Israel Between Peace and the Sword

The choices the region will face after the Iran-US-Israel War, and does international law have anything to do with them.

Published in Swedish Svenska Dagbladet: Israel måste alltid ha svärdet redo | David Stavrou | SvD Ledare

The Swedish discourse on the war in Iran has been dominated by the question of its legality. In recent weeks, international law scholars, academics, politicians, and columnists have explained why the American and Israeli attack is “illegal under international law.” There is much to say about this reasoning, but a reasonable question is what the point really is. In the real world, the legality of war matters very little, because international law, in general, has hardly had any real significance over the past decades.

The main reason is simply that it doesn't work. International law has been used by some of the world’s worst despots, from Gaddafi to Assad, to delay international action against their crimes, and when it was finally used for intervention—in many cases, it made the situation even worse and led to more violence and failed states.

International law has also given legitimacy to regimes such as Qatar and Somalia, which have gained seats on the UN Human Rights Council despite their total lack of such rights. Terrorist organizations have used it in their propaganda to avoid the consequences of their actions, and China’s and Russia’s veto rights in the UN Security Council ensure that aggressive dictators go unpunished.

“If the U.S. illegally invades other countries, Russia will do the same” is a common argument against the American offensive. But the truth is rather the opposite: Russia did not wait for the Americans to attack Georgia or Ukraine, and—like Turkey in Syria, Azerbaijan in Armenia, and Eritrea in Ethiopia—has ignored international law for decades. No country is waiting for Israel or the U.S. to legitimize their actions according to the “law of the jungle”.

For a country that has not been at war since 1814, the question of the legality of military interventions may seem like the most important one. Theoretically, even a superpower like the U.S. should be concerned with issues of limiting its global power. But for a country like Israel, which is constantly threatened by real enemies who want to annihilate it and kill its population, this question appears fairly academic.

There is, however, another question that from an Israeli perspective is extremely important. It is simple but crucial, and it should concern other countries as well—it is not whether the war is legal, but whether it is effective. Or more broadly: can military power by itself solve Israel’s problems with Iran and other enemies?

“When all you have is a hammer,” as the well-known saying goes, “every problem looks like a nail.” Israel undoubtedly has a powerful hammer. Could it be that the country has become accustomed to solving all its problems with it? Previously, Israel used many forms of power to strengthen its security and international standing. Diplomats engaged in creating complex alliances, its soft power included outstanding achievements in culture, art, agriculture, science, and technology, and governments were willing to participate in peace negotiations and consider compromises.

The Hamas massacre on October 7 and Iran’s persistence in combining nuclear ambitions with threats to wipe Israel off the map changed all of this. The Israeli foreign service has been marginalized; the country’s artists and scientists are boycotted around the world, and its enemies are blown to pieces rather than invited to ceremonies on the White House lawn. Considering that many of Israel’s enemies are ruthless killers, this is hardly surprising. Anyone who sees value in human life should not shed tears for people like Hassan Nasrallah, Yahya Sinwar, and Ali Khamenei. But do military operations improve reality if they are not accompanied by other measures such as diplomacy, economic development, and new creative political alliances? This is not only an Israeli question. A new world order is taking shape before our eyes, and if we are not heading toward total anarchy, the question of limiting military power and understanding what it can and cannot achieve is crucial.

One indication is the situation in Gaza. After more than two years of extensive military force and enormous destruction, the reality is that Hamas not only still exists, it is armed and controls many state functions. In Lebanon, Israel may have achieved significant military successes against Hezbollah, but the Israeli are still spending far too much time in bomb shelters, and despite everything, Hezbollah is still alive and kicking. Both militarily and politically.

Israelis are once again deprived of basic necessities—schools are closed, workplaces shut down, flights canceled, thousands have lost relatives, been forced from their homes, and suffered injuries and trauma. Not to mention that Israel is deeply divided on issues concerning its democracy, which can only be resolved when the shooting stops. Meanwhile, Israel has also, without justification, become the punching bag of the international community. All the world’s power seems to be of little use in solving this.

And then there is Iran. Now that the war has begun, it should, for the sake of both Iranians and Israelis, end with a regime change—and no regime change is possible without the use of force. The Iranian people themselves, who ultimately must liberate themselves, have asked for foreign intervention, and giving it to them is the right thing to do. But what then?

“From the moment we decided that only here, in the land of Israel, could the Jewish state arise, we accepted that more than a hundred million people from the Arab world, from the Arab nations, and from the Palestinians would be our neighbors,” said Israel’s former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin a few years before he was assassinated in 1995. “There are now only two possibilities: either a serious and determined effort is made to achieve peace—peace and security—or the sword will always rule.” In the 1990s, Rabin chose the first option, but since then, leaders across the region, including Israeli leaders, have developed a dependence on using force. Perhaps even an adiction.

When the war in Iran is over, Israel will face a choice. Previously, the country combined pragmatic diplomacy, careful alliance-building, and visionary openings toward the Arab world. In a region like the Middle East, this is risky. Israel will always need to keep a sword ready, but with security guarantees and economic support instead of anachronistic laws and self-righteous moralism from other countries, peace may once again become an option.

Oslo Accords Mediators Probed Over Epstein Ties Threaten Norway's Diplomatic Legacy

Norway's reputation as a peace-broker could be tarnished by the allegations against the country's elite.

Published in Haaretz: Oslo Accords Mediators Probed Over Epstein Ties Threaten Norway's Diplomatic Legacy – Europe

The release of court documents in the U.S on Jeffrey Epstein in February has sent political shockwaves far beyond Washington. From American power brokers to British royalty and European decision-makers, the files reference powerful figures across the globe. In Norway, the fallout has struck a blow to the country's self-image, as well as its image abroad.

Traditionally, Norway, which has one of the world's most comprehensive welfare state systems, has had a high level of trust in its public officials, and until recently the country was best-known internationally for the Nobel Peace Prize and for humanitarian and peacemaking efforts.

Now high-profile Norwegian public figures are facing criminal investigations as a result of their links to late convicted sex offender Epstein, and the country is reckoning with the fallout. The most high-profile Norwegian figures to be implicated in the files are Crown Princess Mette-Marit, who exchanged hundreds of emails with Epstein between 2011 and 2014 and stayed at his Palm Beach residence in 2013, and former Prime Minister and former Chair of the Nobel Committee Thorbjørn Jagland who has been charged with gross corruption as a result of his ties with Epstein.

But the files have also revealed that two members of Norway's diplomatic elite – married couple Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul – had connections with Epstein. The couple were among a small group of diplomats who facilitated the back-channel negotiations between Israeli and the Palestine Liberation Organization representatives in the early 1990s which led to the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Norwegian authorities have now opened an investigations into Juul – who resigned as Norway's ambassador to Iraq and Jordan earlier this year – on suspicion of gross corruption and Rød-Larsen on suspicion of complicity in gross corruption in relation to gifts and favors the two received from Epstein. According to the released files, they maintained extensive personal and financial ties with Epstein over several years. They visited his private island, their two children were bequeathed $10 million by Epstein in his will, and Rød Larsen was appointed executer of the will (which was later revoked).

According to lawyers for Juul, who has also served as Norway's ambassador to Israel, the U.K. and the UN, she "does not recognize" the allegations against her. For his part, Rød-Larsen has acknowledged the relationship with Epstein but denies wrongdoing. He has not held a public role for over two decades and resigned from his position as president of New York-based think tank the International Peace Institute in 2020 following revelations about his ties to Epstein.

Norway's efforts to facilitate secret Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the early 1990s leading to the Oslo Accords helped forge its identity as a peace-brokering power, and the current association of key figures from that legacy with Epstein has prompted a discourse in the country about political oversight and elite networks.

