, and it has left a deep mark on me leading to my understanding of what the Jews and what Denmark went through.
“I’ve always believed that antisemitism is a horrible thing. When the Jewish burial chapel in Malmö was attacked during my time as migration minister [in 2009], I went there for the inauguration of the restored chapel and talked about my family’s story in my speech. For me, it’s obvious that there are examples of antisemitism in Swedish society that should be condemned, and it’s obvious there are people in our society who have not laid off the horrible idea that there are grounds for antisemitic persecution of people of Jewish origin in our society. That should always be combated – in schools, at workplaces, wherever we find it. As foreign minister of Sweden, this is something I have a very firm conviction about.”
What about the Sweden Democrats? Besides their past as a neo-Nazi party and many extremely problematic antisemitic opinions voiced by some of their leaders, the biggest party supporting your government supports various laws that could be problematic for Sweden’s Jewish community – such as forbidding circumcision and banning the importation of kosher meat. Are you sure your partnership with them won’t be part of the problem rather than part of the solution?
“I have to say that although there is certainly room for political debate concerning those aspects, as foreign minister it’s clear that the constitution limits their parliamentary influence. As to other issues you mentioned, they belong to areas under the influence of other ministers and I think that, again, under the limits of the constitution I shouldn’t be addressing them.”
One issue Billström is willing to address is Swedish-Iranian relations, which have been tense lately. A Swedish court recently sentenced an Iranian official, Hamid Nouri, to life in prison for war crimes committed in Iran in 1988. There are also two Iranian-born Swedes standing trial in Stockholm after allegedly spying for Russia, while Swedish nationals are also being held in Iran. The recent domestic demonstrations against the Iranian regime make it even harder for Sweden to maintain business as usual with the Islamic republic.
When asked if these events will bring about a change of Swedish policy toward Iran, Billström makes the Swedish position clear. He says that since Sweden has an independent judiciary, there is no government influence on verdicts in Swedish courts. This may be seen as a signal to Tehran about the government’s policy concerning the complicated court cases in both countries.
However, when it comes to the political arena, things are easier to act upon. “As we see it, there is no movement on the Iran nuclear deal,” Billström says. “But the developments in Iran are a source of great worry for Sweden, which also has a considerable Iranian diaspora. The violence directed against peaceful demonstrators is horrible. I had direct communication with the foreign minister of Iran a few days ago, and I was very frank about the way the Swedish government feels about this – we believe people shouldn’t be persecuted and that the use of the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable in every regard. However, we still feel there’s room for dialogue with the Iranian government on this – and the only way to influence them is by dialogue.
“We are also very clear that individuals who have participated in the persecution of demonstrators, and also those who have been involved in the sale of drones to Russia to be used in the war in Ukraine, should face sanctions. It’s very worrying that Iran is turning in this direction.”
Another Middle Eastern leader Billström’s government is dealing with is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson met him in Ankara earlier this month, in a bid to get Turkey to ease its objections to Sweden’s NATO accession.
“There is a trilateral memorandum signed by Sweden, Finland and Turkey,” says Billström, explaining the current state of affairs. “The memorandum has conditions that have to be fulfilled and will pave the way for the Turkish parliament to ratify Sweden and Finland’s accession to NATO. The visit to Ankara was good; I think it was a fruitful dialogue.”
It seems there are items on the Turkish president’s agenda – some domestic, others foreign – that are still causing him to block Sweden’s NATO ambitions. Billström thinks it is now time for the “relevant authorities in all three countries” to get to work, but doesn’t specify what the problematic issues are or when he thinks the process will be completed. “Because there are certain issues that have to be dealt with,” he concludes, “I don’t want to set a time frame. Because it’s not helpful to do that.”
Hamid Nouri is charged with being involved in over 100 murders and war crimes during the bloody Iranian massacre of July 1988. In a unique legal case, Stockholm District Court may sentence him to life in prison
STOCKHOLM – At the time, Manoochehr Eshaghi didn’t really understand why he was taken out of the line. Leaving Tehran’s Evin Prison courtroom, after a collective legal proceeding lasting only a few minutes, he and the others in his group were blindfolded and ordered to walk toward a bus, each holding the shoulder of the man in front. When the bus dropped them off, Eshaghi was told to wait by a wall. From under the blindfold, he could see the others. Joined by prisoners from other buses arriving on the scene, they were divided into groups of four. These were their last moments, and Eshaghi, the lone survivor, can’t forget them.
They stood with their backs to their executioners. A few words were said to announce the verdict and some of them shouted out last words. Then came the shots. “Nobody begged or showed any weakness,” Eshaghi says some 40 years on, in an interview in a Stockholm café not far from his home. “Some shouted ‘Long live freedom!’ Others shouted ‘Death to Khomeini!’ After a first round of shots, the commander checked the bodies and shot them again in the head. I just sat there and cried.”
