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 on Israel Hayom: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=18805