The one & only reason for recognizing Israel

Equivocal pressures towards the new Palestinian leaders may instead confuse the logical and geopolitical premises of facts around the existence of the Israel state. In the same factual fashion, a Hama majority elected government does exist in Palestine, regardless anyone’s wishes of regarding that truth as unreal.

In the aftermath of Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections have EU and other Western sectors of interest put forward a main threat to the new elected Palestinian leaders than can sumarizes as: “Do recognize the existence of the Israel state now, otherwise we shall stop the economic aid to Palestine”. The Swedish government seems to rapidly have endorsed that formulation.

It is beyond doubt that the intention of the threat is just to get the new leaders on the course of a peace-policy under terms serving EU interest in the region. So be it, that is what international politics is about. But the argument is indeed utterly absurd - and even if unintentionally- nontheless insulting, and risky. The money related argument should be immediately eradicated from the above formulations.

The one and only argument it should be that the existence of the Israel state has to be recognized because their habitants do have the human right to exist as the nation they are, exactly in the same way that the habitants of a Palestinian state have, or for that part the Swedish people does.


Furthermore:

EU can not possibly “buy” the formal recognition of Israel from a political movement which have made its political advances in Palestine through, among other, their critic of the alleged corruption and penny-related orientation in some decisions about state business in Palestine.

In the second place, EU and the countries there belong did not decided to grant this aid to a certain government in Palestine, but to all Palestinians and for helping covering their needs of development of their institutions towards the secure of minimal wellbeing for all.

In the third place, this aid has been so fundamentally necessary due to the embargo and the economic/political blockage imposed by the Israel government and which affects the entirely Palestine population.

If EU or USA does not wish to spend their money in Palestine, they should instead put pressure on Israel towards a lift of such draconian measures that the ocupation of Palestine territories have signified for ordinary Palestinian's lives, irrespectively of political militancy.

Strictly, frontiers in this world are an accident of civilization's wrong development.

Support the continuation of fair peace talks in the Middle East!

The Guardian cartoon

ADDENDA

In the leading article Occupation is an obstacle for peace by the former USA President Jimmy Carter, published in Dagens Nyheter on March the 10th (translation of Henrik Berggren), the author summarizes approximately the same standpoint I wrote above (19 of February) in regard to the need of mutual recognition - between Israelis and Palestinians- of the existence of their respective states, and the characterization of Israel occupation of Palestinian soil as deplorable for the cause of peace. Jimmy Carter was chairman in situ of a main observer team during the recent elections in Palestine. This is the summary according to the DN translation:

”Vi behöver inte ge upp hoppet om en permanent fred för Israel och frihet och rättvisa för palestinierna om tre grundläggande villkor respekteras:

1. Israels rätt att existera - och leva i fred - måste erkännas av palestinierna och alla andra grannar.

2. Dödandet av oskyldiga människor genom självmordsattacker och andra våldshandlingar måste upphöra.

3. Palestinierna måste få leva i fred och värdighet, permanenta israeliska bosättningar på deras mark är ett stort hinder för att uppnå detta mål”.

In the picture Jimmy Carter together with Nobel Peace laureates Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, after signing a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979.

A clump in the throat

The horror of gang's physical abuse against defenceless victims

The physical abuse of gangs against single individuals it is awful, unethical, and an act of genuine cowardly. Nothing for real men. Deliberate adult physical violence against children or teenagers is more than horrible. But a gang of soldiers with helmet, boots, equipped with sticks and firearms weaponry, beating on and on some children until they collapse in pain, has no term, no noun, and no verb to be referred.

Provided that exile for many of us it was an external determined fact (forced migration, as it is called in modern times. The original name being ostracism), the main question is not why are we here but whether destiny has given us a worth reason to die in another place than we were born.

Attending a private memorial at a churchyard in the neighbourhood on the morning of New Year’s Eve, I realized that I have lived in Sweden the most part of my life, altogether, more than thirty-two years. I was then confronted to the following quest.

What could I say on what is it good and what is it bad in this, my country of exile?

Frankly, I found very many good things. And I found just very few negative ones. Sweden may not be the hyper fantastic country which some advertise. However, in comparing this country with all rest, very many of us would hardly find a better one to live in, considering the overall factors.

The theme developed here is about one of those few things.

Some days later that New Year’s Eve, to be exact on January the 8th, I wrote this letter to two colleagues at the University of Gävle:

Dear colleagues,

I would like to invite you to reflect over the following:

I was told of this story by a psychiatrist, working at that time at Danderyd Hospital.

She is in the subway towards her job. Just a bid away from where she is seated, three skin heads start, unprovoked, harassing an immigrant woman. The woman just seats there, looking down to the floor. The skinheads get more and more excited.

"Suddenly, the skinheads start to hit the woman, now and then, here and there", she described. "A Swedish man in the seat beside, well dressed, and around the age of 35-40, gets apparently very upset with what we witness. He then takes quietly out his cellular, and makes a call speaking in a soft voice. "

- "I called the police" - the man said to my friend "looking with a genuine satisfaction on his face, and proud in his air of appearance." My friend tells me she could not hear however what he exactly said over the phone.

