Stockholm Syndrome Gone Bad

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jan 7, 2015 at 15:58

Sweden interjects into recent history a conundrum of whether they are a 'Christianesque' entity or, as can be assumed by the more recent actions of being formed in an unholy alliance, they surrendered that identity for their part that specifically plans for Israel to be eliminated in the 'Palestinian' quest of 'nation building.' Michael S implicitly employs Biblical language that, if read correctly in the spirit by which it was written, provide dim a prospective for the future of any of those U.N. political mercenaries who sided with the ill-advised attempt to marginalize Israel.

That being said, year 2015 is set for a follow-up to the 'Palestinian' bid in which a greater provocation is in the offing and a Purim style of casting lots for Israel's destruction can be readily seen (Esther Ch. 3). The main difference in this case is that the enemies of Israel have already made their determination (have cast lots) to push the agenda of Haman: but the LORD has already prepared His counter decree for the preservation of His chosen people; yet who is listening?

Now it is easily seen that Sweden has forsaken its former neutrality in international issues and whatever democratic label they hang around their neck is not going to defend against their misalignment towards Israel. Had they remained neutral in their participation with the U.N., they might have escaped a greater condemnation in the contemplated actions against Israel. So, while they might not have viewed their latest political posturing as self- destructive, they have indeed set themselves up for a greater set of consequences.

Too bad their own affinity for the Stockholm syndrome locked them in with the wrong sort of hostage takers.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".