Why Did Sweden Recognize a Non-Existent Palestinian State?

The answer lies in an all-too-familiar combination of runaway multiculturalism, muddled thinking, anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism, and a Muslim immigrant population that contains a vocal and unchecked Islamist element. Denis MacEoin writes:

Swedish Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews found a perfect vehicle for expressing the very things that, under other circumstances, might have brought that hatred hard against a brick wall of national tolerance. That wall would have been built from the bricks of Swedish liberal values, the widespread absence of anti-Semitism among native Swedes, the country’s long-standing sense of individual and communal democracy, concern for the downtrodden, moral conscience, moderate socialism, and commitment to human rights. In a sane world, all these things would lead to strong support for Jews under attack and sympathy for a Jewish state beleaguered from all sides by Islamist forces, from Hamas to Hizballah to Islamic State. In Sweden now, anti-Semitism dressed as anti-Israelism is widespread, not least among sections of the political class.

Read more at Gatestone

More about: Anti-Zionism, European Islam, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Sweden


As Hamas’s Reign of Terror Endures, the International Community Remains Obsessed with Jews Living in the Wrong Places

On Thursday, foreign ministers of the G-7—the U.S., Canada, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy—along with the EU, made an official “statement on the situation in the West Bank,” an area where they are very concerned, it appears, that too many Jews are dwelling. In particular, the G-7 condemned Israel’s decision to grant municipal status to five ad-hoc villages built without proper permits. Elliott Abrams comments:

I can see “condemning” murder, terror, kidnapping, and “rejecting” that legalization. Indeed in the next sentence they “reject the decision by the government of Israel to declare over 1,270 hectares of land in the West Bank as ‘state lands.’” Building houses should not be treated with language usually reserved for murder.

The statement then added complaints about the Israeli settlement program more generally, and about Israel’s decision to withhold some tax revenues it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Why does Israel ever withhold such funds? Sometimes it is in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. Sometimes it’s domestic politics. But it’s worth remembering something else: the Taylor Force Act, which became law in 2018 and stated that the “Palestinian Authority’s practice of paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists, is an incentive to commit acts of terror.” Until those payments cease, most forms of aid from the U.S. government to the Palestinian Authority may not be made. The payments continue. It is not clear if the State Department is pressuring the Palestinian Authority to end them.

Such moral considerations are entirely absent from the G-7 statement. The statement may be correct when it says, “maintaining economic stability in the West Bank is critical for regional security.” But it should be obvious that ending the pay-for-slay program and rewards for terrorism is even more critical for regional security. It’s a pity the G-7 did not find time to mention that.

The statement, it’s worth noting, appeared on the U.S. State Department website.

Read more at Pressure Points

More about: Europe and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terror, U.S. Foreign policy, West Bank