Rightly, two subway-stations after, two police officers - a man and a woman- enter in the wagon equipped with a decisive attitude and with their batons on hand. They go directly where the crushed and beaten immigrant woman is, handcuff her, and hurriedly took her out under arrest.

That was all, and the train continued. Peace in Sweden could go on.

End of the letter. The above story was told to me several years ago. Some details have may fade away and others must have changed through the several memories elicited differently from time to time, whenever a similar case of abuse - like the one I refer at the end of this chapter - pops up in my reading horizon.

This is the thing:

One problem that always has puzzled me about modern Sweden is that Swedes do not always intervene when confronted to the sight of physical abuse to defenceless victims on the streets, subways, public places, etc. I do not imply that they do not react. They surely do, but it is not allways expressed in a more concrete fashion.

I have been living here for more than 30 years (after been a Geneva Convention refugee, which was after I have been in Italy, which was after I have been in Pinochet's concentration camp of Quiriquina Island, which was after I was professor at the University of Concepción, which was after I participated in the foundation of MIR - a movement of the new left of the sixties). I could say that during this long time in Sweden I have not seen here often, or hear often, on others than immigrants to stand up for the one beated up, regardless ethnicity.

The above personal impression, also based on my readings, while it may be true is nevertheless not utterly just.

For there are notorious cases in which young Swedes have even sacrificed their lives when intervening and combating gang violence on behalf of the individual defenceless.

So it was not before, generally speaking. In the early seventies I visited Sweden as university student. I lived then in Frescati, the university campus in Stockholm. It was definitely wilder that it is now (me included). Many things could happen. In most of those things there were the Swedes, intervening, rescuing, and behaving.

What has happened? Is it violence which has changed? Is it people's sense of solidarity? Or both, or more?

A Swedish taxi driver in Umeå, commenting the harsh violence of gangs beating up some one guy "already on the ground", told me: "In our times, when I was young, this never could happen in Sweden". "Certainly we had fighting, but never this way, it was more fighting as a man", he said. What did he concretely meant I could only guess. But in this case I reckon I guessed right.

The physical abuse of gangs against single individuals it is awful, unethical, and an act of genuine cowardly. Nothing for real men.

Deliberate adult physical violence against children is more than horrible.

But a gang of soldiers with helmet, boots, equipped with sticks and firearms weaponry, beating on and on some children until they collapse, has no term, no noun, and no verb to be referred.

It is just to be fought against.

I saw at BBC news a glimpse of the video reproduced from News of the World. We saw it suddenly popping up among the news, in family. While some could not stop the tears, other felt a stiff clump in the throat. But also we felt something distinctly else.

I have found today the original version of the video by News of the World. It is more detailed than the news version of BBC, Sky news or SVT. In the SVT short-edited version the most relevant and dramatic sequences of the video are replaced by the pictures and interview of Tony Blair! Here below I show a video I did film myself directly from the TV screen while Skynews went on.

I take my risks in showing it here with the hope of having my Swedish and immigramt colleagues of all adult ages reacting as the old taxi man in Umeå. I expect to share not only my sorrow, but also my rage.

Click on camara below

for the video

Making compatibles Freedom of Speech and banning of uttered offences

What to do

Judging from the various Swedish political, union, or editorial opinions, the apparent contradiction on how to react to the cartoon publications is neither conclusive nor constructive. The contradiction is not even logical necessary. In my opinion, it is absolutely possible to make compatibles Freedom of Speech and penalize uttered offences.

"Aren't people absurd! They never use the freedoms they do have, but demand those they don't have; they have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech." Søren Kierkegaard, Diapsalmata, Either/Or, 1843

The reactions in Sweden after the Intelligence Service (SÄPO) solution of advice the temporarily closing of the SD (due to the publication of the cartoons) can be reduced to the following dichotomy:

Group A

• It was good because it averted possible domestic confrontation between Muslim immigrant and the followers of the SD
• It was good because this prevented possible harassment to Swedes abroad

Group B

• It was not good because this is “to give up” against a “threat” and thus a very bad message which may open for further threats
• It was not good because the “Freedom of speech/publication” may have been violated

The exercised solution is not a solution to last in the long run. For in any moment could the same or another political or community organization pop up and infringe a similar kind of offences, and not necessarily towards the Muslims but to any other religious or ethnic group.

The reason for that false dichotomy possibly lies in a fixed paradigm wich averts for the understanding of the problem's core. And with this, averting possibilities to find a more stabile solution.

The core of the problem is not what we can say or write, what we are allowed to say or write, according to the Freedom of Speech. The crux is whether - in the moment of that saying or writing - we are fully aware of the consequences not only upon the integrity of others, but also of the collateral damage for others, caused by those reactions. If we consciously infringe that principle, we are accounted for malicious intent, and thus, as intellectual instigators of the disaster.

For this there is no law. But we could have one.

