Work Camps in The Negev?

From Haaretz: "The government is considering establishing work camps in the south of the country, where illegal migrant workers will receive shelter, food and medical care, Army Radio reported Wednesday. In exchange, illegal migrants would perform manual labor outside the camps, but would not earn a salary. They would stay at the camp until their asylum claims are decided, which could take months or years. The proposal, part of the effort to address the problems posed by illegal migrants, would place asylum seekers at jobs in communities in the Negev and Arava. Their salaries would go to the state, in order to fund the camps."

Work camps where the state takes the salary? Am I the only one thinking "slave labour" here?

"Blood Libel" vs Murder in Cold Blood

After the apparently intentional tear-gassing of Al Jazeera correspondent Jackie Rowland by Israeli soldiers, a friend sent me this video as a reminder of the often lethal violence directed by the occupation troops against civilian Palestinians - a routine violence which, in contrast to one speculative article about possible organ theft by Israeli soldiers and the alleged anti-semitism of its author, has not been debated and condemned by Swedish pro-Israeli liberals recently:



"The man in the video, 29 year old Basem Abu Rahme, was evacuated to Ramallah hospital in critical condition, where he died of his injury. When he was shot, Basem was standing east of the Wall, facing the army who was positioned to the west. There was not more than 30 meters between them. The type of gas bomb that killed Basem has a range of 800 meters. It is not visible when it is fired or when it is in the air. At 300 – 400 meters, it explodes internally in order to add velocity. With a plastic or fiberglass head, the canisters resemble shells, not tear gas bombs, and are deadly when not fired into the air."

The crisis that never came...

Take a moment and consider these words by American diplomat George Ball, writing in 1979:

"It is unrealistic to believe that Israel, which has maintained a military occupation over 1,200,000 Palestinians for the past 12 years, can continue that role indefinitely. With violence increasing and Arab strength expanding, the attempt to maintain the status quo offers only a sad an bloody future. Nor is it reasonable to believe that the American people will be prepared indefinitely to subsidize this Israeli brand of colonialism so far out of tune with present-day opinion."

So right, yet so wrong... The article, titled "The Coming Crisis Israeli-American Relations," deals with US-Israeli relations from 1948 to 1979 and also touches upon the growth of the pro-Israel lobby, and is still an interesting read 30 years later. Ball describes US-Israeli relations as characterized by "dependence without responsibility." Some excerpts: 

"Over the last 30 years these relations have evolved to the point where Israel is more dependent on the United States than ever, and yet feels itself free to take hard-line positions at variance with American views without fear of anything worse than verbal admonition from Washington."

"/---/ Today Israel is able to continue on its present course only because of continued vast subsidies from the United States. Distasteful as it must be to Israelis, the nation has become a ward— a kind of welfare dependent—of America. The United States is providing annual subsidies out of the public sector that amount to the equivalent of $7,500 a year for every Jewish family..."

"/---/ Why should Israel not pursue its own course, when Israelis have been so long conditioned to expect that America will support their country, no matter how often it disregards American advice and protests and America's own interests, that both sides now accept this extraordinary ritual dancing as quite normal?"

30 years later, in the Obama era, the White House "regrets" the construction of new settlements on the West Bank. The dance continues...

Norwegian pension fund drops Israeli company

Norway's finance minister announced today that the Israeli company Elbit Systems Ltd has been dropped from the national oil fund due to ethical concerns - namely the company's involvement the construction of the Wall on the West Bank. The minister told the press: "We do not wish to fund companies that so directly contribute to violations of international humanitarian law."

Selling shares in a company isn't exactly a strong economic sanction, but this is still a pretty powerful statement coming from a European government official. I eagerly await the response from Avigdor Lieberman and all those pundits who has been making claims like this recently: "behind the humanitarian mask that has been has been assiduously nurtured by the Nordic and Scandinavian countries, are a group of society elites, leftist journalists, clergy, employees of non-governmental agencies (NGOs), and politicans, particularly in Sweden and Norway, who have been regularly demonizing Israel and Jews, using classic themes of antisemitism, which have morphed into anti-Israel motifs." 