"Norwegian diplomats are loyal people, but if they were honest, they would say that the behavior of these two individuals has been an open secret for many years," Professor Torkel Brekke, an Oslo historian who works for the Norwegian think tank Civita and also studies Norway's relations with its Jewish minority and with Israel, tells Haaretz.

Brekke added that "People probably didn't know about the most serious part of the allegations, the ones concerning trafficking [the files show that in his capacity as president of IPI Rod-Larsen wrote recommendations letters for U.S. visas for young Eastern European women at Epstein's request], but the rest of it was known to many. They just didn't want to talk about it".

According to Brekke, Rød-Larsen, in particular, is well-known for his tendency to promote himself and there were many rumors within diplomatic circles of inappropriate conduct and inappropriate associations.

Beyond the personal allegations, what has this done to the political discourse in Norway?

"In Norway the concept of trust has been elevated and is almost sacred," Brekke said. "You always hear Norwegians speaking about trust being more important than oil and that it's what makes us special as a society. So, the question many people are asking now is if this is going to destroy trust in our society. I often personally think that the concept of trust is sometimes sprinkled as a kind of gold dust and that too much trust in government is probably not a good thing. We may need trust that's a bit more critical."

According to Brekke, political implications span the spectrum. While Jagland was a Labour party prime minister and Juul and Rød-Larsen served under Labor governments, former Conservative foreign minister Børge Brende also stepped down as president and CEO of the World Economic Forum following scrutiny of past interactions with Epstein.

"The Royal Family too is a great concern," Brekke adds. "Crown Princess Mette-Marit has been in close contact with Epstein. The communication between her and Epstein is hard to explain and combined with the court case against her son. [Marius Borg Høiby, the crown princess's son from a former relationship, is currently facing multiple criminal charges, including rape, which he denies.] It's concerning to many Norwegians. Even more concerning than party politics."

When it comes to the Israeli angle, does the fact that officials involved in the Oslo Accords are now implicated affect Norway's peacemaking legacy and relations with Israel?

"First, I think that although there were several hard-working, very decent diplomats who created the Israeli-Palestinian back channel, there were, at the same time, others who tried to make it into something a lot more important than it really was. Rød-Larsen tried to make himself seem much more important than he really was. When it comes to relations with Israel, I don't think there will be much of an impact, apart from maybe giving Israelis another reason to be critical of Norway [Many Israelis' resent Norway's criticism of Israeli conduct in the Gaza war which has also led to tension between the two countries' governments].

I'd expect some Israelis will feel some kind of schadenfreude after the recent souring of relations," he said. Two weeks after October 7, 2023, Norway condemned Israel's war in Gaza, and drew anger from Israel after deciding not to recognize Hamas as a terror organization. Oslo also continued funding UNRWA – and campaigned to defend it abroad – despite allegations some staff took part in the October 7 attacks.

"However, relations with Israel will probably only improve if there is a new government that will be able to set things back on track after the way things were handled from the Norwegian side after October 7."

The argument that Norway's role in the Oslo process was more facilitative than decisive is not a new one. Many analysts contend that the end of the Cold War and political shifts within Israel and the PLO were the primary drivers, and Norway's role was mainly to provide a discreet venue.

But while the Norwegians' influence over the content of the Oslo accords was limited, Rød-Larsen was influential in his role as the facilitator of the secret channel, and in that sense he and his wife had an important role in the Oslo story.

Continues: Oslo Accords Mediators Probed Over Epstein Ties Threaten Norway's Diplomatic Legacy – Europe

Can Swedish journalists understand the chaos, suffering, and fear of war

When two Israeli soldiers visited Stockholm, their story was misunderstood, writes Israeli journalist David Stavrou.

Published in Kvartal: https://kvartal.se/erikhogstrom/artiklar/svenska-journalister-forstar-inte-de-israeliska-soldaterna/cG9zdDo2MTgxMg

Two young Israeli soldiers recently visited Stockholm together with an activist from Breaking the Silence, an Israeli organization that collects and publishes testimonies from Israeli veterans and, in many cases, acts as a whistleblower by exposing alleged human rights violations and war crimes. The Swedish visit was organized in collaboration with the Christian aid organization Diakonia, which arranged interviews with the Swedish press (SVT, Dagens ETC, Dagens Arena, and Jewish Chronicle). In the interviews, the soldiers used pseudonyms, and their faces were not shown.

In some of the publications, the interviews were presented as evidence supporting the gravest accusations against Israel. For example, Dagens ETC wrote: “The serious allegations have been dismissed as Hamas propaganda by commentators like Alice Teodorescu Måwe. But everything is now confirmed by Israeli soldiers.”

In the interviews, the soldiers reportedly said things like, “we were ordered to shoot all Palestinians we considered ‘military-age men’” and “we used Palestinian men as human shields.” Other claims included that many buildings were destroyed in Gaza and that, during the first weeks of the war, there was a lack of rules of engagement. Later, the soldiers said, rules were introduced, but they were weak and not always applied. As a result, unarmed men were shot.

They also reported that journalists and healthcare workers were considered legitimate targets, even if they themselves did not participate in such incidents. The two soldiers also described a discourse that dehumanized Palestinians.


Many Israelis have strong objections to Breaking the Silence. They argue that this type of testimony contributes to hatred of Israel, causes the country to be treated unfairly, and that even if the reports are true, they should be discussed domestically rather than in a hostile international stage.

Of course, Swedish journalists do not need to concern themselves with this—but it can help to understand the context. Many Swedes would likely raise an eyebrow if Swedish organizations on the political fringe were setting the agenda for Sweden’s image abroad. In this case, the soldiers are telling an important story—the problem is that the Swedish press misunderstood it.

A key issue concerns how to distinguish between different types of armed forces. Traditionally, there is a difference between terrorists or non-state actors who use violence against civilians and state-controlled armies with formal military forces, command structures, and legal frameworks. That definition is largely irrelevant for Israelis because Hamas is a hybrid actor. Although the organization uses terrorist methods, its military branch—the al-Qassam Brigades—is structured like an army, with battalions and brigades, elite units, command chains, and modern weapons systems. During the war, this was also supported by high-tech disinformation campaigns, a financial empire of global investments, leaders living luxuriously outside the region, and alliances with some of the world’s most tyrannical regimes.

This paints the Israeli soldiers’ testimony in a very specific colour since Hamas, despite its military structure, is not bound by international law. Its militants can behead, rape, and execute civilians, burn people alive, and take children as hostages—with or without uniforms—while exploiting its other source of power – the power of sovereignty, and the civilian control the organisation holds in Gaza. Expecting Israel not to act against individuals simply because they are not in uniform in this asymmetric conflict may be understandable, but it is hardly surprising that the reality forces terrible dilemmas and tragic decisions.


The Israeli soldiers confirm that Israel, despite the genocidal nature of the Hamas attack against it, at least tried to maintain some form of legal framework. They say civilians were evacuated, leaflets were dropped as warnings, orders were given not to shoot women and children, and no-go zones were established in order to limit Israel's massive firepower. Using human shields is obviously illegal and should be punished. But the claim that journalists and healthcare workers are always protected in a reality where Hamas has been shown to use both journalistic and medical infrastructure for attacks on Israeli civilians is detached from reality.

Israel claims that intercepted communications show Hamas used ambulances to transport fighters, weapons, and equipment. Hamas also hid weapons and command centers in hospitals, schools, mosques, and private homes. The IDF has released images that allegedly confirm this. Furthermore, at least three civilian hostages—Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv—were reportedly held in a family home in Gaza where the son was a journalist and the father a doctor. There are also allegations that so-called freelance journalists were embedded in Hamas units on October 7 and documented the massacre for propaganda purposes.

The fact that Hamas controlled the Gaza Strip with an iron grip for years means that almost everything in Gaza effectively became part of the effort to destroy Israel. When the soldiers say they were told “everything is a military target,” this is viewed as condemning evidence against Israel—but in reality, it is not far from the truth.