Laws, as such, are characterized by their coercion potential. This is the feature that differentiates law postulates from moral postulates. A moral principle can be infringed without the individual expecting a juridical-based punishment, such as prison. The one breaking a law has always to expect the coercion (the penalty) entailed in that breaking. Penalty is embedded in the law, could we simply say.

This law should have a possibility of enforcement such as in the following illustration. If I know, if I am well aware, that by publishing this verse I would cause inevitably a reaction which put in danger the life of my own people abroad, the onus probandis (in the sense of penalty potential) is not to be found in what I am publishing (since for it I am allowed by the law Freedom of Speech), but in the magnitude of the consequences I will accounted for because (and if) that consequences were to a significant extent due to my publishing.

The degree of "significant extent" is not that difficult to assess with help of causality criteria, examination of confounding factors, etc., and in general with tools of that kind we use - or at least we are suppose to use - in epidemiological research settings (in fact, many "emergent" epidemiological phenomena, such "burn-out", base much of its popularity in the absence of those tests of causality criteria. See here).

You may ask how I will know in advance of that particular consequence. The answer is not complicated, although dialectical. Here follow some criteria, although only Nr 3 criteria may have juridical relevancy.

1. First, you may use your common sense.
2. Second, you have the Kantian principle of abstaining of behaviours you would not accept infringed against yourself or against your own society, or system of believes.
3. Third, and here the aggravating potential could be found, if a similar act (similar to your publishing) has recently resulted in repetitive and similar consequences.

Breaking-down:

If, a) a similar act b) has recently c) resulted in repetitive d) and similar consequences

• a) The penal scale goes after the degree of correspondence. In this case, an equal content of the publishing, the re-publishing of the same graphic etc., scores highest in the scale.
• b) The penal scale goes from recently to longer back in time. For time can change response behaviours due to socio-historical accounts.
• c) The penal scale goes after the replication frequency of the response. The more repeated the response, the obvious that your publishing will evoce response.
• d) The penal scale goes after the degree of intensity or amplitud in the "epidemiology" of the similar response.

Of course that all above, solely in case basic ethical principles have not naturally already intervened in your reasoning, long before this process, and advised you the right path. This is what I deem has happened with most of the Swedish newspapers and media regarding the issue of publishing or not the infamous cartoons. They just simply abstained by their own ethics and common sense, even if they had the full legal right to publish the material.

In other words what here is suggested it is a changing of a cultural praxis through legal mechanisms. Changing towards the behaviour of ourselves taking the responsibility for what ourselves say or write.

What is the accepted common praxis in Sweden? People can say things, insult, behave verbally in a very aggressive or nasty way without expecting consequences. If you in Sweden react like in other countries such as in the USA - where “giving one light punch” to the offender is a response for many regarded as “culturally” accepted- you can go to jail. If you react by saying sharp “do not do this again or take the consequences”, in Sweden that saying will be automatically regarded as a “warning”, which can easily be interpreted as olaga hot (unlawful threat) and therefore juridical liable. You can get jail in other words. Not to mention what it would happen if you use some violence against a thief breaking “quietly” in your house in the middle of a night and robe you everything. You may get prison for years.

Coming back to our central issue. The impact and dimension of such behaviours (the "allowed by the law" insulting other cultures or religious groups) in the international arena – particularly those with a background of severe conflicts and wars - entail much aggravating consequences.

• First, because those costs are huge collectively sensed by the nation affected
• Second, because the retaliation of international multitudes is exercised against the all society from which the “innocent” offence, even if individually designed, did departure. This is an unfair consequence, but a very real one.

This is the case of the recent boycott to the Danish Arla. The same type of feared measure against Volvo, Ericsson, Ikea, etc, was averted by a one-time decision seemingly taken in Sweden by cleaver officials at the Secret Police (the “invitation” of closing the SD website containing republishing of the cartoons). What now it needs to be done is to find a juridical instrument for an all-time praxis in order to avert these dangerous potentials.

Concluding

In my opinion, it is entirely possible to make compatibles Freedom of Speech and banning of uttered offences.

See different opinions on this topic in Sweden at yttrandefrihet

Sweden: Closing of a website opens for some questions

Not because it was wrong, but dangerous

The Swedish Secret Police (SÄPO) may have shown here to act quite cleaver. But seemingly not neutral. On the other hand, is there any official institution which is at heart neutral on the issue "refugees and immigrants"?

With cybernetic acceleration the Swedish public has been informed on the following happenings of the 10th of February: a) After "advice" from the Swedish Secret Police, a website allocated to a small far-rightist party (SD), and which had recently re-published some infamous anti-Muslim cartoons, was "closed", b) The Imam in Stockholm expressed gratitude to the Swedish government for its attitude, and c) The Swedish Foreign Minister manifested "the government had nothing to do with the closing of the publication".

The general message delivered to the Muslim community is that the closing of the site (in fact, the lifting of the offensive materials) goes in line with the respect they have asked - and deserve, as any other faith - towards its religious traditions, as long those do not imply intolerant behaviour or the exercise of violence. I think this formulation interprets what most Swedes and immigrants do we have as general principle in this matter.