Those who make those claims rarely (correction: never) bother to provide any proof, of course, and I strongly suspect most of them could hardly even point out Sweden or Norway on a world map.

Update: (via Ali Esbati): The decision to disinvest in Elbit was apparently taken already on June 30 this year, but made public only today, which should kill all speculation that this is somehow a revenge for Israel's criticism last month of the celebration of the 150th anniversary of novelist Knut Hamsun - a celebrated novelist who won the Nobel prize in the 20's but later became infamous and widely condemned for his Nazi sympathies. 

Ben-Gurion and Sinai

I'm currently working (or should be working) on a piece on the Suez Crisis/Tripartite Aggression, which - as Israeli historian Avi Shlaim points out - is not only one of the most famous but also the "best-documented war plot in modern history." The deceit and lies and bizarre worldview that led up to the war is a truly fascinating (and horrifying) piece of history that makes present-day neocon warmongers like Dick Cheney look like amateurs.

The highlights are provided by David Ben-Gurion - prime minister and defense minister of Israel. At the secret conference that produced the Protocol of Sèvres, Ben-Gurion was at his expansionist best. First he floated a proposal to re-organize the entire Middle East, giving the east bank of the Jordan river (Jordan, that is) to Iraq, annexing southern Lebanon to Israel in order to help establish a Maronite Christian state in the rest of the country, and toppling Nasser and replacing him with a pro-western leader that would also be prepared to sign a peace treaty with Israel. 

Later, in a private conversation with his french counterpart, he suggested "tearing" Sinai from Egypt. On 25 October 1956, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary: "I told him (the french minister) about the discovery of oil in southern and western Sinai, and that it would be good to tear this peninsula from Egypt, because it did not belong to her, rather it was the English who stole it from the Turks when they believed that Egypt was in their pocket. I suggested laying down a pipeline from Sinai to Haifa to refine the oil..."

Much can be said about Ben-Gurion, but at least he was a man of vision...

The "blood-libel" row from a Swedish horizon

I've been following the Sweden-Israel organ theft / blood-libel row in disbelief for the past week. I resisted commenting on it so far because I just found the whole affair too ridiculous and blown out of proportion by media - in Israel, Sweden and elsewhere. I mean, who even cares what Avigdor Lieberman says? And who, except hardcore zionists, is not an anti-semite according to his world view?

Still, as a Swedish journalist I've been receiving a lot of questions about this from foreign friends, so I might as well share a few thoughts on the matter.

As for the controversial article itself, I found it unconvincing at best, sensationalist and irresponsible at worst - but definitely not anti-semitic. First of all it's important to remember that it is not strictly a news report, but more like an opinion piece. The author doesn't explicitly claim he actually knows organ theft took place, but recounts things he saw and stories he heard on the occupied Palestinian territories in the early 90's, makes a link to a recent organ trade scandal involving the US and Israel, and calls for an investigation. 

Nevertheless, I partially agree with Matthew Cassel at The Electronic Intifada who objects to the article because it gives Israel an opportunity to undermine well-founded reports about serious human rights violations. Here's an excerpt of his article (read it all here):

"Unlike Bostrom's reporting, when most Palestinian human rights organizations or other journalists have uncovered Israeli violations, they are sure to provide well-documented evidence to prove beyond a doubt that such violations were in fact committed. Even though Israel has made it very difficult for both Palestinian and international journalists and human rights workers to practice inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip, many have risked their lives to see that evidence of Israel's crimes is uncovered and reported.

/---/ The fact that Bostrom did not offer evidence for his organ theft claims has given Israel an enormous propaganda gift. Because he offered nothing more than conjecture and hearsay, Israel has launched a major campaign casting itself as an aggrieved victim of "blood libel." This allows Israel to distract attention from the mountains of evidence of well-documented war crimes, and even to discredit real evidence."

