A catalog of reactions to Gaarder

I'll try to keep this up in chronological order as things unfold:

• Published through Aftenposten:
  • Mona Levin, Jewish writer and journalist says (also in English) it's the "ugliest thing" she's read "since Mein Kampf"
  • Gaarder responds to Levin, insisting he made it clear he's got nothing against Jews
  • Gabi Gleichmann, a Swedish writer in Norway, asserts Gaarder's article is offensive to Jews
  • Julius Paltiel (one of Norway's few remaining Holocaust survivors) and Tor Bang sarcastically refute Gaarder's assurances that he's a friend of the Jews
  • Bente Groth, a religious historian and university lecturer, is also opposed to Israel's policy but finds that Gaarder's op-ed is reminiscent of old-fashioned antisemitism
  • Jan Carlsen, a columnist, writes that Gaarder shows moral courage
  • Tali Cohen, an Israel poet who has lived in Israel, talks about the difficulty of being an Israeli and a Jew in Norway
  • Dagfinn Høybråten, a leading Christian Democrat, implores Gaarder to desist from translating the article and advises him to reconcile with the Jews
  • Jan Benjamin Rødner, one of the hasbarah veterans in Norway, asks Gaarder for concrete evidence he's ever done anything for Jews
  • Harald Røstvik and Inger Rønning think that Gaarder doesn't go far enough - Norway also deserves condemnation for selling weapons to Israel
  • Nils-Petter Enstad, a journalist and writer, feels that Gaarder's op-ed is like a chilling wind from the past
  • Astrid Gunnestad rejects rejectionist rhetoric, quoting Michael Melchior and Shabana Rehman
  • Helge Høibraaten, professor at the Humboldt in Berlin, says that if Gaarder can't do better than this, he might as well "shut up"
  • Yngve Gauslå sort of defends Gaarder, but then says criticism against Israel shouldn't have anything to do with whether the people are Jewish, or whatever...
  • Bjørn Nistad has it figured out: also antisemitism is Israel's fault.
  • Martin Sandbu at Wharton says the op-ed nauseates him and brings a scary future closer.
  • Mona Levin and Jostein Gaarder meet at the top of the Oslo City Hall and compare text messages (in English)- and Mona catches Jostein in a lie.
  • Gaarder says (in English) that for the first time in his life feels like a Norwegian Jew threatened, conceding that he didn't expect this kind of reaction.
  • Hilde Henriksen Waage intimates (also in English) that Jews, when angered, are dangerous people, and says that Gaarder's op-ed was like a gift to all us nutcases who are worried about antisemitism in Europe. (I wrote a friendly note to her, but no response)
  • Katrine Jutrem Cohen, a researcher within religious history, makes it clear that Gaarder is ignorant and no friend of the Jews
  • Sjur Cappelen Papazian writes that Gaarder blurs the distinction between anti-Zionism ("which everyone should be") and antisemitism
  • Lars-Toralf Storstrand wonders why Gaarder doesn't aim at Arab terrorists and Islam rather than at Israel and Judaism
  • Einar Kr Steffenak describes a study conducted by professors at Yale documenting a correlation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism in Europe
  • Kjell Olaf Jensen, the leader of Norwegian PEN, expresses apprehension about the hostility directed at a writer
  • Fridtjof Frank Gundersen provides several quotes similar to Gaarder's, from people one could not possibly want to associate with
  • Håkon Harket, who has written about Zionism in Norwegian, writes what is probably one of the best critiques of Gaarder's op-ed
  • Author Ole Asbjørn Ness writes that some writers should simply stay out of politics
  • Edvard Dæhlin writes that if the world had to choose, it'd be better off with Israel than with Jostein Gaarder
  • Pål Christiansen thinks Gaarder is a great guy and all those who don't appreciate this, don't get it
  • Kåre Verpe satirically encourages Gaarder to accept what he is - and it isn't good
  • Siegfried Pausewang blames Israel for antisemitism
  • Olav Fykse Tveit, in an official missive from the Church of Norway, wishes to disassociate the church from the religious connotations of Gaarder's op-ed, but hastens to make clear he also deplores Israel's effort to defend itself policy
  • Mette Molland admits she first liked Gaarder's op-ed, but after having read the reactions she now understands how frightening it is
  • Odd Einar Dørum, the leader of the Norwegian Liberal Party (whom I solicited for a reaction) makes it clear that antisemitism has no place in Norwegian life, under any political pretext
  • Thorbjørn Jagland tries to put political differences in context, calling for greater efforts to bridge the gap between different worldviews
  • Anne Hege Grung parses the issue, but doesn't quite get it right
  • Gaarder defends himself, invoking right to free speech, etc.
  • Former prime ministers Kåre Willoch and Kjell Magne Bondevik have different takes on the matter - Willoch thinks Gaarder is a literary wizard, Bondevik thinks the piece was offensive
  • Gaarder announces (also in English) he's leaving the debate he started
  • Gry Solbraa is thankful that she's learned so much from the debate
  • Vally Vegge says that freedom of expression was sacrificed when people criticized Gaarder
  • Lars Gule, professor and professional atheist, denounces all of Israel's crimes and excludes Gaarder from a particularly narrow definition of antisemitism
  • Aftenposten's leader finally weighs in, drawing the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and denying the country's right to exist
  • Thomas Hylland Eriksen condemns Israel and suggests that the UN(!) invade Israel and put it under martial law
  • Aftenposten notes that Israelis are disturbed by the piece and that they have been contacted by journalists from many countries on the issue
  • Odd-Bjørn Fure, director of the Norwegian Holocaust Museum, articulately presses the issue but still feels compelled to criticize Israel (in English here)
  • A fresh opinion poll in Norway shows that 60% of Norwegians don't think Israel had the right to attack Lebanon (interpretation in English here)
  • Levi Henriksen is surprised and encouraged by the level of public interest in all this
  • Petter Eide, the secretary general of Amnesty International in Norway, basks in  moral equivalence, asking everyone to forget Gaarder and instead listen to him
  • Anne Elisabeth Andersen writes that this is all about stifling the unmitigated condemnation of Israel debate
  • Walid Al-Kubaisi, Arab journalist resident in Norway, thinks Gaarder rocks (translated to English here)
    