The move is also internationally political correct, by means of following the appeal of the UN General Secretary on this issue. The Muslims thanked to the government, right from the Imam's podium at their Mosque in Stockholm.

By arguing the government did not intervene upon the editors of the SP Journal online through a direct exercised prohibition of the publication, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Laila Freivalds (photo DN 12/2 2005) secured the Swedish praxis of non-violating the Freedom of the press and speech, and with this, providing a kind of solidarity with the line staunchly defended – If not purely as resons of pretext – by Danish counterparts.

Neutrality was also served here by means of declaring it was not a question of unwaveringly ordering this or that, but instead just a matter of “informing” the owner of the Internet server of what the publication would entail for Swedish interests. And the elegant touch: No direct contact from the government side was made with the editors of the journal on line in question.

On the other hand:

Seemingly, the Swedish Secret Police did not primarily act to protect the integrity of the offended Muslim immigrant community against this flagrant insult from SD, a party considered in Sweden as having a frank racist ideology. The reason publicly given was to protect partly the owners of the commercial Website, and the people responsible of editing and publishing the offensive anti Muslim material. "Anonimous" or private sites in Sweden continued to link towards where the cartoons would still be found.

This is what Mr. Klas Bergenstrand, the highest rank commander at the Swedish Secret Police expressed in the newspaper Dagens Nyheter (11/2 05, article of Stafan Kihström):

"We shall prevent crime, and we have seen an imminent risk for crimes which can be exercised against those who have produced and were responsible for the website. Thus it is our duty to inform on that. We did this without request, without petition, insinuations, or appeals.” “If something would have been done against the SD party-members or the one technically responsible (for the publications) it would have existed reason for criticizing us”.

No word whatsoever was directed on the ethical issue of the publication, neither in regard to protective measures towards the Muslim minority permanently targeted by the SD party and other racist sectors. Possibly, if this protection is done, would it be done discretely.

The entirely message seems to be "Not because it is wrong, but because it is dangerous".

Nevertheless, the bottom line here is that the all operation around the closing of the website was a clean & cleaver move, and which gave many scores with only one swing. Judging from the DN-picture above with the heading "Jag visste inte vad Puhket var" (a popular vacation site for Swedes, hit by the Tsunami), the credit for the operation design - that certainly will prevent potential harassment of many Swedes at some Middle East, Asian and African countries - most surely goes to SÄPO.

Denmark and Danes

Who are we referring to?

Just a brief reflection that, by implication, may as well result self-critical:

When we refer "Denmark" in our pro and against arguments towards a political behaviour of some, or many Danes. Can we do this in the name of logics? are we here epidemiological-nosology correct? And above all, is it fair ?

In Sweden "Denmark" is often presented in the media as an indivisible geopolitical or idiosyncratic entity. "We shall stand for Denmark", and so on. However, Denmark is more than the Prime Minister, the Danish Folkeparti and its partners in the government. More than Jylland-Posten and their crowd of followers, more than the democratic chauvinists, racists, or something else. Besides, we have the fact that the goverment coalition is supported only by 39 percent of the voters (70 seats out of N= 179 in the Danish Parliament). And further, or in the first place, we are supposed to have all the rest of the Danish people and their down-to-heart lives and commitments.

The Danish Queen Margrethe II is quoted to have said:
"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us. . ." [sources: Daily Telegraph, AFP, and Middle East Online]. Considering that Queen Margrethe is also the head of the Lutheran-Evangelical Church, of which 85 percent of Denmark's population are members [source], this would further invite to easy, and wrong, generalizations. These generalizations are the kind of logical blunders Swedish academic fanatics - some journalists included - do over and over again in characterizing immigrants, particularly Muslim people from Africa or the Middle East. [Margrethe II, portrait by Andy Warhol, 1984].

Addressing the current issue, we have to keep also in mind the "other" Danes, those for instance who among an older generation did bravely fight against the Nazi-German occupation, and those who still honour their fighting spirits and ideals. And there are certainly in Denmark those who oppose not only the filo-nazi rightists' excesses, but even the participation of Denmark in the USA’s military crusades of the Middle East. Just look at this picture (click to enlarge). Danish folks demonstrating against the Iraq war 2002. Far at the right in the picture stand some Danes holding the slogan "No blood for oil".

And there are the Danish-born immigrants of "second or third" generation. Just the Muslim immigrant population in Denmark is of a size of close to four percent of the total population. And then we have the Danish folks who have emigrated to the four cardinal directions, including Sweden, in which they constitute one of the main immigrant groups.

The problem is that in national crisis - like the one Denmark is experiencing these days - the nationalistic ties could be proven a more potent factor than true ideological convictions or ethical principles.

Is here when civil courage should arise distinctly among the Danish academics or intellectuals which truly oppose the cultural sadistic behaviours of Denmark's main newspaper Jylland-Posten, against Muslim immigrants or political refugees with that faith. Statements from those Danish-born sectors, for the moral strength of its civil courage, would certainly have a stronger appealing effect.