I'm not sure, though, that this will actually turn out as a propaganda victory for Israel in the end. The campaign against the Swedish government and Aftonbladet, the Swedish daily that published the article, looks too much like a farce to be taken seriously. It is obviously part of a desperate campaign by the right wing, ultra-nationalistic Israeli government to use any possible opportunity to distract from its own conduct on the occupied territories (especially the continuing criticism against the recent war on Gaza and expansion of settlements) and to appear strong in front of its own constituencies. 

It is extremely unlikely that the Swedish government would apologize for or condemn the article - to give in for such Israeli demands after refusing to do the same after the publication of the controversial caricatures of the prophet Mohammed would be suicide, PR-wise. The Israeli government is fully aware of this, of course, but Avigdor Lieberman doesn't want an apology - being regarded as pariah more or less everywhere, he simply wants to flex his muscles.

The Swedish government, in turn, probably isn't very concerned that this affair might hurt diplomatic relations between the two countries. Israel won't suddenly expel the Swedish military attaché from Tel Aviv, for example (if they ever did it would be extremely ironic, since withdrawal of the military attaché and an end to all military cooperation between the two countries has long been a major demand of leftist and pro-Palestinian groups in Sweden) or cancel trade deals with the European Union. 

In fact, the Swedish right-wing government may come out as a winner of this affair since it is currently seen as "standing up" against unreasonable Israeli demands, playing along with the public opinion which grew more critical of Israel during the war on Gaza, while presenting no real criticism of the continuing Israeli politics of apartheid and occupation.

In the end, I believe this affair will only hurt the image of Israel in Sweden further. I strongly suspect that a vast majority of Swedes (regardless of what they think of the Aftonbladet-article, if they even read it) view the Israeli demands as unreasonable and unworthy of a supposedly democratic state, are sick and tired of having to put up with Avigdor Liebermans Swede-bashing on TV night after night, and of Israel-supporters branding all their opponents as anti-semites (a strategy that has always carried a risk of causing a serious backlash - ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?)

In an ironic twist, some Israelis are now calling for a boycott of Swedish products. I'm tempted to say: Go ahead, and why don't you start with the Volvo-bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes in the occupied territories... And if even Israelis themselves accept boycott as a legitimate way of putting political pressure on countries whose policies we dislike, this should give a boost to the international BDS-movement and the international boycott of Israeli products.

"Like a kid with a magnifying glass looking at ants, burning them."

The Israeli organization "Breaking the Silence" today published a report with testimonies of soldiers who participated in "Operation Cast Lead" in Gaza six months ago, documenting the total disregard for civilian life during the war: 

Among the 54 testimonies are stories revealing the use of "accepted practices," the destruction of hundreds of houses and mosques for no military purpose, the firing of phosphorous gas in the direction of populated areas, the killing of innocent victims with small arms, the destruction of private property, and most of all, a permissive atmosphere in the command structure that enabled soldiers to act without moral restrictions. The booklet compiles the testimonies of about 30 reserve and regular combat soldiers from various units that participated in the fighting. The testimonies demonstrate that the soldiers were not given directives stating the goal of the operation and, as one soldier testifies, "there was not much said about the issue of innocent civilians." 

Many soldiers said that they fought without seeing "the enemy before their eyes." "You feel like an infantile little kid with a magnifying glass looking at ants, burning them," one of the soldiers testified that "a 20-year-old kid should not have to do these kinds of things to other people." 

What suddenly changed?