International law recognizes these complex circumstances. While it may seem unfair to those unaccustomed to war, under the Geneva Conventions civilian structures—including hospitals—can lose their protection if they are used for military purposes. Even unarmed combatants and civilians participating in hostilities can, under certain circumstances, be considered legitimate targets. This is not what Israel claims—it is how international law works.

The reality described by the Israeli soldiers is horrific. Some of it, such as the use of human shields, also appears illegal. It can and should be discussed. It can and should be used for journalistic purposes and, hopefully, ultimately, for reconciliation when the heartbreaking testimonies from both sides become part of a healing process. That said, nothing in what the soldiers said in Sweden confirms allegations of genocide or deliberate starvation of civilians. Using these stories to imply that these horrific accusations are true is an abuse of the witnesses and their experiences.

Finally, there is one more aspect to consider. Being scared, wanting revenge, and not adhering to strict moral ideals under fire is natural in armed conflict. So too are remorse and shame. The Israeli soldiers who came to Stockholm were brave enough to share this with the world. But a reasonable question to pose to Diakonia, which organized the visit, is: Where is the Palestinian Breaking the Silence? Where are the remorseful Hamas fighters? Where are the Islamic Jihad militants ashamed of massacring Israeli civilians and now revealing their actions as “deeply immoral and devastating to our neighbors,” as one of the Israeli activists put it? Are these ignored by Diakonia—or do they simply not exist?

Medelhavsmuseet's Selective History

When it comes to the past, Medelhavsmuseet (The Swedish Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities) largely ignores Israel, but when it comes to the present the museum presents only different shades of the same narrative, one that excludes a balanced, mainstream Israeli perspective. This in itself is not necessarily a problem. However, since public funds are being used and this is all payed for by tax-payers money, why not invest in presenting all sides of the story? Are Israelis so dehumanized that their pain, loss, and sacrifice are not considered worthy of being told?

Published in Swedish in Svenska Dagbladet: https://www.svd.se/a/K8Bn37/medelhavsmuseets-selektiva-historia

The lecture hall at Medelhavsmuseet was full on September 4th. The evening seminar which took place there was called "Repair, Return and Reconstruction for Palestine’s Decolonized Future", and in case the message wasn’t clear enough from the name, during most of the evening there was a photograph of Gaza and a slogan in Arabic and English projected on the screen behind the panel members. The slogan read: “Glory to Gaza”.

The seminar itself wasn’t exactly intellectually challenging and the message was pretty straight forward. When Israel was mentioned by all speakers it was associated with very specific words. Genocide, occupation, oppression, destruction, starvation, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment and settler-colonialism were some of the favourites. There was also a consensus about the Palestinian reaction to the Israeli aggression. Here the popular words were: education, culture, conservation, de-colonization, renovation and restoration. Listening to the panel members it sounded like Palestinian resistance is all about Mahmoud Darwish poems, architecture podcasts and a struggle for free press.

In an hour and a half of debate there was nothing about Palestinian terror or violence, there were no suicide bombings or rockets, Hamas wasn’t mentioned and October 7th was just the date when the current Israeli offensive started. Since all panel members were engaged in architecture and restoration and apparently very well acquainted with Gaza, it was interesting that the immense military underground tunnel infrastructure, a remarkable architectural achievement in itself, was not mentioned. There was also no mention of another kind of physical destruction – the one of Israeli communities. No destroyed and abandoned kibbutzim, no apartments demolished by Qassam rockets and no homes burned to the ground with entire families still inside. There were no hostages, no executions and no organized rape and sexual violence. The whole event felt like a motivational inspirational gathering for activists, where all the speakers clearly presented a Palestinian narrative, and many in the audience were members of the so-called "pro-Palestinian" movement. Some wore kaffiyehs, a couple of them even had red triangles (a Hamas symbol) on them.

In itself, all this is completely legitimate. In a democracy, people are free to organize whatever seminar they wish. What is, however, somewhat troubling is that Medelhavsmuseet is part of a government agency (Statens museer för världskultur) funded by taxpayers, with tens of millions of Swedish Crowns each year. When Rani Kasapi, Head of Content and Learning at Världskulturmuseerna, opened the seminar, she also mentioned that other institutions were also involved in organizing it: the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI), the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul (SRII), and the Swedish Arts Grants Committee. All of these are also fully or partially funded by Swedish taxpayers, raising the question – why should funds that could be spent on education and culture for the benefit of all be used for a one-sided, highly political event based on foreign policy propaganda?

Perhaps, the idea was to have another event to balance the message and show another side and a different narrative. And indeed, on October 7th, a very symbolic and politically charged date, another event was planned by the museum. This time the title was: What’s Happening in Israel Now? (Vad händer i Israel nu?). In a perfect world, this could have been the the missing piece, the event that shows that the situation is more complex than just propaganda. But the world isn’t perfect. According to publications, the event had only one speaker – Göran Rosenberg. The same Rosenberg who only a few months earlier described Israel as a "morally dead project" and questioned its future existents in its current form. It’s as if the museum invited an anti-vaxer to lecture about the importance of vaccinations. Was it really so hard to find another voice to describe the situation in Israel? One who at least believes in its future?
Medelhavsmuseet has hosted more events about the region in the last couple of years — for example, there was a book talk with Cecilia Uddén, one of Swedish media’s most critical voices when it comes to Israel. There was also a UI event featuring several Israeli left-wing activists. But the bigger picture is that, aside from rare exceptions, Medelhavsmuseet largely presents different shades of the same narrative, one that excludes a balanced, mainstream Israeli perspective. This in itself is not necessarily a problem. However, if public funds are being used, why not invest in presenting all sides of the story? Are Israelis so dehumanized that their pain, loss, and sacrifice are not considered worthy of being told?

Looking a bit deeper, it’s obvious that Medelhavsmusset doesn’t ignore the Israeli perspective only when it comes to the current conflict. For some reason, it ignores Israel’s existence all together (apart from occasionally mentioning it as a colonial bully destructing the fascinating, authentic and noble people of the orient). Israel as a modern state and the ancient Jewish entities in the Eastern Mediterranean like the Kingdoms of Jehuda and The Northern Kingdom of Israel are a treasure of history, archaeology and ancient culture. They’re the origin story of Christianity and Western civilization and a fascinating story of cultural, social and linguistic revival. Still, in the last twenty years of exhibitions, it seems like Medelhavsmuseet hasn’t had a single exhibition presenting Israeli or Jewish culture and history. I spoke with two historians who have studied this in detail. One of them said that “ancient Jewish history is almost completely erased from the museum’s portrayal of the ancient Mediterranean region”. The other said that for historical reasons, the museum focuses on Egypt and Cyprus, which is fine, but even when those cultures had strong connections to Jews in the region, those connections are usually not mentioned, and even on the rare occasions that they are the name Israel never is.

And they're right. Medelhavsmuseet has presented many exhibitions about Egypt, Greece, Rome, Syria, Cyprus, Turkey – and even non-Mediterranean countries such as Iraq. In fact, the only recent exhibition that touched on Israel was “Nakba,” which according to the Jewish Central Council was highly one-sided and sparked debate over whether the museum was pursuing a political agenda. The museum responded that “it is not a historical exhibition, but a small audio exhibition with stories”. When representatives from the Jewish Central Council met with the superintendent of Statens museer för världskultur regarding this, their concerns were not taken seriously.

There’s no doubt that the story of the Nakba should be told. It’s an important part of the region’s history. But if this was only a “small audio exhibition with stories”, where is the next audio exhibition with the other stories from the same war – for example, those about Holocaust survivors who were killed in the battle field after being freed from Auschwitz, or those about massacres of Jews that took place during the same time, or the ones about the Jordanians expelling the Jews from Jerusalem’s old town or the Egyptians illegally occupying Gaza?