So, concluding this reflection. The appeal that the Swedish newspapers Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, and the political party they use to represent in their editorials (the Swedish, pro USA-Republican, Folkpartiet), on that we should be in solidarity "with Denmark", it is by all means misleading.

When addressing to the Swedish public asking for "Solidarity with Denmark", they should honestly explain which is the section of Denmark they identify themselves with, with what policies they want us to be in solidarity. They should distinctly state if and to which extent the calling for support they do is in favour of the pro-xenophobic political behaviour, domestic and international, the Danish government and the "liberal" rightist parties exercise. Hand in hand with their ideological journalist colleagues of Jylland-Posten.

For my part, I should refer not to "Denmark", but to the forces in Denmark that bear the responsibility of this cultural atrocity, which was proven to be just another big bullet fired in the international war of the rich against the poor.

Swedish Television. Wrong hot-blooded news for a wrong hot-blooded conflict

We live volatile, sad times, which call for restrain and reflection. Not for chauvinism. Not for xenophobic hate

Offended Muslims, mostly from poor or invaded countries - offended due to so much under so long - express now their rage against those representing Denmark.

In the minds of many, Denmark is nowadays associated with the happenings around the provoking – and for some unholy – drawings in Jyllandsposten. However, in the hearts of many more, Denmark is also identified with the torture of Muslims war-prisoners in Iraq, with the alliance to a lie (the weapons of mass destruction issue), and with their own troops in a war of decimation, lives slaughter, amputations in scale, bombarded hospitals and huge "collateral damage" amid vast sectors of the civil - Muslim - population.

Muslims, particularly those hit by sand and blood, believe that the current European campaign has nothing to do with “freedom of the press”, that is not about “free the women”. I guess that many have also understood that it isn't about religion or "Christian values" either. They do believe that all we want is their oil, and that we are getting desperate. And possibly we are. At least judging of the Swedish media.

The world media, including USA and the vast majority of the European media, have taken a careful stand, or even condemn the publication of offensive material. In Sweden, for the political (not religious, not cultural) reasons we will analyze separately, we have seen however a consistent trend appealing to the public to understand all this as if Muslims are conflicting against a) directly the Swedes as such, b) or directly against the "Nordic countries", c) or directly against "Sweden and other Nordic countries".

For this, some of the Swedish media, or the political and economic interests they represent, have to make some efforts in "twisting" the presentation of facts, to make them appear politically correct. Certainly this does not apply to all Swedish media, neither to all journalists, editors or producers working in the Swedish communication and media business. Other main papers, and other main television channels, have reported the facts accurately and with a sense of civil responsibility.

We shall se here how a little of the above has been intended with the help of "deforming" news through omitting vital information in the released news, in the presentation of news out of contex, or in contents wich are dirtectly detrimental in their association.

Example 1

This is from the SVT site in Internet, Wednesday 8/2 2006 (my text enphases):

"Nordic observators escape from Hebron"
Published 8 february 2006 - 18:27
"Twelve Swedish and the rest of the observers of the UN TIPH-team were forced on wednesday to leave Hebron on the West, after their base was attacked by hundreds of Palestinians throwing stones."

The original in Swedish: "Nordiska observatörer flydde Hebron"
Publicerad 8 februari 2006 - 18:27
"Tolv svenskar och resten av FN:s observatörsstyrka TIPH tvingades på onsdagen lämnade Hebron på Västbanken sedan deras bas angripits av hundratals stenkastande palestinier."

That day and the day after (today 9/2 at 16.30) , this news is still prominent in the "Text-TV" of the SVT, and SVT has even added more text referring to the Israeli military rescuing them (the "Twelve Swedes and the rest") from the "mob", and providing military escort to Tel Aviv:

What the Swedish Television chosed NOT to inform to the Swedish public on the above:

1. “Denmark out of Hebron”

The news came in a telegram of the News Agency TT, in which was also clearly stated that Gunhild Forselv, the Norwegian tales woman of TIPH had said that the crowd had shouted instead “Denmark out of Hebron”!. No mention was made to Sweden or any other nationality integrating that office.

But that was not informed by the Swedish television. Why? the accurate and complete information regarding that matter, that the Palestinian were specifically protesting only against the Danish presence, does not go well with the political aim the Swedish media seems to get more and more attached to: that we in Sweden should believe Swedes are, or have became, "natural" targets of Muslim hostility. And of course, we have to do something about it.

No wonder that other important media, such as Dagens Nyheter (today's main editorial) have concluded the following statement, at the end of its main editorial with the headline "Let us not be scared to isolationism" (what the editorial specifically addresses is "the violent protests in the Moslem world have shown that Scandinavians also can be targets"):

"And the question is whether Sweden is prepared, if the soldiers and other personnel abroad its is trained and equipped to face this new reality. The answer is all but calming" (DN, 9/2 2006)

Note: TIPH is in fact integrated by 7o folks, including a variety of other non-Scandinavian countries such as Italy, Turkey, and Switzerland [source: Press release, Swedish Foreign Ministry, 19 January 2006].