Western media often have a funny way of refusing to speak in a straightforward manner about the most simple things - calling colonies "settlements", or occupied territory "disputed" for example. This applies especially to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of course, and Swedish media is usually no different from other Western media in this regard. So I was positively surprised by this article about Netanyahus trip to Europe this week, and the resistance he met there against his demand that Israel should be allowed to "continue colonize the West Bank." Further on, the journalist uses the (very correct and straightforward) phrase "extensive jewish colonization" of the West Bank to describe Israel's settlement policy. Surely this would have been almost unthinkable in a mainstream daily newspaper not so long ago?

I haven't been following Swedish media coverage of the conflict closely during my stay in Egypt, so I can't tell for sure, but this might be a small indication that a broader change in attitudes towards Israeli colonialism and apartheid is taking place. I think the public outcry against the war on Gaza might have played a role in this, as well as the new focus of the Obama-administration on the issue of settlements (even if he is wrong to focus narrowly on settlement expansion - the Arabist blog has a good discussion about this issue over here.) But of course, it might also be simply because it is easier for journalists to write critically about a right-wing Israeli government including blatant racists like Lieberman.

Pic above: Jewish colony Har Homa in eastern Jerusalem in the background, a demolished Palestinian home in front.

Israelis fear loosing their favourite enemy

With their usual twisted logic, some Israelis analysts now say they prefer Ahmadinejad as president of Iran as he "will be easier to isolate than reformist leader Mr. Mousavi," the Christian Science Monitor reports. (One might add that the Israeli defense and political establishment invested considerable support in building up Ahmadinejad as a boogeyman to keep their own population in a state of constant fear - with Mousavi they would have to start all over again). Maybe that's why Israeli president Shimon Peres came out as a strong supporter of Mousavi on Sunday, calling for regime change in Iran - because he knows such support will do more harm than good for the Iranian opposition...

Israel-Sweden Davis Cup game to be played without audience

An upcoming tennis game between Sweden and Israel will be played without audience, a decision that was hailed as a partial victory by the organizers of a campaign for a total boycott of the game. Thousands are expected to participate in a demonstration on 7 March, the first day of the game, and Israel is reportedly bringing its own security forces to protect the team.

Israeli athletes face boycott calls and pitch invasions

I heard about this game but didn't see the clip until today.

I note that the Left Party in Sweden, as well as the youth and womens sections of the Social Democrats is demanding a boycott of the upcoming tennis game between Sweden and Israel, to be played between 6 and 8 March. Similar calls were heard before the olympic games in China, and of course didn't have any effect. In this case, however, the game is played in Sweden, not in a distant police state, so it's very likely that there will at least be large demonstrations in connection to the game. Media has been speculating that Israel might want to send it's own security agents to Sweden in order protect the team and the ambassadors to Sweden and Denmark in case they attend the game. The boycott campaign caught the attention of Jerusalem Post after an activist threw a shoe at the Israeli ambassador during a public lecture at Stockholm University.

One of the groups that support a boycott has set up the blog "Stop the Game" in Swedish as well as Arabic (although the arabic version only have one post so far).

Swedish activist throws shoe at Israeli ambassador

It seems some kind of low-intensive warfare is developing between Sweden and Israel. A few days ago, a Swedish solidarity activist was shot in the leg with live ammunition by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. And today, as a symbolic act of resistance against the Israeli occupation and military assault on Gaza, someone threw a shoe at the Israeli ambassador during a public lecture at Stockholm University. A red sneaker, to be more exact... (As always when Israel is involved, the war is highly asymmetrical.)

Here's the funny thing: While the first event didn't cause much concern in Sweden, I predict that tomorrow's newspapers will be filled with condemnations of today's terrorist act against the ambassador, which clearly constitutes an assault on Democracy itself. But shooting unarmed civilians protesting Apartheid doesn't, of course.

War criminals and criminal wars

Ehud Olmert has put his justice minister in charge of defending Israel against charges of war crimes during the recent war in Gaza. At the same time "Israel's military censor has already banned the publication of the identity of the unit leaders who fought against Hamas Islamists on the Gaza Strip for fear they may face war crimes charges," AFP reports.