During the debate with the Jewish Central Council, the museum mentioned one exhibition – Egypt’s Jews (Egyptens judar), perhaps as one with a more “Jewish narrative”. But the truth is that even when the exhibition explains how Egyptian Jews were attacked, harassed, arrested and expelled in the 1950s and 60s, it’s clear that the message is that this is a direct result of Zionism. The exhibition explains how for 3,000 years Jews were “totally integrated in the surrounding society” (helt integrerade i det omgivande samhället) and only when the UN decided to “divide Palestine” and the 1948 war broke out, Egyptians started “anti-Zionists riots” and resisted “foreign influence”. These texts are a wonderful example of verbal acrobatics. There’s no Egyptian antisemitism, no Muslim Brotherhood (the mother movement of Hamas) promoting genocidal racism against Jews, just an unfortunate mixing up (ihopblandning) of “Jews” and “Zionists”. This makes sense since one of the exhibition’s production partners was Magda Haroun, Head of the Jewish Community Council in Egypt and a vocal opponent of Israel who claims that Zionism is a racist movement. Interestingly, the exhibition which mentions the wars between Israel and Egypt, doesn’t discuss Egyptian President Saadat’s historic recognition of Israel and the resulting Israel-Egypt peace agreement. One can only assume that the reason is that if the museum tells its visitors about Egypt recognizing Israel, this may lead to a demand that Medelhavsmuseet does the same.

Zero tolerance” is no longer enough after Bondi Beach. Political action is required – and it is urgent

Published in Swedish in Kvartal: https://kvartal.se/erikhogstrom/artiklar/hur-paverkar-politiken-terrordad-mot-judar/cG9zdDozNzA5NA

Reactions to the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach have largely focused on the hateful rhetoric believed to have contributed to the violent extremism that claimed 15 lives – the deadliest attack on Jews since October 7. That focus is understandable after two years of global demonstrations under slogans such as “globalize the intifada.”

At the same time, the attack is rooted in more than a toxic debate climate. It also involves a geopolitical and security dimension that has primarily been raised by Israeli officials.

According to Israeli intelligence assessments, links had already existed for several months between Australian pro-Palestinian activists and groups such as the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Against this backdrop, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Australia’s prime minister of betraying the country’s Jews. After the attack, Netanyahu stated that he had already warned in August that recognizing Palestine would, in his words, “pour fuel on the antisemitic fire, reward Hamas terrorists, and encourage threats against Australia’s Jews.”

This raises a number of questions. Does Australia really need Israeli intelligence to identify threats against its Jewish population? And more importantly: is Netanyahu truly the right person to lecture others about being unprepared for Islamist terrorism, when his own government bears responsibility for Israel’s worst catastrophe in decades?

But Netanyahu is not the central issue. What matters is that the warnings proved correct. A massacre of Jews took place in Australia, carried out by men who had ISIS flags in their car. Australian authorities knew that one of the perpetrators had ties to ISIS and that his father, the other perpetrator, legally owned at least six weapons. Despite this, no warning flags were raised, and the Jewish event lacked police protection when the attack occurred.

Islamists operate freely in Sweden

Against this background, Europe should ask itself a clear question. If Australia’s policies over the past two years resemble those pursued in many European countries, could what happened at Bondi Beach happen here?

Both domestic and foreign policy must be scrutinized. Domestically, this concerns insufficient resources to protect Jewish sites, an inability to counter conspiracy theories, and complacency toward Islamist actors. These challenges affect all European countries, including Sweden. Swedish journalists have recently exposed how Islamists operate freely in Sweden, how Iranian actors direct terrorist activity via Swedish organized crime, and what links Swedish activists have to terrorist movements such as the PFLP.

“Jews in countries that do not take Islamist terrorism seriously end up paying the price, regardless of whether government passivity stems from fear, incompetence, or indifference.”

Sweden is not alone. According to a recent Europol report, jihadist terrorism remains a central security challenge for the EU, with groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State exploiting the conflict in Gaza. Added to this is Hamas, which, according to Israel’s Mossad and European intelligence services, has planned attacks against Jews in Europe since 2023. The causal link is clear: Jews in countries that do not take Islamist terrorism seriously pay the price.

Kvartal

Why foreign policy matters

How, then, does foreign policy factor in? Can recognition of Palestine or harsh criticism of Israel encourage terrorism? Countries such as Spain, Norway, and Ireland pursue a clear line against Israel. Like Australia, they have recently recognized Palestine; they voice strong opposition to Israel in international forums and serve as comfortable host countries for movements that not only oppose Israeli policy but view the state itself as an illegitimate colonial project.

Australia’s prime minister firmly rejected Netanyahu’s claim that the country’s foreign policy had any connection to the attack. He may be right – such accusations require evidence. But that does not mean foreign policy is irrelevant to the climate surrounding antisemitic hate crimes.

First, governments – unlike individuals – must understand the unique situation Jews face. Demonstrations are marked by hatred, aggression, Nazi comparisons, terrorist symbols, and boycotts. Of course, protests are legitimate in a democracy, and no one seriously claims that all participants are violent antisemites. But at the political level, it is unclear whether countries such as Norway fully grasp what their Jewish populations are forced to endure. The situation is worsened by the fact that no other conflict in the world is covered as intensely – and, according to many, as one-sidedly – in Norwegian media. This has an enormous impact on Norway’s small Jewish community.

Second, does the tax-funded public sphere remain neutral, or does it contribute to an unsafe environment for Jews? What do teachers say? What do libraries display? How do healthcare professionals behave? This is a matter of public safety, not freedom of speech. In February, a video went viral showing two nurses at Bankstown Hospital in Sydney boasting about refusing care to – or even killing – Israeli patients. In Ireland, an official report found that school textbooks contain serious distortions of the Holocaust and Jewish history, which Jews in the country say fuel antisemitism. In Spain, Jewish organizations similarly warn that some teachers use classrooms for anti-Israel activism.

“Zero tolerance” is no longer enough

We can continue debating the limits of protest, but we must also scrutinize institutions. The state must protect freedom of expression, but it must also guarantee safety. That requires schools, hospitals, and libraries free from political propaganda and symbolic acts intended to influence public opinion.

Finally, it is a fact that jihadist terrorists in Europe are often exposed with the help of Israeli intelligence. Can Jews in Spain and Ireland truly trust that their governments will cooperate with the Mossad to save lives, when those same governments cannot even tolerate Israel’s participation in Eurovision?

After Bondi Beach, Europe’s governments must decide where they place their resources and political capital. If they are serious about protecting their Jewish populations, “zero tolerance” and symbolic gestures of solidarity are no longer sufficient. Political action is required – and it's required urgently.

No Löfven, Hamas isn't Israel's Fault

Published in Swedish in Kvartal: https://kvartal.se/erikhogstrom/artiklar/nej-lofven-hamas-ar-inte-israels-fel/cG9zdDoyMjc1NA

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.

Sailing with Fanatics

As Swedish Member of Parliament Lorena Delgado Varas and activist Greta Thunberg make their way to Gaza as part of the so-called Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF), many Swedes assume that their intentions are good. However, the reality behind the movement they are actively supporting is as far as can be imagined from humanitarian, non-violent, peaceful activism.

Published in Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet:
https://www.svd.se/a/lw6anA/lorena-delgado-varas-och-greta-thunberg-seglar-i-daligt-sallskap

The images of destruction and suffering from Gaza, combined with statements published by the flotilla's organizers, have created an image of brave and kind-hearted activists, willing to pay a heavy personal price to deliver humanitarian aid and draw the world’s attention to Gaza. On its website, GSF describes itself as “a coalition of everyday people – organizers, humanitarians, doctors, artists, clergy, lawyers, and seafarers – who believe in human dignity and the power of nonviolence.” They also emphasize that their loyalty lies with “justice, freedom, and the sanctity of human life.”