2. Who was "the mob" of "attacking Palestinians" "forcing Swedes to flee"?

Looking at pictures and video sequences from the Italian News Agency ANSA, and reading a dispatch by J. Brilliant, a correspondent in site from United Press International, it become evident that the group of Palestinians was actually integrated by children and teenagers. The UPI dispatch quote Gunhild Forselv saying "the kids would throw stones. . ."

[Source a) United Press International, UPI. "TIPH observers leave Hebron after riot". By J. BRILLIANT. Source b) Angenzia ANSA, http://www.ansa.it/ ]

I have not yet received from ANSA the clearance I have asked to reproduce their clear graphic material, but I post here photos I took myself from the televised sending of "24" and "Rapport" 8/2, by the Swedish National Television. Please click for larger views.

3. At the bottom of the screen above - the headline being Nordic observators escape Hebron, there is a parragraph referring to an absolutely diverse news and location:

"In Afghanistan four persons were killed in protests against the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. The protests continued even in other countries"

Immediately after the viewer is asked to see the page that follows ("läs mer på nästa sidan" ), in order to face the headline (see imagen below) Swedish aid-office attacked. No reason for this attack (in Afghanistan) was at all mentioned, just that a multitude in thousands attacked with sticks and stones the building where the Swedish "aid office" is located, that they were dispersed by the police, that no one was hurt, no Swedish personnel was on the place, and that no plans whatsoever for evacuation of the office was considered. Besides, it is not yet clear whether this Office is a building shared with personnel of other "Aid" categories, or other nationalities - including possibly Denmark.

Example 2

A new example from SVT Rapport, the most viewed television news programme in Sweden.

What is the analysis or explanation the Swedish (state) Television offers to the public about the ongoing conflict, beyond the particular presentation of the news we saw above?

I checked this morning (9/2) SVT's website and there - among the various analyses listed under the foreign/Middle East heading - I found none about this issue.

So, what you get is what you see:

You would not believe this, but it is actually true. Considering the background of all the wars, The Danish troops currently in Muslim soil, the prisoner abuse, all the sweat, the scarce of available own petrol for their own cars, the humiliations, the unholy cartoons, the economic embargo, the mistreatment of Muslim immigrants in Denmark, etc., etc., Considering all this, what the newsman above is saying as explanation, after reporting the last incidents all over the world of the Muslims' protest against Denmark, is emphatically:

"And (the fact) that these protests have been so much extensive at so many places, is in much caused by Arabic TV-preachers" (Rapport, 8 February 2006).

In Swedish: "Och att de har protesterna på så många håll har blivit så omfattande bero mycket på arabiska tv predikanter"

And that is it. If you do not believe this, I would understand you. That is why I made this link, in case you would like to check it ut. Try this source:

http://svt.se/svt/road/Classic/shared/mediacenter/player.jsp?d=30929&a=342606

And this sources for "Danish officers were not sentenced in Denmark althought found guilty of Iraqi prisoner abuse":

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=15466 http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10488

DN:s märkliga ledare ”Danmarks sak blir vår” (6/2, 2006)

Akt I
Först kom DN:s märkliga ledare ”Danmarks sak blir vår” (6/2, 2006) och man kunde knappast tro att det var sant. Att annars väl erkända oberoende liberaler kunde påstå i samband med muslimernas ilska reaktioner och attentat i protest mot den ökända avbildningen i Jyllandsposten i Danmark, att ”Sverige och Norge hänger med på köpet, genom våra likartade flaggor och språk”. ”Plötsligt har de kristna korsen på Nordens nationalsymboler en innebörd som få reflekterat över tidigare”, sades det i ledaren.

Antagandet nr ett. Antydandet att Sverige hade varit mål för aktionerna

Detta är ogrundat och osanningsenligt. Vilken muslimsgrupp hade signalerat Sverige (ledaren skrevs den 6/2-06) som ett fiende? Ta exempelvis den ökända attacken till Danska ambassaden i Damaskus: Sveriges ambassad bara råkade vara i vägen (Sveriges ambassad befinner sig i första våningen av byggnaden). Men, vem vet, i den närmaste framtiden, om den inhemska versionen av Danska Folkepartiet lyckas att provocera fram en sådan plats bredvid ARLA i bojkottens måltavla (klick på bilden intill).

Antagandet nr 2. Den s.k. Mellanöster regeringens fientlighet mot Sverige

Sverige har fått en officiell ursäkt om denna aktion och andra. Det tystnades ner i artikeln. Militanta muslimer i väldiga känsliga områdena såsom, Gaza har t.o.m. uttryckligt sagt att Sverige ej är föremål.

Antagandet nr 3. Att det är bara nordiska länder som har blivit drabbade

Även den chilenska ambassaden blev härjad i Damaskus händelserna (det fanns i bottenvåningen av samma byggnad) och till en högre omfattning än de danska och svenska ambassadernas lägenheter var ambassadernas finns. Inte heller detta är nämnt där av DN. Till saken hör till att i Chile har man informerat odramatiskt om händelsen och gjort klart att Chile inte var föremål till attacken och därmed inte har man i onödan hetsat upp "muslimfientliga" "patriotiska" eller religiösa känslor. Den chilenska regeringen förklarade den 6 februari att händelserna i Damaskus var "avslutat fall" efter ursäkten från Syrien (source).