So, Israel claims its soldiers did not commit war crimes, but in order to protect them in case they did, their identity has to be hidden. That's brilliant.

I sometimes think the whole war crimes-debate is a distraction, just like the debate on Israels use of illegal weapons. As Amira Hass pointed out in Haaretz a few days ago, 'legal' weapons also kill. And even if you only target military installations and enemy fighters, you become a war criminal the very moment you decide to launch a criminal war. While it's undeniable that both sides has committed plenty of war crimes in this conflict (although one side on a far bigger scale), calling for the prosecution of those responsible is without meaning if at the same time the greater crimes of occupation, illegal settlements, conquest of land by force, ethnic cleansing, and so on, are ignored.

Pic above: Israeli soldiers shoot potentially lethal rubber-coated bullets at stone-throwing Palestinian children during a demonstration in the occupied West Bank.

In the spirit of Goebbels

To celebrate the killing of 1300 Palestinians in Gaza, including hundreds of children, the youth association of the Swedish ruling rightwing party, made this video which would have made Joseph Goebbels proud.

The text shown translates as:

"Security. Freedom. Democracy. Only one country in the Middle East takes a stand for these values. There you can love whoever you want without, as in Iran, being hanged for it. Join us in supporting freedom in the Middle East. Help us support Israel! Become a member!"

Actually, this recruitment video tells us something important about the significance of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the political culture of Europe. Back in the 60's and early 70's, when the left was strong and massive opposition to the war in Vietnam was discrediting the US as the protector of democratic values, the liberal and conservative establishment turned to Israel as their own "cause" to helpt recruit young members to their parties. By propagating Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle East," surrounded by hostile dictatorships, they tried to counter the radicalizing impact of the Vietnam war and anti-colonial freedom struggles around the world.

Decades later they still cling to this concept, long after the "temporary" and "security-motivated" occupation of the West Bank has turned to permanent colonialism and apartheid. I cannot help but wonder if this is because today, as the neoliberal policies they have been advocating for the past 30 years have led to increasing poverty and inequality around the world - and now a global depression - campaigning for Israel provides a welcome distraction and a way to boost the morale of their members. After all, it always feels good to be cheering for the winning team, and the IDF not only has all the fancy high-tech weaponry, but also proved its ability by killing 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed in the recent conflict...

"This is Sharon's country"

Just returned from Egyptian Rafah after spending a little more than a day and a night there. We met some fantastic people, and I hope I'll have time some day to write a longer post about this wretched town, scarred by colonialism, occupation and wars. Right now I just want to point to the absurdity of the whole situation: Yesterday was the first day of ceasefire after three weeks of intense fighting and bombing, which left over 1300 Palestinians dead, thousands wounded, and over 50.000 homeless. Normally you would expect caravans of humanitarian aid going into the area. But not this time.

Why? UN aid agencies and NGO:s working in conflict zones often have to cope with security threats and violence, making it hard to reach the victims of wars and internal conflicts. But in this case the only thing separating the aid from the victims is a fence, a few soldiers, and political decisions taken by a government that claims to be the best friend of the Palestinians. While Israel said it would allow 143 trucks of humanitarian aid into Gaza - still far from the 500 that the UN previously said it need every day for its operations - almost nothing was entering from the Egyptian side. On Sunday and Monday only a few trucks carrying medical supplies were allowed to enter through the Rafah crossing, and several trucks carrying food and blankets was turned back during the short time we where there.

Perhaps the best comment on the whole situation was uttered by a fellow passenger of the car that took us to el-Arish. As we were approaching our destination, a man dressed in a grey gallabeyya turned to us (three foreigners) and said: "Are you here to help the Palestinians? We are very grateful for what you are doing. People like you [referring of course to volunteer doctors and aid workers rather than journalists...] are doing more than our own worthless rulers!"

