Israel’s Pro-democracy Protests Now Extend as Far as the Nordic countries

Officials in Scandinavian countries generally prefer not to intervene in Israel’s domestic affairs, but the concerns are palpable – even among its Jewish supporters in Stockholm

Published in "Haaretz": https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-04-03/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israels-pro-democracy-protests-now-extend-as-far-as-scandinavia/00000187-4169-db91-adcf-5f7fb2640000

“I am closely following what’s happening in Israel and see that they’re even talking about a civil war there,” says Lars Aslan Rasmussen, addressing the protests over the Netanyahu government’s efforts to undermine the judiciary. “Israel is a democracy, it had five elections within a short time while its neighbors have no elections at all,” says Rasmussen, a member of the ruling Social Democratic Party in Denmark. “However, as a social democrat and a secular person, I think it would be a pity if Israel changes as a result of the far right that provocatively enters the Temple Mount and tries to impose religious law on the inhabitants of the country. It is important that Israel remains a democracy despite the far right.”

In recent weeks, leaders in Western Europe such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have been expressing their concern about the Israeli government’s plans. Rasmussen’s words reflect the concerns of elected officials in Scandinavian countries, who are now joining the international chorus of alarm. In most cases, the criticism is still gentle – in part because it is coming from representatives of parties that are traditionally not hostile toward Israel.

Rasmussen is considered a friend of Israel and was awarded the Jerusalem Prize by the World Zionist Organization last year. “Extremist tendencies exist in many countries, including Denmark and the United States in the days of Donald Trump’s presidency,” he says. “I don’t think the relations between Israel and Denmark will weaken [because of the judicial overhaul], but it’s good that people are criticizing and demonstrating against the rise of the power of the far right.” The Danish Foreign Ministry declined to answer questions or provide an official statement on the political unrest in Israel.

In Norway, however, Erling Rimestad, the state secretary at the Foreign Ministry, had no hesitation in taking a clear position. “We’re following the developments in Israel closely,” he says. “Some of the legislation put forward by the new government is highly problematic and could, if passed by parliament, have far-reaching consequences for Israel’s future as a liberal and democratic state. This would also have implications for the many Palestinians living in areas occupied by Israel, and for Palestinians imprisoned in Israel.”

Rimestad says that Norway has long-standing ties with Israel and will continue to maintain relationships and dialogue with the Israeli authorities and the Israeli people. However, he also criticized the new government – and not only in regard to the so-called judicial coup. “Norway has strongly condemned some of the Israeli government’s policy announcements and measures, in particular the punitive measures against the Palestinians,” he says.

“We have condemned the legalization of outposts and new settlements. Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. We have also voiced our concern over statements and actions by members of the Israeli government regarding the holy sites. It’s important to respect the status quo in Jerusalem. In addition to our bilateral dialogue, there are also international forums where we bring up human rights concerns.”

Rimestad, the state secretary to Norwegian Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt (a position akin to deputy minister), adds: “Israel’s human rights situation will be assessed during the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva this coming May. Norway will give our recommendations to Israel there.”

The Labour Party is in power in Norway, but the concern over the situation in Israel transcends party lines. Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a legislator from the right-wing Progress Party, says he believes “it is very important that Israel remains the beacon of hope in the Middle East. It is therefore of vital importance that Israel protects its democracy. It means that a few religious, conservative politicians should not be able to determine Israel’s future. Politics all based on an ancient religious text is not the way to govern a democracy.”