Antagandet nr 4. ”De kristna korsen på Nordens nationalsymboler” har en uteslutande innebörd (för de arga, förelempade muslimer).

Antigen driver ledarskriventen med läsaren eller visar den bara ren okunnighet. Skolbarn vet att det finns en rad andra länder i Europa som har ett kors i sina flaggor eller t.o.m. endast ett tydligt ritat kors (Schweiz). Egentligen faller detta ”flagga/språk” argument av sin egen absurditet.

Antagandet nr 5. Den egentliga orsaken

Trots de kraftiga reaktionerna bland en del av muslimer kan ha varit orsakade av endast äkta religiösa känslor betraktade som förelämpade p.g.a. bilderna, den omfattande, massiva solidariteten bland deras befolkning kallar även för andra förklaringar. Dessa är förknippad med en rad fenomen, bland annat, rollen av Danmark vid USA invasionen i Irak, den tortyr och misshandel – med klart hånande religiösa inslag - som har förekommit gentemot fångarna. Den strukturellt rasistiska behandling, med regeringens och representanterna av den politiska kulturella elitens goda minne, som invandare - och i synnerhet muslimer - genomlider.

Det är mycket möjligt att de provokationer avsiktligt erbjudits av Jyllandsposten har resulterat i en katalysator för ovan och en annan grov missnöjdsamhet och besvikelse bland en invandrarpopulation redan omkullkastades i marken.

Akt II

Angående DN: ledaren som kommenterades ovan, blev det dock känt senare under dagen - genom DN nätupplaga - att egentligen var politiska redaktör, numera chef för ledarredaktionen Niklas Ekblads eget signerade ansvar (jag fortfarande undrar om det inte har varit ett tekniskt fel detta med sitt namn i signaturen. Han ger verkligen en helt annant intryck med sin övriga balanserade - och intelligenta - inlägg). Men då hade jag hunnit i min blog ”Ich bin ein Moslem” klandra hela DN. Jag beklagade då förstås min svepande och generaliserande upprördhet, och tröstade mig om att det ändå kändes bra att jag hade fel om den tidning som jag annars har läst med respekt i flera decennier.

Emellertid publicerar idag (7/2, 2006) DN i kultursidan – à la Jyllandsposten - sin "egen" bild av Muhammed. En teckning ”utan hån” skulle DN kulturbilagans chef kunna kanske säga, bara ett fall av ofarlig blåögad naivism, skall vi tro? Men, vem skall tro att man inte har förstått att den är just det - själva avbildningen - som är kärnan i den frågan enligt den religionen?

Det förefaller helt omöjligt att DN inte vet eller förstår vad det handlar om. Då måste man hitta förklaringen till deras beteende i en helt annan dimension än den intellektuella förmågan, och som inte i det minsta har med oberoende liberalismen och toleransen att göra.

Denna publicering gör man fullständigt medveten om den uppenbara provokationen som åtgärden innebär bland invandrare med muslim tro. DN: s agerande är i sammanhanget märkligt, eftersom det nu är empiriskt känt delvis hur förelämpande detta har varit för miljoner människor som har den religion, enligt deras utsago, och delvis den för Danmark ödeläggande reaktioner som påtträffades i Mellan Östern.

DN har annars gjort gällande att man skall avstyra fanatiska konfrontationer. Och vi måste alla håller med på DN om det. När det emellertid gäller dessa fattiga - och redan diskriminerade - muslimer exempelvis i Danmark (men också i Sverige) verkar det finnas vid DN en märklig agenda endast à la Per Ahlmark, liberalismen-negationen och intoleransens högsta präst.

"Ich bin ein Moslem"

For the sake of peace, reason, and victory. A warning on fanatics of all kind

The Swedish "liberals", with the Folkpartiet and DN in the lead, call today for supporting the Danish government amind the wrong - or just alleged - assumtion on that Sweden is also under siege and attack by the angry reaction of world Moslems. It is a dubious stand against a remarkable Danish concept on both what "freedom of the press" should be, and how to cruellest humiliate their ethnic Muslim minority, an impoverished and exploited social group already ground-beaten by an unique structural racism.

I am not at all religious (the gods knows that!), and I am very much aware the kind of "contribution religion has made to civilization", to use the words of Bertrand Russell. However today I feel - as any other decent truly libertarian - in solidarity with the offended and the oppressed.

Let us look to some facts on the alleged issue of "aggression" against Sweden. In the building where the Swedish embassy is allocated in Damascus, there are two other embassies. In the ground floor the Chilean embassy, on top of it the Swedish delegation, and only above the embassy of Denmark. In order to get to their target (the Danish representation), the angry demonstrators had to pass through the first two floors.

Sweden was never, at least up to this moment, a conscious target for these attacks. This has been already made clear by Muslim militants for instance in Gaza, last week. Neither has been Chile, for that part.

