Development Site - Changes here will not affect the live (production) site.

The Terrorist Attack in Sweden Suggests a Motive Other than “Retaliation”

April 14 2017

Watching Swedish television report the truck-ramming attack in Stockholm last Friday, Annika Hernroth-Rothstein came to some disturbing conclusions:

The most common explanation of previous attacks around Europe has been that Islamic State was retaliating against countries with some sort of military involvement in the Middle East, but in this case we know that is not true. Sweden, famously anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian and infamously neutral in every great conflict, has done little to merit such retaliation, which means we must look at this another way.

While reporting on the attack, the reporters kept saying, “This is exactly the same method used in the attacks in France, Germany, and England.” I noticed that each time one country was carefully left out. Israel saw these attacks first, . . . but saying so would mean admitting that we are all victims of the same terrorism and must all [work] together to stop it. Coming to that conclusion would not only mean a dramatic detour from [current] Swedish policy on Middle East affairs but it would probably also result in an identity crisis, as Sweden would have to learn from its imaginary enemy—[Israel]—how to combat the real one at its door. . . .

[Instead], the probable outcome will be nothing more than a few vaguely supportive rallies in the name of love, while hate is let in through the back door.

Read more at Israel Hayom

More about: Europe and Israel, European Jewry, ISIS, Politics & Current Affairs, Sweden, Terrorism

The Summary: 10/7/20

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.

Read more at Mosaic