A Thought Experiment?

Israel and the Surrender of the West - WSJ.com: "This is something new in the world, this almost complete segregation of Israel in the community of nations. And if Helen Thomas's remarks were pathetic and ugly, didn't they also point to the end game of this isolation effort: the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation?"

Ulf Bjereld brings statistics to the fore on DN.se today in discussing the foreign policy of Sweden. I have seen comments in the Israeli press where they are not very interested in what the Swedes say about Israel. Sweden is far away and represents relatively few people. Justifying my own interest in the situation of Israel, I am interested in Judaism and in the pursuit of the state Israel, which is impressive. The above cited article on WSJ.com tries to discuss the reason for why Israel is scape goated today.

Concerning Helen Thomas' conclusion, I wonder if she did not have partly the same idea as I when I early on in the wake of Operation Cast Lead concluded that the best choice for Israel might have been an exodus if this indeed is the end game of Iran et al. I have since realized that Israel's security situation is not that precarious. Living in Sweden and reading the Swedish press I definitely get a feeling that anti-semitism is a growing problem though. Jews feel they have to leave the third largest town of Sweden, Malmö, for their security.

The notion of a "surrender of the West" as a phenomenon that morally scape goats Israel is of course an interesting thing, if true. The "third world" is gaining in clout and the West is suffering from second thoughts based on their past of racism, colonialism etc. I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion because the benefits to the world from the activity of the West is so great that it outweighs past injustice. I don't fear hatred from what was once called the third world.

The hard question is what fuels the hatred of Palestinians so that 50% harbor thoughts that suicide bombing is OK? Shelby Steele says "If the Palestinians got everything they want—a sovereign nation and even, let's say, a nuclear weapon—they would wake the next morning still hounded by a sense of inferiority. For better or for worse, modernity is now the measure of man".

Very much depends on which friends you choose. Israel exports 35% of their goods to the US, for example. It is politically correct in Sweden that one should treat Israel and a future Palestine equally but I must say that the actions over time makes me more impressed by Israel. However, the reason for the belligerency of the Palestinians is perhaps not inferiority? I have gotten a feeling that it is that wretched piece of land that everyone covets. For Hamas it represents a waqf. Furthermore they never accepted "The World's" idea to place the Jews there.

Steele's question is highly warranted though. Is world opinion changing on the legitimacy of Israel's small piece of land? Personally, I don't think the Jews are on occupied territory. They were attacked during the Six Day War and won, to the surprise of many. In such a situation it is highly justified to keep land for one's own protection. A moral punishment for the attackers.

Iran Sanctions' Status

Editorial - Iran, Sanctions and Mr. Gates’s Memo - NYTimes.com: "There, the news is not good. While Russian and Chinese leaders told Mr. Obama that they will work seriously on new sanctions, diplomats say their representatives are already seeking ways to dilute any resolution. Brazil and Turkey, which currently sit on the Security Council and have a lot of international sway, also are resisting."

If you look back a while, there is a picture emerging of an endless discussion of talks, sanctions and bombs when it comes to Iran. The point were Iran would have a nuclear weapon capability is pushed forward all the time--in absurdum. Apparently the distinction between a nuclear capable Iran and the one today cannot even be discussed in the open. However, the window of opportunity is slowly closing now when Brazil and Turkey are against sanctions as well. Many would agree that something has to be done and it seems evident that Europe has to make up its mind if it wants to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or if it still is in NATO? The problems in Afghanistan are linked to those in Israel/Palestine and Iraq. Iran is the key.

The waves in Europe have recently been geared at giving the view that the world has become a true multipolar entity. It seems to fit Europe to want to disappear from view among themselves and to express an intense urge to be left alone in peace. In the mean time, countries like Russia is meddling in the world as detailed in an article by Bronwen Maddox at the Times. Security arrangements with Russia ought to be out of question as suggested in an article by Ben Knight in Deutsche Welle.

I think I wrote something yesterday but I can't resist writing a little today about what I think is very important, that Europe realizes that the US is the only friend they have. The Russia friendliness as of late in Europe seems to disregard totally the mental power fight surrounding the Iran case between the two power blocks that were detailed by Robert Kagan in the presidential election debate of 2008. It is a serious breach of confidence with the US, who seem to want to work along the line of striking deals with Russia and China on security issues which are not possible if they are not of the token quality recently seen in removing nuclear missiles.

An article in Washington Post yesterday claimed it was time to pack up and leave Afghanistan, and to give up American influence in the World altogether, but that probably also means that you loose the other Middle Eastern fights to a resurgent Iran. Fareed Zakaria who wrote the book The Post-American World still think the fight in Afghanistan is worth its while and he also think people should go more easy on Hamid Karzai for its facilitation. He also suggested that this was in part for the sake of India which he hails from. Trans-Atlantic influence in the world remains very important.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we are dealing with a new Cold War. Between countries that don't know how to behave and those who do. Between countries that have decent governments with low corruption and those who don't. Between democracy and authoritarianism. Again, the key is Iran and we eagerly await the destabilization of its suppressive rule.