As a matter of fact, the Chilean media has taken a quite another stand than their Swedish counterpart. In Chile it was informed as it was that the Chilean and Swedish embassies were not the scope of the attack. A with this no further incitement to put Chileans against the resident Muslims in that country.

It appears evident that DN, folkpartiet, and other interested sectors, are partly artificially twisting the facts (through the hiding of vital information, which alter the understanding of the picture as a whole), and partly artificially overreacting.

But, why to care doing this? What is the hidden agenda? Some sort of NATO issue, preparing new alliances, getting "common" Muslim foes, or whose oil?

Among the tricks it protrudes the one of “let us forget how the thing started, let us see instead the consequences of this aggression against Denmark, which is an aggression to us”. Since it was Denmark the party that unilaterally started the all thing with its conscious bizarre provocation, does not this part sound like a continuation piece of a dictated dramaturgy, a second act we all have to plug and play?

And who do they expect to forget what?

That Denmark - by decison of its political leaders- is one of the armed forced invading Iraq, on the ground of false acussations (the "weapons of mass destruction" issue) at the orders of Bush?

That Denmark - even if not all Danes, or perhaps due to only some of them- is worldwide known by the cultural mistreatment (not only discrimination) the immigrants are subjected to?

That "democratic" Denmark, its government and that infamous newspaper have shown an arrogance only parallel to the one showed by the worst totalitarian regimes against the minorities - ethnic, religious, or political minorities - of their time?

If some at DN, and the Folkpartiet, and other Swedish interested sectors think that the globalization they have vividly supported is only one-directional, the facts of last week prove them catastrophically wrong. The western celular telephones now in the massive hands of seemingly uncontrolable crowds could spray, as a light in a tempest, true news as well as exagerated news or even plain rumors leading to desvastating acts.

The regrettable economic boycott against the Danish Arla of these days (click on image below) may be the one of tomorrow against Volvo, JAS, Sony-Eriksson, AGA, and all kind of Miss Sweden or mister right and their respective music.

Conclusion:

For the sake of peace, reason, and the victory over religious fanatics of all latitudes, and the victory over the selfish politicians seeking confrontation by using "religion" or "freedom of speech" for the benefit of own agendas. In other words, for the sake of the civilized values you say to maintain. Do not argument, do not act as a narrow-minded chauvinist.

To be continued, as soon as I get a respite from my work. . . In the meanwhile, I leave you with Jan Gillou's brilliant analysis on this matter. See here:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,773728,00.html

Swedish-winter fatal "tröghet"

"Reveses de fortuna llamáis a las miserias. Porqué si son reveses de la conducta necia" (words of the Fortune goddess, according to Felix Maria Samaniego, 1741 - 1801)

Swedish winter fatal drowning

The phenomenon "Swedish winter fatal drowning" may be not a societal issue of the epidemiological dimension of other non-natural fatality causes, such as suicides. But it really defies common sense. Only in January 2006 have nine folks died of such ice/water related accidents in Sweden. I we except boat collisions, we have among them a main bulk of people that goes and walk or skate on top de tiny surface of the precarious ice of lakes or oceans!

Some days ago, fourteen persons walking or skating out on the ice in Stockholm went instead kind of engulfed by the sea when the ice just opened under their feet. A huge deployment of rescue forces, helicopters, etc., was mobilised. Some of them could be saved, but not all.

Commenting such fatalities on today’s edition of Dagens Nyheter - the main Swedish newspaper- the chairman of one association of skaters, Heinrich Blauert, is quoted as saying:

“Everything points towards that nobody have done anything wrong, but that several unfortunate circumstances have withdrawn”.

The blaming of unfortunate circumstances - replacing our possible own responsibility in the occurrence of fatal acts - it is as old as the registered written tales in history. The Greek Aesop referred to this topic in one of his great fables, the one on the traveller boy and the Fortune Dame, theme which has been repeated by La Fontaine in France, and also in elegant poem form by Félix María Samaniego, in Spain. Here follows the texts of Aesop’s translated to English, and the one of Samaniego in original Spanish. Drawn your own conclusions.

The Traveler and Fortune
Fables by Aesop

A TRAVELER wearied from a long journey lay down, overcome withfatigue, on the very brink of a deep well. Just as he was aboutto fall into the water, Dame Fortune, it is said, appeared to himand waking him from his slumber thus addressed him: "Good Sir, pray wake up: for if you fall into the well, the blame will bethrown on me, and I shall get an ill name among mortals; for I find that men are sure to impute their calamities to me, however much by their own folly they have really brought them onthemselves."

El muchacho y la Fortuna. By Samaniego.

A la orilla de un pozo, sobre la fresca yerba, un incauto Mancebo dormía a pierna suelta. Gritóle la Fortuna: «Insensato, despierta; ¿no ves que ahogarte puedes, a poco que te muevas? Por ti y otros canallas a veces me motejan, los unos de inconstante, y los otros de adversa. Reveses de Fortuna llamáis a las miserias; ¿por qué, si son reveses de la conducta necia?»