After this he looked around him and asked the other passengers: "We can speak freely here, right?" To which the driver responded seriously: "No, be careful. This is Sharon's country!"

(While I wait for someone to give me a good explanation of exactly what the driver meant by this, I have a side-note here that is probably old news for Egyptian readers but others may find interesting: While Israels former prime-minister Ariel Sharon is best known for his invasion of Lebanon and the following Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982, he also has a history in Sinai. He led an Israeli armored division there during the six-day way of 1967, and was later appointed head of the IDF:s southern command. He returned to fight in the '73 October War, achieving a war hero status that helped pave the way for his political career. As defense minister in the early 80's, he was in charge of dismantling Israeli settlements in the Sinai before it was returned to Egypt after the Camp David agreement. Totally against the understandings of the agreement, he decided to destroy most of the evacuated settlements completely, including the town of Yamit on the Mediterranean coast for which Egypt had agreed to pay $80 million.)

Women demonstrate outside "top secret" Israeli embassy in Cairo

Around 20 women demonstrated against the war in Gaza outside the Israeli embassy in Cairo today, demanding the expulsion of the Israeli embassador.

Click the pic for a set of photos I took before the police intervened.

Not surprisingly, there was a huge presence of plainclothes police and state security agents. One man demanded to see my camera, but when I innocently asked to see some identification he instead pulled back his coat and flashed his gun, yelling "police, police." When asked why photography was not allowed, he said the area was "top secret," but refused to acknowledge the presence of the Israeli embassy. Kind of funny, considering that the roadblocks and the discrete but clearly visible Israeli flag on a nearby building gives away the location of the embassy to anyone who wants to know, and considering that many ordinary Egyptians around the square were snapping away happily with their mobile cameras without any intervention from the police. And while I understand that photography outside foreign embassies can be a sensitive issue in any country, it's more difficult to understand the security risks involved in taking pictures in the direction of the Zoo...

"Israel as a metaphor for oppression"

Sarah Carr has some good comments on Egypt's complicated relationship to the Palestinians over here. Partly in response to my previous post where I argued that many Egyptians identify with Palestinians based on their shared experience of oppression, rather than just on basis of a shared identity, she writes:

My own feeling is that this tells us more about Egyptians' relationship with Israel and their own government, than it does about their relationship with Palestinians and Palestine - rather in the way that Germany remained a bogeyman for several generations of British people after the 2nd World War. The attitude lingers on in expressions such as “so and so is a right Nazi”.
That Israel has become a metaphor for oppression explains both the extreme governmental sensitivity surrounding anti-war protests in Egypt (the ever-present threat of protestors who have not received the MB memo vocally making the association between Israeli aggression and domestic repression) and the moral bankruptcy of the current regime in the eyes of many Egyptians.

At the very least, this provides a better understanding of the situation than the argument that "Israel is the Opium of the People."

Meanwhile, Hossam el-Hamalawy posted a note yesterday from steel workers in Helwan, who donated a day of their salary in support to the Palestinian people and called upon other workers to do the same. Initiatives like these should be seen not only as acts of solidarity, but as carrying an implicit criticism of the passivity or complicity of the ruling elite. More importantly, it's a conscious attempt to show that workers and the labour movement can provide a kind of moral leadership for the nation, in sharp contrast to the "moral bankruptcy of the current regime."

Pic above: Israeli soldiers arresting a Palestinian during the weekly demonstration against the Wall in the village of Bil'in, West Bank, march 2006.

Blaming the victims - propaganda approaching the surreal

The argument that Hamas is "hiding behind civilians" has been become like the pro-Israeli Declaration of Faith recently. By invoking this religious mantra, targeting any part of the Gaza prison can be justified. But the Secretary-General of "Swedish Israel Information" approaches the surreal in this article where she puts all blame on Hamas for the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza:

"What chocks me even more than Israels warfare is Hamas's total lack of concern for its own civilian population. /.../ Hamas deploys landmines, anti-tank guns, and bombs in regular neighbourhoods in Gaza City, hurting their own more than Israel."