Read the rest of the article here: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-04-03/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israels-pro-democracy-protests-now-extend-as-far-as-scandinavia/00000187-4169-db91-adcf-5f7fb2640000

Sweden and Finland to join NATO due to Russian Threat

This is how the debate in Sweden changed, leading to the announcement Monday the country will join Finland in seeking NATO membership

Published in Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2022-05-16/ty-article-magazine/.premium/fear-won-in-swedens-battle-between-neutrality-and-the-russian-threat/00000180-e9f4-d189-af82-f9fd10820000

STOCKHOLM – Until a few months ago, nobody would have bet on Finland and Sweden joining NATO at all, much less doing so at lightning speed. Public opinion opposed the idea, as did both countries’ political establishments; neither country’s political system was built for rapid decisions on defense affairs; and most importantly, both countries had a decades-old tradition of avoiding military alliances. In Sweden’s case, this was an ideological approach. The last time Sweden was involved in a war was in 1814. Throughout the 20th century, it tried to position itself as a humanitarian superpower that, instead of taking sides in wars, tried to mediate between the parties, while also supporting international institutions, mediating conflicts and taking in refugees. Thus, it ostensibly remained neutral in World War II and nonaligned during the Cold War.

In Finland’s case, its neutrality stemmed from fear of the superpower next door. Finland shares a border with Russia that is more than 1,300 kilometers long. It was once part of the Russian Empire, fought against the Soviet Union during World War II and was threatened by Moscow during the Cold War. The last thing it wanted after the Soviet Union fell apart was to get involved in a new conflict with the Russians. But then Russia invaded Ukraine, and both countries’ unalignment policies melted away.

Finland and Sweden were always completely Western in their orientation. And practically speaking, it’s an open secret that they have been cooperating with NATO for years. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed a flaw – if Ukraine could be ruthlessly attacked by Russia while the world settled for economic sanctions and condemnations, who would protect Sweden and Finland? After all, just like Ukraine, they are independent countries that aren’t under the protection of the NATO alliance, and particularly the treaty’s Article 5 which states that an attack against one NATO country is considered as an attack against them all.

Consequently, the invasion of Ukraine produced a turnaround in Finnish and Swedish public opinion. Immediately after the invasion began, polls published in both countries showed that for the first time in history, there was widespread public support for joining NATO.

In Finland, 50,000 people signed a petition to join the alliance, and parliament began feverish discussions that culminated with Prime Minister Sanna Marin and President Sauli Niinisto saying in a joint statement that “Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay.” To enable the implementation of this decision, parliament will hold a vote on the issue in the coming days.

Sweden isn’t lagging far behind. Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist, who asserted in the past that “As long as I’m defense minister, I can promise that we won’t join” NATO, told Sweden’s national broadcaster last week that “Nordic mutual defense will be strengthened if Sweden and Finland join.” Explaining why he changed his position, he said, “There’s before February 24 and after February 24,” referring to the date when Russia invaded Ukraine.

Over the weekend, a parliamentary committee submitted a report about the worsening of Sweden’s security situation following the invasion of Ukraine. Many saw this as further support for those who advocate joining NATO. The ruling Social Democratic Party announced on Sunday that it had changed its position and would support joining NATO, and took the formal decision to apply on Monday after a debate in parliament.

“In Finland, the question of joining NATO was always a practical one, but in Sweden, it’s a more sensitive subject,” says Hans Wallmark, a veteran Swedish parliamentarian from the center-right Moderate Party who has supported joining NATO for years. “For part of the left, not being a member of NATO was almost a religious position, so for some politicians, supporting joining NATO is like converting to another religion. Therefore, it’s difficult and painful.

“When Russia invaded Ukraine and the Finns began their joining process, the Swedish Social Democratic Party was more or less pushed into the process,” adds Wallmark, who is deputy chairman of parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless, he said, Sweden shouldn’t join NATO just because it’s forced into it, but because it’s the right thing to do.

“There are three reasons why Sweden should join NATO,” he continues. “First of all, there’s Article 5 of NATO’s treaty, with its principle of ‘one for all and all for one.’ Second, there’s a need for joint defense planning with other countries in the region, and third, this is an issue of solidarity with European and North American countries.”