What's worse?

Column One: Keeping Zionism's promise: "On the one hand, we have Netanyahu, who is clearly focused on preventing another Holocaust of Jewry. But on the other hand, we have Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Tuesday claimed that the absence of peace with the Palestinians – not Iran – is the greatest threat that Israel faces today. As he put it, “The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future.”"

Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post writes that there is different opinions about which is worse a bomb from Iran or the World's opinion against Israel due to the Palestinian issue. She also discusses the problems in Malmö of fleeing Jews.

The problem with trying to alleviate the risk of nuclear proliferation in Iran is that bombing Iran will make Barak's worries greater. Israel seems positioned between the rock and the hard place.

The question is then of Kagan's idea of a higher probability for a regime change in Iran than that they stop their nuclear program is to wonder whether a regime change will improve the Palestinian issue by weakening the support to Hamas and Hizbollah? However, a regime change is probably easier talked about than accomplished.

The Iranian issue is otherwise heating up as Tony Blair during his questioning yesterday said that he thinks the risk we face with Iran today is greater than that with Iraq in 2003. His take on this issue must be considered important as he has travelled the Middle East for some years now as a Peace Envoy.

Israel and Turkey in EU?

10 frågor för 2010 - Anna Dahlberg - Expressen.se: "En av det gångna årets största besvikelser var när Obama retirerade från kravet på Israel att stoppa bosättningsexpansionen på ockuperad mark. Samme Obama som kritiserat Bush för att inte ha engagerat sig tillräckligt i den israelisk-palestinska konflikten framstod själv som både passiv och tafatt."

According to The Jerusalem Post, Israel is in love with Europe, a love that is not reciprocal. 30% of Europeans believed Jews created the financial crisis. However, many argue for adding Turkey to the EU despite animosities against Muslims in Europe as viewed recently with the anti-minaret vote in Switzerland. The time period discussed to peace between Israel and Palestine varies from 2 years to 15 years.

Dahlberg wants Obama to act but why do we not act ourselves. David Brooks, a Op-Ed writer of The New York Times, wrote that Israel is in reality a Middle Eastern country rather than an outpost of the West in the Middle East. However, if you compare with allowing the entry of 80m Muslims that also are Middle Eastern, adding 7m Israelis is not much to argue about. I don't know why I have never seen this issue discussed in the press but the 1.3m Jewish diaspora in Europe would not mind, I guess. Israel is participating in the European Song Contest after all.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians depend on the security aspect of the Israelis to a great extent. Military control over the West Bank is necessary to protect the Israelian heartland. Obviously the security of Israel would be significantly improved if it would become an EU member. Being 7m Jews among 300m angry Muslims is one thing but being part of a 500m EU block is quite another. The constitutional state of Israel should not cause the same problems as does that of Turkey. The discussion of a one-state or two-state solution becomes much less important if one or both countries merge into something greater.

The membership of both Israel and Turkey in the EU would greatly balance anti-semitism and anti-Muslim sentiments. If we really are interested in peace in the Middle East, why don't we get involved seriously. Just adding Turkey to the EU would greatly increase anti-semitism in Europe to perhaps intolerable levels.

East Jerusalem?

Ulf Bjereld: "Dokumentet antyder också att EU skulle kunna erkänna en palestinsk stat, om palestinierna bestämmer sig för att utropa en sådan, även utan att en israelisk-palestinsk freduppgörelse har uppnåtts."

EU is apparently about to take a stand in the question about the fate of East Jerusalem. According to the Israelis it belongs to Israel since the six day war 1967. After all Israel was attacked and the attacker lost the fight as well as some territory which in essence then must be regarded as fair. Tzipi Livni, the opposition leader in Israel has discussed the issue with Nicholas Sarkozy and said that she thinks it would be unfortunate if the EU made up its mind in advance in such a way.

I have a feeling that should the EU support a Palestinian state even without a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine they would become in principle at war with Israel and this must be very unfortunate.

Carl Bildt writes on his blog today that he thinks such a move will enhance the possibility of restarting peace negotiations. The position of the US was according to a Canadian journal that the status of East Jerusalem is a topic for discussions. A person like Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post thinks that Jersalem belongs to Israel and that a state usually does not give up its capital city. At least not and surviving.

The existence of Muslim buildings on the temple mount is a proof that conquerors tend to take charge of a conquered land. Therefore Israel is now in charge of East Jerusalem. Otherwise there would not be any Muslim buildings on the site. The difference is that Israel defended itself.

Fayyad run without politics?

Palestinian Leader Maps Plan for Separate State - NYTimes.com: "The plan, the first of its kind from the Palestinian Authority, sets out national goals and priorities and operational instructions for ministries and official bodies. Mr. Fayyad said it was meant to hasten the end of the Israeli occupation and pave the way to independent statehood, which he said “can and must happen within the next two years.”"

