Sweden fails the 3-D test (again)
I discussed the 3-D test for detecting anti-Semitism here. Last week, Sweden's largest pension fund failed the test by divesting from Elbit Corporation. Elbit has provided technology that is used for Israel's 'security fence.' In this context the Elbit case is instructive. Forsta’s “Ethical Council” has determined that Elbit is complicit with “violations of fundamental conventions and norms” arising from its security involvement. The council cites anti-barrier pronouncements by the Swedish government, the EU and the International Court of Justice – all forums in which Israel is unlikely to receive an impartial hearing, let alone a modicum of sympathy.The reference to an 'ethical council' is positively Orwellian.
Israel ought to be able to expect fellow democracies to understand that it was vicious terrorist onslaughts which impelled it to erect the barrier. It resorted to the measure to save the lives of Israelis civilians, exposed to the relentless bombing campaign of the second intifada. We owe nobody an apology for looking after our safety.
The most horrific tragedy that underscored the fence’s indispensability was the Seder night atrocity at Netanya’s Park Hotel in 2002. Tellingly, European pension funds and supermarket chains weren’t sufficiently outraged by that bloodletting to withdraw any investments from terror-sponsoring states.
THE BARRIER – along with ceaseless vigilance by Israel’s security forces – has helped prevent many more ghastly massacres. We must, therefore, wonder whether preserving Israeli lives is at all considered a legitimate aim by Europeans.
When we weigh Forsta’s move we must sadly conclude that it fails Natan Sharansky’s three-D test: Censure of Israel cannot be judged as objective if it is rooted in Israel’s demonization, delegitimization and its subjection to double standards.
The gross misrepresentation of large-scale Israeli anti-terror offensives as “disproportionate” slaughter must qualify as demonization. The canard about Jenin massacres during 2002’s Operation Defensive Shield – which, like the barrier, was directly instigated by the Park Hotel carnage – constitutes a cogent example.
The barrier, meanwhile, was as defensive a response as could be. When even the right to passive protection is denied Israel, it must be counted as delegitimization of any mode of Israeli self-defense. Israel is apparently expected to do nothing to safeguard its citizens.
What do you expect from a country that elects a schmuck like the one pictured at the top of this post to be its foreign minister?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:30 AM
2 Comments:
You are quite right to high-light the decision by the Swedis pension fund to divest from Israel. However, I want to clarify one thing. The schmuck pictured, FM Carl Bildt, was not elected by the voters.
Before the election (2006) it was pretty clear that the party leader of the Liberals would become FM if the Alliance won. But he and his party got involved in a scandal during the election, and he hd to be demoted to a less imprtant postition. The selection (note Mr Bildt never stood as a candidate and is not a member o the parliament) of Mr Bildt as FM came as a complete surprise to most voters and commentators. I personally would never have voted for any of the Alliance parties if I had known Mr Bildt would be considered for his present role.
Carl Bildt is the kind of person who makes one reconsider one's faith in humanity. Just what did Israel do to incur Sweden's enmity? Its time Israel stopped apologizing to the rest of the world for pursuing its own national interests.
Post a Comment
<< Home