Deterrent power against Russia

On the other side of the Baltic Sea, Jouni Ovaska, a member of Finland’s parliament representing the Center Party since 2019, made many of the same points as his Swedish colleague. As a member of his parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, he is also involved in the parliamentary proceedings to enable Finland’s membership bid. “Membership in NATO will guarantee Finland’s security, because of the alliance’s substantial deterrent power,” he says. “And of course, the most important thing is Article 5 of the treaty. ”Nevertheless, he says, Finland must continue investing in its own military and training its soldiers, just as it has until now, and continue cultivating its other international partnerships.

“The European Union is our main partner, and most European countries are NATO members,” he notes. “I hope joining will strengthen European countries so that they can take care of defense on their own. Sweden is our closest partner, and if it, like all the Nordic countries, becomes a NATO member, this will provide greater security for the entire region.” Ovaska says the Finns have moved very swiftly to join NATO. “February 24 changed everything,” he says. “We have cooperated with Russia in the past, but the invasion of Ukraine showed that we can’t trust it. That’s why we rethought the situation. Public opinion changed very quickly, more quickly than change happened among elected officials.” He says the change in public opinion stemmed directly from the war in Ukraine: “What was done to Ukraine dredged up memories from the past. It’s not like something from the 21st century, it reminds us of atrocities from many years ago, and we have to make a change.”

However, there are some who oppose joining the military alliance. The Swedish Green Party, for example, argues that Sweden should be an independent power that promotes democracy and peace in the world, not part of a military alliance that possesses and bases its power on nuclear weapons. According to the Left Party, Sweden will defend itself better if it adheres to the policy of refraining from military alliances, which it says has served the country well for many generations.

The two parties that oppose joining NATO have a total of just over 40 seats out of 349 in the Swedish parliament. In Finland, opposition to the move is even smaller, and at this point is heard only on the fringes. Therefore, it seems that Sweden and Finland’s rush into NATO is inevitable, although the process itself is not short. “After the official request is submitted to Jen Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, in Brussels, Sweden and Finland will enter what is called the Membership Action Plan,” Prof. Ann-Sofie Dahl explains.

Dahl, who lives in Denmark and serves as a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., has written extensively about the NATO alliance. “Usually this is a process that takes a long time, but Sweden and Finland are very close to NATO, so that this time it will be just a formal process that will probably take only a day or two,” she says, explaining that the initial process will be followed by the ratification process.

“They will also try to accelerate this step, but because there is a need for the approval of the parliaments of the 30 member countries, it will probably take at least four to six months until the formal membership of the two countries goes into effect,” Dahl says. Naturally, in both Sweden and Finland there is some concern regarding the interim period between their decision and the validity of membership. Dahl note the guarantees of security that have been obtained in recent months. “British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Sweden and Finland this month and declared that the United Kingdom will guarantee the security of the two countries,” Dahl says. “

That is a very important declaration, because Britain is an important player as well as a nuclear power,” she notes, adding that there is apparently a less official, and less overt, commitment from the White House. It is known that the Finnish president has met in Washington with President Joe Biden, and the Swedish foreign minister recently also held meetings in the U.S. capital. In addition, Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson and Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin visited Berlin and received a promise from Chancellor Olaf Scholz that their countries “can rely on German support if they submit a request for NATO membership.”

“I think that after the decision to join NATO – and certainly from the moment the candidacy is submitted – we’ll see a lot of ‘Russian noise,’ but not a military assault,” says Dahl. “We may see things such as a cyberattack or an attack of disinformation, but Moscow is busy in Ukraine and probably, as happened during the previous NATO expansion process, Russia will make a lot of noise – but will then continue as usual.”

Wallmark, the deputy chairman of the Swedish parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, is also aware of the anticipated saber-rattling by Moscow. However, he anticipates that “the Kremlin will bark, but nothing more than that.” His Finnish colleague, Ovaska, finds it difficult to say what the Russian reaction will be. “We’re ready to make decisions and we’re ready for anything that happens because of them,” he says. “But it’s important to remember that even when we’re part of NATO, Russia will remain our neighbor. It’s important that in future, in some way, we find a way to cooperate with them.”