Why bother with politics! Let us just have a state! In the spirit of people like the Texas governor Rick Perry, Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Prime Minister, wants to build the institutions of a state in two years. This is pragmatism in action.

One problem is that the capital city of the purported state is going to be situated in East Jerusalem and that Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israelian prime minister does not want to divide Jerusalem at all.

Well, if Fayyad can organize Palestine in two years, I'm not sure I wish him well, because it would probably depend on "magic" and might backfire.

The other thing I wonder about is what will happen in two years if a state have not materialized? Will 80,000 Hizbollah rockets start to fly?

Hmm?

The Fatal Quiet: Netanyahu Leaves Divided Israel for Europe Trip - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International: "Segev sounds skeptical, almost resigned. Is there no glimmer of hope on the horizon? Yes, there is, he says: Marwan Barghouti. Sentenced to life in prison for three murders, the Palestinian leader has been in an Israeli prison since 2002. But he is believed to have become increasingly moderate and have developed into a proponent of peace. At the Fatah congress in early August, Barghouti, 50, was voted into the party's central committee with the third-largest number of votes of all candidates."

This article argues that Netanyahu has divided Israel, which is a lie, because it was divided already at the election. People here in Sweden and in Germany do not seem to understand, or accept rather, that Israel moved to the right. Democratically. Some see the status quo as good because they have problems understanding how peace would materialize, others see people like Barghouti as future partners for peace.

The government vs the press

Some people say that the Swedish government can't comment on articles in the press. Well, there are quite o few articles written most of the time and it would be very difficult for the government to say anything without commenting on one of these articles.

Therefore it would be quite proper for the government to say that the majority of Sweden doesn't like the article by Boström in Aftonbladet.

The Organtransplant Conflict between Sweden and Israel

Donald Boström om hur palestinier anklagar Israels armé för att stjäla kroppsdelar från sina offer. Kultur Aftonbladet: "Jag var i området och arbetade med en bok när jag ett antal gånger blev kontaktad av FN-anställda som var oroade över utvecklingen. De som kontaktade mig menade att organstöld faktiskt ägde rum, men att de var förhindrade att agera. På uppdrag av ett tv-bolag reste jag därefter runt och talade med ett stort antal palestinska familjer på Västbanken och Gaza som menade att deras söner blivit bestulna på organ innan de dödades."

Yes, Donald Boström, a freelance journalist, writes that he talked to Palestinian families that claim that their sons had been abducted alive, their organs stolen, and then killed. this is of course what happens if you talk to people where 50% think it is OK to suicide bomb Israel, as the Palestinians do. It demonstrates that there is a war going on between Israel and Palestine. If people like Palestinians they want to investigate this further and if you are for the Israelis you think the story is ludicrous. I'm for Israel. Interestingly, the US and the EU are placed in between Israel and Palestine and this creates a situation where an article of this sort becomes highly volatile.

There has been a lot written on this the last couple of days and Carl Bildt wrote on his blog what I also think. You can write an article in this country of this nature due to the freedom of speech and we don't accept that Israel tells the Swedish state to stop this kind of journalism. However, I myself also sympathize with the Swedish Ambassador to Israel, Elisabeth Borsiin Bonnier, who condemned the article. I think it is bad taste to write such proposals in the way that the article is written. A belittling and sensationalistic style. It is perfectly OK for UD to express that they don't like the article even if they don't close down Aftonbladet.

Further Cell Divisions?

Fatah leader hints at party split Middle East Jerusalem Post: "As more than 2,000 delegates gathered in Bethlehem for the long-delayed Sixth Fatah Congress, the leader of Fatah in Bethlehem warned of a split in the party if the leadership denies a role to the younger generation who launched a wave of violence against Israel in the second intifada."

The article discusses the possibility of a third Intifada and they give another illustrative citation:

"We can't say that the old people are expired," he said. "We can't say this because we are still in need, you know, for their wisdom and their experience. However, we will like also to see the young people participate in this movement and have their role, their active role."

Mona Sahlin is apparently vising the congress held in Bethlehem. It would be interesting to read about her assessment.

Berlin equals Judea and Samaria?

It occurred to me that it is possible to perform a thought experiment where Berlin 1958-1963 is compared with Judea and Samaria of today.

Judea and Samaria is inhabitated with Jews (West Berliners) and Palestinians (East Berliners). The Soviet Union is the Arab world and Israel is of course West Germany. There is at least one problem with the model and that is that the Palestinians don't speak Hebrew.

After the Berlin crisis, West Berlin was stuck without interference for 26 years before the wall came down 1989. Netanyahu speak about an economic development that would transform the area to equilibrate it which would be consistent with this time-frame.

It would be a one-state two people solution. Reading in Der Spiegel that there are East Germans that want communism back. Maybe Germany was a one-state two people solution as well?

This solution would demand equality between Jews and Palestinians to bring it out from accusations of an apartheid system, which makes it less probable but still possible.