The apparent reason Eshaghi was spared was because he had yet to reach puberty. Today, aged 55, he remembers the demonstration that caused his arrest in 1981. He says he was there to support his uncle, who was a supporter of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (aka Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK), a student movement that in those days combined a modernist version of Islam, Marxist influences and opposition to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Islamic clergy.
Eshaghi was sentenced to 10 years in prison, during which time he saw many of his prison mates executed. Sometimes he and others were made to carry the bodies and load them onto trucks. He says prisoners were raped by guards; many, including himself, were tortured and placed in solitary confinement. When he was transferred to another prison – Gohardasht in Karaj, west of Tehran – things only got worse. Violence there was part of the daily routine. One form of torture Eshaghi remembers is being beaten by the guards and then stuffed into a small unventilated room together with other prisoners until they almost suffocated to death. They called it the “gas chamber.”
Eshaghi was at Gohardasht during the summer of 1988, when thousands of political prisoners were executed by hanging. He remembers many of his cellmates being taken to a committee and asked about their political beliefs. Some agreed to show remorse, condemn the Mujahedin movement and ask for mercy. Others refused, not knowing in those early days that rejecting the terms meant being sent to the gallows.
Thirty-four years have passed but Eshaghi hasn’t forgotten his cellmates who were murdered, or the men in charge of the killings. One of them, a deputy to the assistant prosecutor, was a man he knew as Hamid Abbasi. In an unexpected turn of events, Abbasi, whose real name is Hamid Nouri, is now standing trial for the 1988 Gohardasht and Evin killings not far from the Stockholm café where Eshaghi told me his story.
A protester outside Stockholm District Court during the trial of Hamid Nouri last month. David Stavrou
According to the prosecutors, in the space of just a few weeks, Nouri and his colleagues rounded up thousands of prisoners, gave them staged trials and handed down death sentences. Most of them were People’s Mujahedin of Iran supporters, others were members of left-wing movements. It was all done secretly, hastily and deceitfully. At last, Manoochehr Eshaghi, who was asked to testify at the trial, got to face one of his torturers. “I’m 100 percent sure it’s him,” he says, “and he knows exactly who I am too. Me and my two brothers, who were also imprisoned in Gohardasht, were targets for him. When I first saw him in court, I was frightened. But then I calmed down. When I testified, it felt good. Finally, he had to answer questions and take responsibility.”
Nouri, who is 61, is charged with more than 100 murders and war crimes. The verdict will be announced on July 14 and, if convicted on both charges, he may spend the rest of his life in a Swedish prison.
***
The trial in Stockholm District Court began last August, almost two years after Nouri was dramatically detained at Stockholm’s international airport. According to the prosecution, back in 1988 Nouri was one of those who took the prisoners to the so-called death committee and then to the execution chambers. He was also involved in the torture, the hangings and the secret burial of the victims, they say.
Nouri projected an air of confidence during the trial. He was always well-dressed and looked elegant when his handcuffs were removed and he took his place at the defendant’s table. His behavior during the proceedings was eye-catching: he exchanged intense looks with witnesses and members of the public attending the court sessions. He occasionally mumbled a few words or expressed his opinion using body language. He followed every word (translated into Persian for him from Swedish, and vice versa), read the material presented to the court and exchanged remarks with the judge, lawyers and law enforcement officers.
On the days when he presented his side of the story, it sometimes felt like he was lecturing the court with a mix of self-praise, political theories and theatrics. He claimed he wasn’t a violent man, never hurt anyone and that everybody loves him. He also praised Iran and its regime, which has to face the “terrible lies” it’s accused of and made harsh allegations against the Mujahedin movement, which he refused to call by name – referring to it instead as “the little group” that “murdered thousands of Iranians in a way that makes ISIS look like innocent children.”
It was as if Nouri was certain he’d soon be back home and wanted to avoid being seen as a man who turned his back on his previous ideals and comrades. At times, it seemed as if Nouri’s testimony had very little to do with a coherent legal defense or the advice of his Swedish lawyers. He claimed that although he used the alias Hamid Abbasi and worked at Evin Prison, he was not the only Hamid Abbasi there and he wasn’t employed at Gohardasht at all.
He also claimed that because his wife had just given birth, he was on leave on the dates when the supposed executions took place – but according to him there were no mass executions at all. Even so, the Swedish court, the plaintiff’s lawyers and prosecutors put an enormous amount of work and resources into this unique trial, which is based on the international legal principle of universal jurisdiction. This allows for crimes that are deemed a threat to the whole of humanity to be prosecuted by national courts regardless of where they were committed.