  • Aftenposten's correspondent in Israel, says there is relative calm in Israel about the piece
  • Nina Witoszek, Polish academic and intellectual, is full of irony and sarcasm about self-righteous Norwegian stunts
  • From Germany comes news that Ralph Giordano condemns the piece and anyone who supports it as antisemitic
  • August 12th, Gaarder publishes his second op-ed
  • The political editor in Aftenposten, Harald Stanghelle warns against demonization of Israel but makes it clear that he thinks Israel is pretty bad
  • The representative from the synagogue in Oslo and foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre reportedly agree that the public debate needs more nuance
  • Two influential Danish editorials pretty much torpedo Gaarder
  • Mona Levin articulates what antisemitism means in this debate, pointing the particularly horrendous screed by Thomas Hylland Eriksen
  • Gaarder writes a short note, making it clear he has nothing to fear from Norwegian Jews
  • Aftenposten rejects my contribution - apparently there's enough room in the newspaper for Gaarder to endlessly "clarify" his own position and for endless repetitions of how awful Israel is, but not enough for my stuff
  • Aftenposten offers a sampling of English-language letters written to the editor about Gaarder's op-ed
  • Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center apologizes to those afflicted by Alzheimer's for speculating that Gaarder might have the disease - he meant to say that Gaarder suffers from amnesia
  • Erna Solberg, the chair of Norway's Conservative Party, says that Israel has a right to defend itself yada yada yada Norwegian Jews are especially vulnerable yadayadayada occupied West Bank yadayadayada disproportionate force BUT it is untrue that she won't cooperate with Fremskrittspartiet over their friendliness with Israel
  • Gabi Gleichmann asks: why isn't it enough for Gule and Gaarder to ask for a change in Israeli regimes rather than a destruction of the country
• Published through Dagbladet
  • Professor Øyvind Foss denounces New Antisemitism, defends free speech, and hopes Gaarder learns from this
  • Freddy Fjellheim encourages collaborative problem-solving over the "either-or" that dominates the debate
  • Shabana Rehman calls for peace, for an end to the polarization, and appeals to our love of children
  • Foreign minister of Norway identifies with Gaarder's frustration but finds the rhetoric unacceptable
  • Interviews with several Norwegian researchers on religion about Zionism and Judaism
  • Elin Brodin thinks Israelis and Zionists are awful, but that Europeans have also done some awful things, but that Gaarder should have known better
  • Gudleiv Forr calls for more analysis, fewer polemics
  • Hanne Eggen Røislien, doctoral student at PRIO, provides a - given her affiliation - surprisingly insightful parsing of the issues surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict
  • Morten Levin tells us that even though he is Jewish he thinks Israel and Zionism are awful, and the Jewish lobby too
• Published in other Norwegian press:
  • Morgenbladet (TOH to Bruce Bawer) in its editorial says the bigger problem is prejudice against Moslems
• Published outside of Norway:
  • Ha'aretz (of all newspapers) report on the piece and get an expert opinion that yes, this has an antisemitic tendency
  • Spiegel summarizes the matter pretty well, in German
• Blog entries:
  • Secular Blasphemy denounces Gaarder for promoting old-fashioned antisemitism
  • Sage blogger Andrew Sullivan believes this is a grave portend for the fate of Norwegian Jews.
  • Sirocco emphasizes the conduct of Israel over the harshness of the piece, pointing out that designating a Jewish state opens the door for complaints about Judaism
  • Robert Sharp examines whether an apartheid regime reigns in Israel
  • Monadology wonders whether Andrew Sullivan is overreacting
  • Cross-Currents concurs with Sullivan's grim outlook
  • Biased Opinions feels a line has been crossed
  • German eco-Freak supports Gaarder, writing improbably that "as everyone who questions Israel is vilified. Israel must, however, be questioned, as Israel is a state of injustice, founded on a sinister ideology based on a superior race and subhumans. Such a state is unacceptable." (Actually, it's partly true - Israel was founded as a result of the Jews being victimized by such an ideology.)
  • OnlyWired weighs in on antisemitism in the public discourse more generally
  • Document.no provides an excellent summary of the dynamics of the debate - this ain't over, not by a long shot
  • Gislus analyzes Gaarder's op ed for style and content