Huh? I'm at a total loss here. Perhaps it would be better if those bombs and anti-tank guns were deployed in regular neighbourhoods in Tel Aviv? Unfortunately for the people of Gaza though, that's not where the Israeli tanks are...

For one side Death and Destruction, for the other - Entertainment

This article in the Wall Street Journal, which was published last week but came to my attention only now, could be the ultimate proof of the monstrosity of this war.

Headline: "Israelis Watch the Fighting in Gaza From a Hilly Vantage Point."

Excerpt: "Moti Danino sat Monday in a canvas lawn chair on a sandy hilltop on Gaza's border, peering through a pair of binoculars at distant plumes of smoke rising from the besieged territory. An unemployed factory worker, he comes here each morning to watch Israel's assault on Hamas from what has become the war's peanut gallery -- a string of dusty hilltops close to the border that offer panoramic views across northern Gaza."

"/---/ Over the weekend, four teenagers sat on a hill near Mr. Danino's, oohing and aahing at the airstrikes."

"/---/ "Look at that," she shouts, clapping her hands as four artillery rounds pound the territory in quick succession. "Bravo! Bravo!"

Note that it is the territory that is being pounded by artillery, in case anyone thought Gaza was populated by humans!

Read it all. It's truly disturbing.

"Volvo was the best car in the world, and you let the Americans have it?"

Being a fan of Khaled al-Khamissiyy (the author of Taxi) and no stranger to journalistic clichés, I just have to share with all readers of this blog parts of a conversation I had with a taxi driver today, on my way to the 'aboud bus station.

A high-spirited man in his forties, he started out by the usual questions to establish my nationality (Swedish) and profession (journalist). He asked me where I was going and I told him Mahalla el-Kubra.

"Aaa.. so you are writing about the workers?" he concluded (Mahalla is a city in the Nile Delta and an important historical centre for the Egyptian textile industry and labour movement.) "They always have problems in Mahalla. But today the whole world is having problems, even Sweden, right?"

I admitted that this was the case, and told him Volvo have been laying of thousands of workers in my hometown Gothenburg since last summer. While this came as no surprise to the driver, he was absolutely chocked to learn that both Volvo and Saab belong to US companies since a few years (Ford and General Motors, respectively).

"yikhrib beit amreeka!" [God damn America!] he shouted. "Volvo was the best car in the world, and you let the Americans have it? I don't believe it!"

"And Saab too," I reminded him.

"Yeah," he replied. "Saab... that was never a good car you know... let them have it. But Volvo!"

He then went on to reprimand me sharply for using a Motorola cellphone instead of supporting Ericsson, "or at least Nokia" (manufactured by our Finnish neighbours). "You Swedes are just like us Egyptians, you sell out your country to the Americans and don't even support your own industry... what's wrong with people?"

At this point the conversation inevitably turned to Israel and Gaza.

"Do you know what I saw today?" the driver said. "I saw a picture of a child cut into two pieces. A small baby, hit by an Israeli rocket or bomb or whatever... It was split in two, just like Palestine! What they are doing is a crime, the biggest crime in the world..."

Here he paused for a while, before suddenly turning towards me and asking in a sharp tone, eyes blazing with rage: "Do you support Israel?! Do you agree with what they are doing?"

I assured him this was not the case, and that in fact thousands of people have been demonstrating against the war in Gaza in Sweden. He shook his head and said: "Yes but they are wrong. They are demonstrating against Israel, but they should demonstrate against the Americans. They are the ones who want this war."

"You have to write about what's happening," he went on. "Write to make people cry. And tell the people in Sweden that they should go to the US embassy and demonstrate, not only to stop the Israeli agression in Gaza, but to give you Volvo back!"

(Pic above from a protest in Cairo during a visit by George W. Bush to Egypt in January 2008).