SVT – דיויד סטברו

I Served in the IDF — Come and Get Me!

A former Left Party MP wrote that 150 Swedish citizens who served in Israel’s military have participated in genocide. They, and others who support them, she continued, are “allowed to live among us”. I served in the Israel Defense Forces myself. Here is why I refuse to be ashamed of my service.

Originally published in Kvartal: Jag har tjänstgjort i IDF – kom och ta mig! – Kvartal

Article photograph — Photo: Private, Jehad Alshrafi/AP/TT. Collage: Felice Larsson/Kvartal.

It seems that the winning side in Sweden’s election has already identified the country’s real problems. Issues such as schools, healthcare and unemployment can wait, but when it comes to the enormous threat apparently posed by Israel’s relations with the EU, something must be done immediately.

Before a new government has even been formed, the Social Democrats have thrown themselves into the issue of the EU’s Association Agreement with Israel, and the new majority has agreed that Sweden should push to suspend its trade provisions.

But that is not enough for the Left Party. Its Member of the European Parliament, Hanna Gedin, has joined Nordic colleagues in writing to the EU’s foreign policy chief, demanding that member states be urged to investigate possible war crimes committed by European citizens who have served in the IDF. Gedin is worried about Israelis walking freely on Europe’s streets. She points to a precedent: “Eurojust has explicitly established that EU citizens who fought for the Islamic State can be held accountable for war crimes and genocide.” In her view, Israel’s military and ISIS deserve the same treatment.

Other parts of the Left Party are equally enthusiastic about going after Israeli soldiers. At the party’s Greater Stockholm district annual conference in 2025, one member proposed a campaign against Israeli soldiers in Sweden. According to the motion, service in the Israeli army should provoke disgust and rejection, both personally and at the societal level. Ahead of the 2026 party congress, another member proposed designating the IDF as a terrorist organization, so that its members could be prosecuted even without concrete evidence of war crimes. The proposals were not adopted, but their wording reveals that, for these activists, the problem is not what an individual Israeli has done, but that the person served in Israel’s armed forces.

Former Left Party MP Lorena Delgado Varas put it even more clearly. Following reports that 150 Swedish citizens had served in the IDF, she wrote on Facebook: “So there are 150 Swedish citizens who have participated in genocide, and many more who have probably known about it and supported it. And they are allowed to live among us as if nothing had happened”. No investigations or verdicts are needed here. Even people alleged to have known about or supported what happened are included. “We must not accept genocidaires walking free, without consequences”, she concluded, without explaining what she means by “genocidaires” or what consequences she thinks should befall them. Is that a threat?

It is probably pointless to reason with political fanatics. But for everyone else, we need to clarify a few concepts. The IDF is the armed forces of an internationally recognized state whose population has repeatedly been subjected to wars, rocket attacks and terrorism, including by fascist, Islamist and fundamentalist organizations and states. Israel, like many other countries, has compulsory military service. An Israeli eighteen-year-old who refuses to report for duty without a legal exemption can be convicted for doing so. Anyone who commits war crimes must, of course, be investigated and, where the evidence is sufficient, prosecuted. But military service is not evidence of criminality. Defending one’s country’s right to exist, serving in Gaza or taking part in a war is not, in itself, a war crime.

Would the same activists demand that Swedish citizens who served in the armed forces of the United States, Ukraine, Iraq or Somalia be catalogued as potential war criminals? The Left Party has indeed called for suspected war crimes in other countries to be investigated, but that is something quite different from casting suspicion on people solely because they served in a country’s armed forces. I have not found any comparable demands to catalogue former American, Ukrainian, Iraqi or Somali soldiers. This special treatment appears to be reserved for the Jewish state.

In the SVT documentary The World’s Most Hated?, representatives of the London-based Declassified UK are given considerable airtime. One says: “You could be living next door to a war criminal, taking the Underground or a bus with someone involved in the systematic destruction of an occupied people”. The association is hard to miss: people who have served in the Israeli army are portrayed as a potential threat in our midst. The same speaker says it does not matter whether the person has even been to Gaza; he must prove his innocence because “a soldier can be guilty simply by enlisting”.

It is somewhat unclear why SVT presents him as a journalist rather than an activist. But the film shows what happens when a group is subjected to collective suspicion. Israeli tourists are thrown out of restaurants and shops, spat at, disinvited from universities and cultural events, and threatened with legal action. Does anyone recognize the pattern? It does not matter whether the individuals have actually committed a crime. So-called pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Sweden and other countries have already adopted “Death, death to the IDF” as a popular slogan. Do they mean all IDF soldiers, past and present? Is the death threat a metaphor? Delgado Varas has the answer: the problem is not just those who have “participated in genocide,” but “many more who have known about it and supported it”.

So let me make things easy for her, for the activists, and for Social Democrats who intend to make themselves dependent on the Left Party’s support. I want to save you the cost of intelligence gathering and digging through old records. I am coming forward voluntarily. I served in the IDF. It was in the 1990s, but compromising photographs are available. Here's one. I am Israeli and a Zionist. Come and get me!

David Stavrou as an IDF soldier in the mid-1990s. Photo: Private.

I have no intention of denying my identity just because life happened to bring me to Sweden. I understand that some people would prefer their Jews to be anti-Zionist, apologetic and perpetually ashamed. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the goods. I grew up where buses were blown up, people were torn to bits in restaurants and caffes and rockets struck people’s homes. When I came of age, I performed my compulsory military service. I committed no war crimes. I murdered no children. But neither did I believe that my country, my family or my fellow human beings had any moral obligation to voluntarily allow themselves to be killed.

There are good reasons to scrutinize Israel’s conduct of war and criticize its government. Turning nationality or past military service into evidence of criminality, however, is something entirely different. When you speak of people who are “allowed to live among us,” you have already made up your mind.

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?

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.