But the reality behind GSF is far removed from the idealistic image presented to the public.

Screenshot

Less than three months ago, a meeting took place at Hamas’ headquarters in Algeria. Participants included representatives of the Global Sumud Flotilla and leaders of the movements that murdered, raped, tortured, and burned hundreds of Israeli civilians on October 7th – and many more before that. Among those present were Youssef Hamdan, Hamas' representative in Algeria, and Nader al-Qaisi, a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). This was no secret meeting. Despite the continued portrayal of the flotilla by Swedish media as a peace initiative with humanitarian aims, publicly available material reveals concrete links between GSF and some of the world’s most notorious terrorist organizations. All it takes to uncover these connections is a basic knowledge of Arabic and a quick search through social media.

In one photo published by Nabil Chennoufi, a spokesperson for GSF who frequently shares extremist violent propaganda on social media, two members of the flotilla’s steering committee – Wael Nawar and Hayfa Mansouri – can be seen smiling and wearing keffiyehs with Hamas symbols, alongside leaders of the terrorist organization in Algeria. The caption says the meeting focused on the flotilla’s progress, its positive impact, and its connection to the "Palestinian resistance." In a second photo, a third steering committee member, Marouan Ben Guettaia, is seen meeting with Hamas leader Hamdan.

It’s important to stress that Greta Thunberg is not merely a regular passenger on one of the flotilla’s boats. GSF’s own website showed her as a member of the steering committee, alongside the aforementioned individuals. For some reason, her name and picture suddenly disappeared last Thursday.

Another committee member is Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila, who has openly expressed his admiration for the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. On social media, Ávila shared how he was inspired as a young man after meeting Nasrallah and described him as “an important anti-colonial figure who defeated Zionist and imperialist armies multiple times.” Earlier this year, Ávila attended Nasrallah’s funeral in Beirut – a massive demonstration attended by tens of thousands of people chanting “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” Ávila was impressed, writing: “Today I saw thousands of new freedom fighters.”

As a reminder, it’s worth noting that Hezbollah is a militant Shia Muslim organization allied with Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Shia militias in Iraq. It is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, and is responsible for numerous terror attacks and kidnappings around the world – financed by Iran’s Islamist regime and the narcotics trade.

But it seems Ávila is not loyal to only one terrorist organization. In a photo, he is seen posing next to convicted PFLP terrorist Leila Khaled, with a green heart emoji and a Palestinian flag. The caption reads: “Today I met one of the people I admire most in the entire world.” Khaled’s notoriety, it should be remembered, is not based on “human dignity and the power of nonviolent action,” but on her involvement in the hijackings of TWA Flight 840 and El Al Flight 219 in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Another member of the GSF steering committee is Muhammad Nadir Al-Nuri Kamaruzaman, head of the GSF Southeast Asia coalition. He is also the founder of the Malaysian organization MyAqsa Defenders and CEO of the NGO Cinta Gaza Malaysia. Both organizations have expressed support for Hamas and have been linked to financing Hamas-run infrastructure in Gaza. Among other things, Cinta Gaza has published an e-book glorifying Yahya Ayyash, known as Hamas’s top bombmaker and responsible for numerous mass-casualty attacks in Israel during the 1990s. MyAqsa Defenders has also hosted a livestream event with Muslim Imran, whose name has appeared on Hamas channels as an official Hamas spokesperson.

Despite this information being openly and proudly published by those involved, neither Greta Thunberg nor Lorena Delgado Varas have been publicly questioned in Sweden for their participation in what clearly appears to be a well-organized, international operation with strong ties to terrorist groups. Sure – as citizens of a democratic country, they have every right to take part in whatever Mediterranean adventures they choose. But when those journeys are part of a network led by individuals with proven links to organizations responsible for massacres of civilians, there is a responsibility to investigate, question, and report.

It seems that behind the flowery rhetoric about human rights, humanitarian aid, and nonviolence hides a movement whose leadership praises antisemitic, religiously fanatical, chauvinistic, and ultranationalist violent actors. By participating in this initiative, Thunberg and Delgado Varas help legitimize forces that threaten democracy, gender equality, freedom of expression, and the very idea of a peaceful civil society. Despite their public image as champions of justice and solidarity, the facts suggest something quite different — in reality, Thunberg and Delgado Varas are supporting right-wing extremists.

The Only Way Forwrad

‘The only way forward’ – Published as part of Haaretz' global projct – Jewish-Muslim Relations Around the World Collapsed Since October 7 and Gaza. Can They Recover?

Amanah was one of the most important Jewish-Muslim cooperation projects to exist in Europe before October 7. Founded eight years ago in the Swedish city of Malmö by Moshe David HaCohen, then the city's rabbi, and Salahuddin Barakat, a local imam, it aimed to build trust between the city's Jews and Muslims and to counter discrimination. This specific name for the organization was chosen because in Hebrew and Arabic, Amanah refers to the principles of faith and trust.

When it was still active, Amanah ran school programs and developed digital tools to combat racism and monitor social media, addressing many of the challenges for which Malmö had gained notoriety: Holocaust denial in schools, rising incidents of antisemitism every time violence broke out in the Middle East; and escalating Islamophobia culminating in the burning of Qurans by right-wing extremists on multiple occasions.

Amanah's activities were put on hold immediately after October 7, initially because of a statement posted on Facebook by Barakat's Islamic Academy that was deemed highly offensive to the Jewish community. "As Muslims, we stand with our oppressed brothers and sisters in their right to fight against these injustices for freedom, justice, and peace," read the post, which was written when the October massacre was still ongoing. While the post was later updated to offer condolences "to all the innocent victims of violence," the damage had been done. Although dialogue between HaCohen and several Muslim leaders continued and even helped prevent violence during the Eurovision Song Contest in Malmö last May, Amanah officially disbanded in December 2024.

Moshe David HaCohen, Photo: Herald Nilsson

HaCohen is now launching a new organization named B.R.I.T – an acronym for Building Resilience Identity and Trust, and a reference to the Hebrew word for "covenant." He says the organization will work to foster relations between Jews and Muslims in several European countries, based on the premise that security and safety "can't only be based on fear, guards and security cameras – it needs a deeper understanding and working together to overcome the problems."

Jewish-Muslim bridge-building initiatives have been tested in other Scandinavian countries as well over the past year and a half. Before October 7, Jews and Muslims in Oslo regularly held dialogue meetings under the auspices of the Council for Religious and Life Stance Communities (the umbrella organization for Norwegian religious organizations).

"After October 7, cooperation became a serious challenge to both sides," says Rabbi Joav Melchior, the leader of Oslo's Jewish community. "For members of the Jewish community, it was a challenge to deal with Muslim leaders who claimed Israel was committing genocide and spread anti-Israeli conspiracy theories," he adds. "Muslim leaders, on the other hand, saw the support of Zionism as a challenge and expected their Jewish counterparts to denounce it."

Although no major interfaith events have been held in the city over the past year-and-a-half, Melchior says Jewish and Muslim clergy continue to meet and share their thoughts in more intimate gatherings organized through the umbrella organization. "There is a will to improve relations, even though it won't be like it was before October 7," says Melchior, stressing the importance of continuing to talk.

Salaam Shalom was a Danish initiative launched a decade ago that aimed to facilitate dialogue between Middle Eastern communities based in Copenhagen. Inspired by a similar program in Berlin and partially funded by the European Union, the program, which ran for four years, was started by Tali Padan, an Israeli who grew up in the United States and now lives in the Danish capital.

After October 7, Padan wanted to arrange a get-together of some of the former activists and proposed holding a Hanukkah candle-lighting event. The response was not especially encouraging.

