Israel's New Swedish Friends Are the Wrong Crowd

As Israelis are caught up in domestic politics, Likud activists are making far-right friends and changing the country’s foreign policy.

Published in "Haaretz": https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-09-24/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israels-new-swedish-friends-are-the-wrong-crowd/0000018a-c651-da14-a1eb-de5be0620000

STOCKHOLM – Instead of triggering a historic normalization with yet another Arab country, Israel’s announcement of Foreign Minister Eli Cohen’s meeting with his Libyan counterpart led to political embarrassment in Jerusalem, riots in Tripoli and the Libyan minister fleeing the country for her life. Some people claim that this was the result of opportunistic and amateurish behavior.

But if we divert our gaze from North Africa to Europe, we get suspicious that the problem lies not with the Foreign Ministry’s errors (if this indeed was an error) but with its successes.

Three months before Cohen met with the Libyan minister, he visited Stockholm. This wasn't a routine visit either. Cohen became the first Israeli foreign minister to visit Sweden in over 20 years. The trip lasted only 24 hours and included just a handful of meetings that were kept on a very low profile. Not that anyone expected a red carpet and marching bands, but the two countries held no public events, ceremonies or receptions, and the meeting between Cohen and his Swedish counterpart, Tobias Billström, was kept secret until it was over.

One reason for the uncharacteristic restraint is that the two governments are in an unprecedented situation. Jerusalem is advancing processes that are filling the streets with protesters, not only in Israel but anywhere in the world where a cabinet member visits. The Swedish government, meanwhile, is dependent on the Sweden Democrats party, which started out as a neo-Nazi party that up to 30 years ago was led by skinheads. Now this outfit defines itself as “nationalist and social-conservative,” and on the back of an agreement with parties such as Billström’s Moderate Party, it sets the country’s agenda.

Israel’s traditional policy is to refrain from any contact with such parties, not just because of their Nazi roots but because in recent years leaders and members of the Sweden Democrats and its counterparts across Europe have been disseminating conspiracy theories as well as racist, antisemitic and Islamophobic propaganda. Several of them have been implicated in violent incidents, not exactly the kind of thing Israel wants to be associated with.

But it's not so simple. If, as Cohen claims, he and his Swedish counterpart discussed the strengthening of political, economic and military ties, how could this happen when key positions in Sweden, including the leadership of parliament's foreign affairs and labor market committees, are held by a party that Israel is boycotting? Israel’s Foreign Ministry said that ties with the Sweden Democrats weren't addressed at the meetings in Stockholm. This may be true, but not because the issue is unimportant but because Israel seems to be well on its way to changing its policy in this area. Ties with Italy’s prime minister, despite her neofascist past, are stronger than ever, Hungary is considered an important ally, and Cohen recently instructed Israel’s ambassador in Romania to meet with the far-right AUR party, hitherto boycotted by Israel due to its antisemitic comments and Holocaust denial.

All this has been done to win support for Israel's settlements in the West Bank. Is there a connection between all these events? The answer can be found in another diplomatic visit. A few days after Cohen’s return from Stockholm, two senior members of the Sweden Democrats, Charlie Weimers and Richard Jomshof, landed in Israel. The visit was supposed to remain under the radar, but word got out that these Swedish far-rightists had met with Israeli lawmakers.

The daily Israel Hayom revealed that among them was Likud MK Amit Halevi, who spoke with his guests about suspending Israel’s boycott of their party. They even handed him a document that was passed higher up. Three months later, Halevi helped change Israel’s policy toward the Romanian AUR party. Another Likud member, former lawmaker Michael Kleiner, also met with the two Swedish legislators. Not surprisingly, Kleiner was a guest of the AUR in Bucharest last November.

All this is confusing: While Israel is officially boycotting the Sweden Democrats, politicians from the party are secretly meeting with members of Israel’s ruling party and undermining its official policy. Of course, the policy on Europe's far right should be weighed carefully, and it may be time to change it, but the impression is that what happened in Romania and is happening in Sweden isn't a result of deliberations by Foreign Ministry professionals but is a snap political move.

And so, it seems that as Israelis are caught up in domestic politics, a small number of Likud activists are changing Israel’s foreign policy. Israel’s democratic and liberal allies are being replaced with nationalist movements, including populist and racist ones, in a move that's a European parallel to what Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is doing with Israeli-U.S relations. His statements about America’s “preaching” may not have been off the cuff but a reflection of a new policy: exchanging America's traditional bipartisan support and the backing of mainstream forces in Europe for the support of the populist-evangelical camp in the United States and the nationalist-xenophobic wing in Europe.

Beyond the ideological considerations, political and business interests are at play here. In contrast to leaders such as U.S. President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who openly protested Israel's judicial overhaul, Swedish Foreign Minister Billström had nothing to say about it. A country that used to see itself as a “humanitarian superpower” and global peacemaker is remaining silent when it comes to Israel’s democracy. This was probably refreshing for Cohen.

Meanwhile, sales of Israeli weapons to Sweden have spiked during the war in Ukraine and the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO. The governments in Stockholm and Helsinki, both supported by far-right parties, are much more interested in drones, rocket launchers and cyberwarfare than human rights, settlements and judicial overhauls. Even if parts of the Israeli left don't consider this a problem, we should recognize a corollary of this new approach: Israel’s new partners won't save Israel from itself. They are part of governments that are morally blind, deaf and mute.

Maybe the Libyan incident was no mistake. Instead of pursuing a policy of building bridges to Arab states – a way of avoiding the Palestinian issue – Israel is adopting a new international stance and seeking support based on arms deals, natural gas and its cyber prowess, not shared values. This seems logical, because what common values are there anyway? Human rights? Peace? Social justice? That stuff is so '90s.

It’s still not clear if and when Billström will visit Israel, but when this happens, we can be sure that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the dangers to Israeli (and Swedish) democracy won't be on the agenda. Instead, when the ministers finish talking business, they can always talk about the weather, the Eurovision Song Contest and the pros and cons in the battle of Swedish meatballs vs. falafel.

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.”