The trial even relocated to Albania for a few weeks in November, in order to hear from witnesses who are still Mujahedin supporters and are based there. But it wasn’t the tireless work of Swedish authorities that first brought Nouri to Sweden on November 9, 2019. Rather, it was the determination of one man: a former Iranian Mujahedin supporter called Iraj Mesdaghi.
***
Mesdaghi is another survivor of the 1988 massacre who lives in Sweden. He was born in Tehran and educated in the United States. Although he is today a harsh critic of the Mujahedin movement, he was a supporter back in 1981 when he started a 10-year prison sentence, during which he was subjected to violence and torture.
In 2019, decades after arriving in Sweden, Mesdaghi received information that one of his torturers – the man he knew as Hamid Abbasi – was traveling to Stockholm for a private visit. It turned out that one of his stepdaughters used to be married to a Swede and was involved in a custody dispute over their 2-year-old child. When Mesdaghi heard of this, he put a complex international legal plot into action.
“With the help of one of Nouri’s Swedish acquaintances, who secretly assisted me, I got Nouri tickets for a cruise and booked hotels for him in order to tempt him to start his trip in Stockholm, meet the family here and then go on vacation,” he recounts in an interview outside the courtroom.
Iraj Mesdaghi
“After making these arrangements, I traveled to London and met with British lawyers and legal advisers to start preparing the case. Later, they contacted a Swedish lawyer, who got in touch with the Swedish prosecutor.” Mesdaghi was initially concerned about the Swedish government being reluctant to get involved. “I know the European system,” he says. “There’s a difference between foreign affairs, intelligence services and the justice system. Everyone does their job. Intelligence services are concerned about keeping the country safe, they don’t care about justice. But I created the scenario and I knew we could get him here.”
The plan worked. Nouri was arrested upon arrival in Stockholm and charges were filed against him. When the trial finally began some 21 months later, it was only natural that Mesdaghi would be the first witness. He told the court about how he was taken from his cell in Gohardasht and stood in line, blindfolded, with other prisoners awaiting trial. When the procedure began, he was not officially warned that the next few minutes could seal his fate. However, he understood that his answers could send him straight to the executioners who were waiting on the other side of what would be known as the “death corridor.”
Mesdaghi was therefore willing to promise that he would not carry out political activities upon his release. In the following days, he met the committee again, signed various written statements, was tortured by prison guards and witnessed many of his fellow inmates being taken to their deaths as his own fate was hanging in the balance. After his eventual release and escape from Iran in 1994, Mesdaghi wrote extensively about the events leading up to the summer of 1988. He claims there was a power struggle within the Iranian political elite as the Iran-Iraq War was coming to an end, Khomeini’s health was deteriorating and the question of political prisoners was dividing his assumed successors.
Hussein-Ali Montazeri, the designated successor, was opposed to the massacre, while other senior officials such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Ali Khamenei were supporters. Mesdaghi experienced the results of this geopolitical drama in solitary confinement, when he heard the guards speaking of a fatwa soon to be issued by the supreme leader. Toward the end of July 1988, it was obvious something was going on: prison visits were canceled, prisoners were being moved between wings, and access to newspapers and television was denied.
The fatwa, which was issued on July 28, sanctioned the execution of political prisoners who were still loyal to the Mujahedin. Later, Khomeini allegedly issued a second fatwa targeting left-wing prisoners. Mesdaghi explains that when Montazeri objected to the massacre, he was removed from his senior positions by Khomeini, who also set up the so-called death commissions. In the Tehran area, the commission that arrived at Gohardasht on July 30 included Sharia Judge Hossein Ali Nayyeri and Tehran prosecutor Gen. Morteza Eshraghi. When Mesdaghi faced the committee on August 6, he recognized the two as well as the man who he knew as Naserian – now known as Mohammad Moghiseh, a judge in Tehran’s Revolutionary Court. Naserian’s deputy was Hamid Abbasi, who Mesdaghi recognizes as Hamid Nouri. The committee included several others who would become extremely important figures. One was Mostafa Pourmohammadi, an intelligence official who later served as a minister under presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Rohani. The other would become even more significant. His name was Ebrahim Raisi.
***
In Iran, the president is second only to the supreme religious leader in the chain of command. The fact that Raisi was a key player in the 1988 massacre, and then became Iran’s president in June 2021, makes the Nouri trial even more momentous. One of the prisoners who clearly remembers Raisi is Fereydoun Najafi (62) who now lives in Australia and was one of the witnesses in Nouri’s trial. “When taken to the committee I told Raisi that I didn’t do anything. I said 'I’m not against you, I don’t care about the Mujahedin’. Raisi then told me to go and wait outside, and I was returned to my cell. After that I was transferred back to Evin where I spent three more years”. Unlike other prisoners, Najafi answered the committee members this way, because he already had information about the proceedings and their possible results thanks to two other prisoners who managed to contact him before their executions and explained the situation by morse code. "Other prisoners didn’t know and they just asked to be left alone", says Najafi, "which meant that they are still Mujahidin supporters”.