"In that first meeting we had only one Muslim, about 20-to-30 Israeli and Danish Jews, and some non-Jewish Danes," she recalls. "The atmosphere was heavy, but there were group activities. We talked, and we lit candles despite it all."

Padan was pleasantly surprised not long thereafter when one of her former Muslim partners, of Lebanese origin, suggested reviving the program. "I was shocked by his initiative because some of his family members were killed in an Israeli air-strike," she says. "Still, we went ahead and the first event took place this January. This time, the room was full. About 50 people, Danish Jews and Muslims, talked about activism and building bridges with a new energy."

Tali Padan, Photo: Thomas Busk

In contrast to the past, she says, in this latest iteration of her Jewish-Muslim partnership organization, the feel-good experience is not the main point. "This time it feels like people are making a powerful choice to commit to unity and peace," says Padan. "They know it's the only way forward."

Sweden is turning Gaza into domestic politics

The situation in Gaza is detreating and the international community has every right to intervene, but anyone who criticizes Israel’s warfare can’t be taken seriously unless they also have a serious suggestion as to how to protect Israeli citizens from another massacre by the genocidal wing of the Palestinian national movement. 

Published in Swedish in Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet: https://www.svd.se/a/Xj17Vr/gor-inte-gaza-till-svensk-inrikespolitik

Israel’s new ground offensive in Gaza is raising stark Swedish reactions, as always. The left is denouncing Israel as a genocidal power indiscriminately killing Palestinians. The right is slightly more restrained, but it too claims that Israel is going too far. These reactions are understandable considering the horrifying images from Gaza shown on Swedish TV. But it’s more than that. Horrifying scenes are taking place all over the world, but Gaza, unlike other conflicts, has a unique role in Swedish politics. It’s an issue of interest but also a source of easily-won political points. The Swedish Left Party, Vänsterpartiet, uses it to show its electoral base how pro-Palestinian it is, so as not to lose votes to radical breakaway fractions, while The Social Democratic Party leaders use it to show their loyalty to old-school “humanitarian super power” policies. On the other side of the political spectrum, while Right Wing populist party, Sverige Demokraterna, continues marketing itself as “Sweden’s most pro-Israel party” as an alibi against accusations of antisemitism, Moderaterna, the ruling center-right party, is trying to maintain a responsible image, aligning itself with EU allies and international law, by presenting a moderate critical policy towards Israel. Sweden’s Gaza discourse, it seems, is more about domestic politics than the reality in Israel and Gaza.

But there is an Israeli reality which isn’t visible to Swedish news followers, one that adds another dimension and shows that Israel is more than just a blood thirsty monstrous state out for revenge. Those who choose to go beyond Swedish headlines, find that there are many Israelis who oppose their government and its Gaza policy. In fact, thousands of them demonstrate against it week after week. These are not only radical left-wingers from the fringes of the political spectrum. Israel is deeply split and even mainstream Zionist political leaders with hundreds of thousands of voters are speaking up against Netanyahu’s government.

A "sane state does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not set goals for itself like the expulsion of a population", said the leader of The Democrats, Israel’s Centre-Left Zionist party who’s also a retired IDF major general. When Netanyahu reacted by claiming that Golan’s statement was “wild incitement”, Golan refused to apologize. “The time has come for us to have a backbone of steel”, he said, “we must stand by our values as a Zionist, Jewish, and democratic state”. He added that the government ministers are corrupt and that the “war must be ended, the hostages returned, and Israel rebuilt”.

But it’s not only the Israeli Left. “What’s the strategy?”, said Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist “Yesh Atid” party, “we all support the elimination of Hamas, but Hamas will not disappear unless an alternative to its rule is presented. Getting the IDF stuck in Gaza for years is a strategic mistake, an economic disaster, and a diplomatic tragedy that will prevent us from being part of the historic change in the Middle East”.

Even some Israeli right-wing politicians oppose Netanyahu’s government. “This war is not a war for security but a war for power”, said Avigdor Liberman, a hardliner who in the past held important ministerial posts under Netanyahu, “this government is willing to pay any price for staying in power — even at the cost of the lives of the hostages and soldiers”. This is a point many in Israel agree on. According to a poll published by Israeli Chanel 12, 61% of the Israeli public prefers a deal which would return all Israeli hostages and end the war in Gaza, compared to only 25% who support expanding the fighting and occupying Gaza.

It seems like one must read news in Hebrew to understand that Israelis are more than just aggressors, just like one must read Arabic in order to understand that Palestinians are more than just victims. For example, anyone following Hamas-affiliated Telegram accounts in Arabic knows that besides images of Palestinian suffering, there are posts with images of suicide bombers standing next to bus wreckages accompanied by texts like "the buses carrying you will become coffins" and “our martyrs are on their way”. This isn’t just a reaction to Israel’s Gaza offensive. It’s been going on for decades. Long before October 7th, official Telegram posts by the al-Aqsa Brigades, a Fatah-aligned armed group, called the “heroes of the West Bank” to “stab, run over, slay and blow up”. “Oh heroes of Jerusalem”, one of them said, “the land is your land, what are you waiting for? The time has come to kill the Jews”. Naturally, Hamas takes it even further. Fathi Hamad, a member of the movement’s political bureau and former minister called on Palestinians to "buy knives for five shekels, sharpen them and decapitate the Jews". Naturally, these quotes are not available in Swedish and are not part of the Swedish discourse.

Still, Swedish politicians have every right to react to events in the Middle-East and in the current reality, there’s plenty of reasons to criticize Israel. There are, however, a few simple ideas which can make the criticism more grounded in reality and more balanced. 

First, categorizing Hamas as a terrorist organization is correct, but it has an unwanted side effect. Because it deals with terror, some may assume that it’s a terror organization like others. But it’s not. It’s an army. Some may imagine it as a kind of Baader-Meinhof-like gang of youngsters in red and white keffiyehs squatting in abandoned buildings in down town Rafah and reading texts by Leon Trotsky. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Hamas military machine has brigades, battalions and commando units. It has strict military hierarchies and discipline as well as weapon manufacturing capabilities, a navy, military intelligence, cyber experts, a propaganda machine and thousands of young men to recruit, even during the IDF’s campaign. Hamas is clear about its end game – it’s a barbaric, fascist and fundamentalist movement committed to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth. Anyone who criticizes Israel’s war in Gaza can’t be taken seriously unless they also have a serious suggestion as to how to protect Israeli citizens from another massacre by the genocidal wing of the Palestinian national movement. 

Second, sometimes one has to be honest even concerning political and military policies. Israeli society is deeply traumatised by a vicious attack which took the lives of more than 1,100 people. Everyone knows someone who was killed, a child who was kidnapped or a woman who was raped. Everyone saw the atrocities – homes burnet to ashes and dead bodies of all ages. Everyone is worried about a relative or a friend on the front lines. Everyone knows a survivor. Everyone is a survivor. The expectation that Israel will react in a calm, moderate and gentle way is absurd. This doesn’t mean that a wild storm of revenge is justifiable. It does mean that swedes would do well to ask themselves modestly and honestly how they react to crises.

Sweden was unaligned for over 200 years. Then a war started over 2,000 km away. Still, Sweden changed its policy almost over-night and joined NATO. In the same way, a handful of problems with integration caused the country which was known for its leaders asking its citizens to “open their hearts” to refugees because “their Europe has no walls”, made a former neo-Nazi party its second largest. It also reversed all of its immigration policies. These dramatic and, anything but calm and moderate changes, happened without one shot being fired at Sweden and without hundreds of Swedes being killed, raped or injured. Israel, on the other hand, apart from the horrors of October 7th, has had, 35,500 rockets fired directly at it in the last year and a half, targeting, displacing and killing civilians. Is Sweden really qualified to lecture it about reacting unproportionally? And finally, criticizing Israel is fine, but it shouldn’t be done according to the propaganda of Sweden’s so-called pro-Palestinian movement. For some reason, this movement has adopted an extremist narrative echoing Hamas propaganda which claims that the Jewish state has no right to exist. The slogan of a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” is a genocidal one, since it implies the elimination of Israel. The slogans calling for an “Intifada” are incitement for violence and the claim that Israelis are settler colonizer is historically ridiculous and politically dangerous. Those who criticizes Israel because they support a just peace and a political compromise in the Middle-East would do well to find better partners – instead of people who scream “crush Zionism” and are just as bad as those who automatically support everything Israel does; they can join hands with moderate Israelis who still believe in peace and are struggling to save their home from a never-ending cycle of violence.

'In Norway, We Have Yet to Confront the Full Meaning of the Holocaust'

Irene Levin turned the hundreds of notes her mother left behind after her death into a book chronicling the story of Norwegian Jews during the Holocaust.

Published in "Haaretz": https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2025-04-30/ty-article-magazine/.premium/in-norway-we-have-yet-to-confront-the-full-meaning-of-the-holocaust/00000196-804b-dc27-a3df-f2fbf3d80000

When Irene Levin's mother was 96, she left her apartment in Oslo and moved into a Jewish old age home. Levin and her two children wanted her mother's – and their grandmother's – new home to feel like a miniature version of the elegant, meticulously arranged apartment she had lived in for decades. To do so, they moved in the gilded-upholstered furniture, the paintings, the silverware, and the mirrors her mother never passed without briefly checking her reflection. As part of the process, they also cleaned and organized the apartment.

It took Levin more than five years to understand the significance of what she found during that process. "There were notes everywhere," she told Haaretz in an interview. "Some were hidden in piles of newspapers, other were tucked away in drawers, on shelves, and in cupboards. Some had only one or two sentences, others were full pages written in my mother's handwriting. Although they weren't dated, her handwriting showed they spanned different time periods – the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

Levin's mother, Fanny Raskow, died in 2013 at the age of 101. "After she passed away, and after I retired, I started reading the notes," Levin recalls. "Mostly the notes were about World War II, but also about her upbringing before the war in a family that had escaped to what is now Lithuania. There were many unfinished sentences, especially those dealing with the arrest and deportation of her father, my grandfather. It's unclear who the notes were meant for. Maybe she wrote for herself, as a way of venting, or perhaps she hoped I would eventually find them. But she never mentioned them".

Levin says the notes revealed the dilemmas and choices her mother faced. "My mother blamed herself all her life for not being able to save her father," she says. "It haunted her constantly, until the end of her life. In all my upbringing there was a silence, and the war was never discussed openly. If it came up, it was always indirectly or through broken, incomplete sentences."

At a certain point, Levin realized that her mother's story was also the story of other Norwegian Jews. The result was her book, ("Vi snakket ikke om Holocaust. Mor, jeg og tausheten," Gyldendal, 2020, literally translated as "We Didn't Talk About the Holocaust: Mother, I, and the Silence"). The English version, titled "Everyday Silence and the Holocaust", was published by Routledge last year.

"My mother was trapped in a history that had been imposed on her, and one that for decades remained almost unspoken in Norwegian society," Levin says. "When I began researching in the National Archives of Norway in Oslo, I tried to see whether other Jewish families' stories were similar to that of my mother. I started asking new questions about my personal history and discovered experiences and events that had always been there, just not talked about.

"As a child, I simply acted on behaviors that seemed normal. As an adult – and as a professional – I began questioning my own story. Are the gaps in the stories significant? The fact that the life of our tiny nuclear family was defined by specific, historical events was something I simply knew. Just as one learns one's mother tongue intuitively, I learned about 'the war'. I lived my whole life in a community of World War II survivors, yet I still didn't really know much, despite believing I knew the whole story."

The story of Irene Levin is, to a great extent, the story of an entire generation of Norwegian Jews. Her grandparents' families emigrated to Norway around 1905 from Lithuania, fleeing poverty, hard conditions, and persecution. Levin explains that this migration differed from that of other Scandinavian countries. While Denmark and Sweden received "Ost-Juden" – Jews from Central Europe – there were already established Jewish communities in those countries. Some were prominent figures in society and openly identified as Jews. In Norway, by contrast, Jews were only permitted to enter starting in the mid-19th century. They were few in number, poor, and mostly uneducated.

Irene Levin's book, with Irene and her mother on the cover.

Less than 40 years after her grandparents arrived in Norway, they and their children had to flee. This time, it was due to the German occupation during World War II, and their destination was Sweden, the neutral and thus safe neighboring country to the east. Levin's parents were among hundreds of Jews who left Norway as the Nazi persecution escalated, peaking in the fall of 1942 when hundreds of Norwegian Jews were deported to Auschwitz.

Levin's parents received help from a neighboring family, and their escape was aided by friends and members of the resistance movement, who hid them from the Gestapo and the Norwegian police in various locations. Their journey took 23 days. Levin's mother was pregnant during the escape, and she gave birth to Irene, her first and only child, in the Swedish town of Norrköping, where the family stayed until the war ended.

After the war, Levin, her mother, and father returned to Norway and began rebuilding their lives. She was less than two and a half years old and doesn't remember Liberation Day, but it's clear to her that even then, silence began to play a significant role.

"We didn't talk about the war," she recalls. "The fact that the family went through a disaster was always present, but it wasn't spoken about. In the 1950s, when I was ten, we could be sitting with guests around the dinner table, and someone might suddenly say something like, 'It was Norwegian police who made the arrests, not the Germans.' And someone would reply, 'It doesn't matter, we're not getting them back either way.' Then the conversation would switch to the previous topic, and no one would ask, 'What do you mean?' Everyone knew what it meant, they just didn't talk about it for decades."

Did the silence begin right at the end of the war?

"You can tell from the Norwegian press how knowledge about what had happened slowly evolved. The free press resumed operations as early as May 14, 1945. On the second day, the country's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, asked, 'What happened to our Jews?' The article reported, 'There is reason to fear that many Norwegian Jews have died,' and quickly added that no confirmation had been received. In the weeks that followed, reports ended with phrases like, 'There is no reason to lose hope.' On May 17, the same newspaper reported, 'We have 750 Jews in Germany. So far, we've heard from only nine or ten.' Slowly, the news worsened, and by May 23, it was reported that the Jews had been taken to 'the notorious concentration camp Auschwitz.'

"After a while, the topic was no longer written about. It resurfaced in the trials of Norwegians who had collaborated with the Nazis, and in the court case of the Norwegian traitor Vidkun Quisling [a Nazi collaborator who headed the government of Norway during the country's occupation by Nazi Germany] where two survivors testified. One of them, the later well-known psychiatrist Leo Eitinger, told of Jews being gassed. When asked by the judge if Norwegian Jews were treated in the same way, he answered 'Yes, I swear to God.'"

The outcome of the war was catastrophic for Levin's family. Thirty-two members of her extended family, including her maternal grandfather, were murdered in Auschwitz. Her grandfather was deported along with hundreds of other Norwegians –men, women, and children – on November 26, 1942. Levin's mother tried to spare him by putting him in a hospital but he was taken from there, arrested and, the next day, loaded onto the ship SS Donau. After four days in its cargo hold, he and the others arrived in Stettin, where they were crammed into cattle cars. On December 1, they reached Auschwitz-Birkenau. Levin's grandfather's exact fate remains unknown. He was one of an endless number of victims who didn't survive and never returned to Norway.