Najafi, who was arrested because his brother and sister were Mujahedin supporters, was beaten and tortured, sent to Evin and given a harsh sentence of 15 years with no real grounds. He was later transferred to Gohardasht where he spent three years in solitary confinement. When he was called in to face the Death Committee, he was asked a couple of questions. He recognized Eshraghi, Nayyeri, Naserian and Raisi who he said received his file from Hamid Abbasi who he’s now completely sure is Hamid Nouri. “Even if you forget everything”, he says, “you never forget your enemy. This guy is a torturer. I’ll never forget him”.
“The trial of Hamid Nouri is one of the most significant events during the rule of the Islamic regime,” says Mehdi Aslani, another trial witness. He is a writer and activist who is now based in Germany and was a member of the left-wing Fadaiyan-e-Khalq (FKO) in the 1980s. “Up until recently, arrests of Islamic regime operatives were predominantly linked to their activities outside of Iran. Whereas now, for the first time, someone is facing justice outside Iran for involvement in crimes against political prisoners in Iran.”
Mesdaghi (left) and Aslani leaving the Stockholm courtroom. David Stavrou
For Aslani, it’s not just about politics. He says that when he stared Nouri in the eye during the trial, he remembered friends who perished in their youth and shed a tear for the victims of the 1988 “thought inquisition and slaughter of intellect.” “Khomeini’s second fatwa is even more sinister and outrageous than the first one against the Mujahedin,” says Ervand Abrahamian, a U.S.-based historian of modern Iran. “The first fatwa tried to get the prisoners to deny the Mujahedin and rat against their colleagues. The second fatwa is medieval. It’s against apostates, the members of the left-wing groups. They were asked other questions such as did they pray? Or did they believe the Koran is the word of God? According to strict Islamic law, apostates can be executed. This is a case of medieval law in 20th-century Iran.
“There are two different stories here,” he continues. “The first one, the war on political opponents, is brutal but it’s normal in 20th-century politics. The second, the execution of prisoners because they were nonbelievers, is like the [Spanish] Inquisition.” Abrahamian estimates the number of executed members of the Mujahedin at between 2,500 and 7,000, while the number of left-wing activists who were killed was smaller (probably several hundred). The Mujahedin victims may include prisoners of war who were executed after Operation Mersad – an invasion of Iran in July 1988 in which Iraqi forces and Mujahedin fighters cooperated. Whatever the real number, the American-Iranian historian says the regime “wanted to keep a lid on the information and never admitted anything.”
But the massacre didn’t remain a secret. Members of the Iranian diaspora have been talking about it for decades; there are books and reports on it; and international organizations have been demanding justice for years, including Amnesty International. Many of these organizations have been present at the Stockholm trial, which is currently in recess ahead of the verdict next month, and it is clear that although they are united against the Iranian regime and Nouri as its representative, they are sometimes strongly opposed to each other as well. Under the surface, there are many accusations and deep animosity between Mujahedin supporters, former Marxists, human right activists and different Iranian diaspora groups.
Inside Iran, however, the regime seems to be united in a new strategy toward the West. Former presidents “Khatami, Rohani and Rafsanjani were interested in foreign relations and the image of Iran in Western Europe,” Abrahamian says. “Raisi couldn’t care less. I think they’re not worried about the West anymore; they’re isolationists, and they’re counting on Russia and China.
Ervand Abrahamian Photo: Emma Nolan-Abrahamian
A prime example of the way Iran is behaving toward Europe nowadays was offered in May. In what was widely seen as an attempt to affect the Stockholm court, Tehran is threatening to execute Iranian-Swedish doctor Ahmadreza Reza Djalali, who was convicted of espionage in 2017 in what human rights groups regard as a highly dubious trial. The Islamic republic, it seems, is trying to get Nouri back and is certainly not accepting any blame for the 1988 massacre.
Nouri himself continues to deny a massacre ever happened, praises Iran’s leaders and threatens his opponents. In this sense, he can be seen as a warning. If he is the face of the current Iranian regime, negotiations over the new nuclear deal, oil sales and sanctions may be different than in the past. “Concerning the nuclear discussions in Vienna,” historian Abrahamian says, “the premise in the West is that Iran wants an agreement with the world powers, including the United States. But that may not be true now that the right-wing, die-hard extremists are in charge.”
If he is right, Hamid Nouri’s trial may be just the beginning of a whole new chapter in Iran’s relations with the West.
דיויד סטברו 