The facts about World War II in Norway and the fate of its Jews are well-known. On the eve of the war, Norway had around 2,800,000 inhabitants, of whom about 2,400 were Jews, including around 500 from other nationalities. During World War I, Norway had remained neutral, and hoped to maintain neutrality again during World War II. But events took a different turn. A Norwegian fascist party, Nasjonal Samling (The National Union), founded in 1933 by officer and politician Vidkun Quisling, offered the Nazis cooperation in taking over the country. Germany invaded Norway and Denmark on April 9, 1940, in Operation Weserübung. Denmark surrendered within hours, while battles in Norway lasted around two months before the German victory, achieved after the Allied forces retreated and Narvik – a strategic port used for shipping iron ore from Sweden – was captured.

As the Germans occupied the country, the Norwegian king and government fled and formed a government-in-exile in London. Civilian rule in Norway was overtaken by Nazi official Josef Terboven, appointed Reichskommissar by Hitler. Terboven governed through a pro-German puppet government headed by Quisling. The Norwegian parliament was dissolved, all parties banned except Quisling's, and the judiciary was subordinated to German control.

Persecution of the Jews began with sporadic decrees early in the occupation. In 1941, arrests were made, property confiscated, and some Jews were executed on false charges. In 1942, mass arrests of hundreds of Jews were carried out, most of whom, including Levin's grandfather, were transported on the SS Donau to Auschwitz. Another ship, the MS Gotenland, transported 158 more Jews to the same destination in February 1943. In total, 772 Norwegian Jews were arrested or deported. The oldest among them 80, the youngest an 8-week-old baby. Fewer than 40 came back. Those who survived the war had mostly escaped to neutral Sweden or Britain.

The facts were known for decades, but their meaning has been the subject of public debate – one that Irene Levin, after publishing her book, is now central to. Levin is a professor emeritus of social sciences at Oslo Metropolitan University. Her work started in the area of family studies with emphasis on new family forms and gender studies. In recent years, she has moved her area of research into history and Holocaust studies and has been closely connected to the Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies, including working with surveys on antisemitism. She has worked with Soviet Jewry and been active in applying for Norwegian non-Jews receiving the Righteous Among the Nations award, granted by Yad Vashem.

Her recent book adds to numerous other publications she's written or edited, covering topics from social sciences to remembrance, and the Holocaust in Norway. Her new book generated considerable attention in Norway. Positive reviews appeared in major newspapers; she was interviewed by media and gave lectures across the country for over a year. Headlines focused on themes like "The Holocaust That Always Sat Within the Walls" or "The Mother Who Dealt with Trauma Through Silence." Critics noted that Levin "presents her family's history as a gateway to understanding the Jewish tragedy in Norway," "gives us a micro-history that opens wounds – with painful, terrifying details," and "breaks the silence, telling dramatic stories of fate."

Is the silence of the survivors and Norwegian society similar to that of survivors in other countries, or does it have unique characteristics?

"The phenomenon of silence is not unique, but circumstances vary. What's special about Norway is that it had a small number of Jews and geographically, with the long border with Sweden and the long coastline to England, one would think that it would be possible to hide more".

"Moreover, Norwegian Jews loved Norway. They learned the language and embraced the culture; they embraced the Norwegian love of nature and even changed their surnames to make them easier for their neighbors to pronounce. That's why what happened shocked them. They told themselves that they were arrested by the Gestapo – when, in fact, it was the Norwegian police.

"My mother always said: 'It took such a long time until we really understood, Irene.' Those who survived and returned weren't like the other Norwegians coming back after the war – the resistance fighters or political exiles. They weren't heroes. They won the war. The Jews had not won the war. They were deported or fled because of who they were, not what they did – and that came with a sense of shame. They asked themselves, 'What kind of Norwegians are we now?'"

Levin explains that other elements were involved. Some blamed themselves for failing to save relatives. They were grief-stricken, and many had to face the painful, often unsuccessful process of reclaiming seized property. Homes and businesses had been confiscated or auctioned off. Only in the 1990s, following a media campaign and the creation of a restitution committee, did Norwegian society begin to seriously reckon with the Holocaust. Survivors received compensation, and the Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies was established.

"Until the 1990s, the story of the Jews was not integrated into the national historical narrative," Levin says. "It's not that people didn't know what happened – there were books and survivor testimonies – but Jews were not part of the main story. The Holocaust in Norway was like an appendix to Norwegian history, not part of the official narrative."

So, if the Holocaust wasn't part of Norway's war story, would it be accurate to say that Norway didn't take responsibility for what happened to its Jews?

"In three major historical books that shaped the narrative and were published in 1950, the extermination of the Jews was described merely as a 'detail'. Later, in the 1980s, six volumes titled 'Norway at War' asked: What happened to the Jews? The answer is mostly covered in the third volume, spanning 18 pages with photos. In the final section, the question is raised – could more have been done to help the Jews? could they have been warned about what deportation meant? the answer the book gives is that Jews in all occupied countries and even in the free world underestimated the cruelty of the SS. That is, responsibility was ultimately shifted to the Jews themselves – because they didn't resist arrest.

"When I first read these, I thought that they did the same as my mother, blaming herself for her father's arrest, as did society at large. Both the minority and the majority put the responsibility on the Jews. But I realized that when my mother blamed herself, she was taking the burden on herself, bearing the responsibility – as a Jewish woman and a daughter. When the author, as a representative of society, blamed the Jews, it was the opposite: it was the removal of responsibility."

Irene in her mother's arms, 1943.
Irene Levin and her mother on 1943. Photo: Irene Levin

Do you think this perspective still echoes in Norway in 2025, amid rising antisemitism and claims that Norwegian society is abandoning its Jews?

"For the Jews in Norway [the community numbers approximately 1,500 people], October 7 is an echo from the war, while knowing that it was not the same and that the Holocaust is unique. But Norwegian society at large did not hear the same echo. They only heard the voice from Hamas and very quickly defined the attack as a continuity of occupation.

"It was a shock that the empathy that the Jews in Norway had earned due their history during the war, suddenly disappeared. I never thought that during my lifetime, I would experience a rise of antisemitism. When researching the Holocaust and antisemitism, I was doing it as something belonging to the past to ensure it would not happen again. Suddenly, the Jewish state was attacked and its legitimacy was at stake. The Jewish voice has lost its legitimacy.

"My grandmother would always tell me: 'Die Juden sind schuldig' – the Jews are to blame, always. I thought that was relevant to the shtetl, not my everyday life. There is a shift in the perception of responsibility and legitimacy – the focus has changed, and it is no longer in our favor. I demonstrated on Women's Day and my fellow feminists didn't allow us to participate! They questioned whether there were even sexual assaults on October 7; and if they did accept that they happened, they minimized their significance, treating it as something that 'naturally' happens in every war.

"In my research on silence, an important factor is the interaction between the individual and society. After World War II, it was not only the Jews who were silent. The society at large was silent, too, but for different reasons. The space the minority has is shaped by the majority. It took Norwegian society 50 years before it recognized its responsibility in the atrocities. In the current situation, the Jewish voice has little legitimacy and the connection with society at large is of distrust. But can we Jews wait for the society to show us such a space? We have to take it. In that sense, it's like a revolution."

At the end of the interview, Levin returns to the topic of silence, which she sees as the common thread between the biographical and the historical. It's a silence shared by many survivors of the war, but Levin suggests that it is an even broader phenomenon.

"If you had asked me about the Holocaust while I was growing up – if you had asked me whether I knew about the war and what happened to the Jews – I would have said yes," she says. "But today I know that I didn't know. I didn't have the details; I didn't know what really happened. What I had was a sense that a catastrophe had occurred, and that it had happened to the Jews. Nothing more.

"And maybe that's similar to other disasters, like what happened on October 7. Even though information spreads much faster today, the feeling is similar. We know a disaster occurred, we think we understand it, but as time passes, we realize in hindsight that we didn't know everything, that we didn't grasp the scope, and that we still haven't dealt with all the implications."