Comments

[Robert]

Thanks for the link.

[Oleh Larsen]

It's a pretty long list, but while it covers most of the critics, there is few of Gaarders defenders. Any half enlightened Norwegian knows that Gaarder is not personally an antisemite, the debate is rather if his piece could be interpreted as such, and encourage people who are, while insulting jews. His defenders, many of them still critical to parts of his wording, think the term antisemite is thrown around too liberally, when his intention was a debate about Israels behaviour and illegal warfare and occupation.

Leif Knutsen's personal feelings shines through most clearly where he claims Levin catches Gaarder in a lie - I read Norwegian, and in the linked article no such thing happens. The journlist do mention that Gaarder reads his text messages aloud, and Levin says that she doesnt believe in one of them, as Gaarder continue to read. The "lie he is catched in" is, I guess, him not immediatly showing the message as proof (which might be because he didn't hear the comment, he thought proving his word unneccessary and infantile, he wanted to sheild the identity of a person that sent him a private message or a myriad of other reasons).

[She]

Oleh,

I am Jewish (and Israeli), and I was extremely offended by Gaarder's article. I found his words chilling and reminiscent of classic anti-Semitism. One can be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic, but Gaarder comes across in this article as being both. Among non-Jews, there are those who support Gaarder's words and those who oppose them. I'd be willing to bet that every Jewish person who reads Gaarder's article will be just as offended as I was.

[Censored]

You forgot: "This blog deletes any dissenting comments on the issue".

[Leif Knutsen]

Oleh - I have not been selective in what to link to - you'll see that the list covers everything featured in Aftenposten, the good, the bad, and the ugly. You're welcome to email me links to other reactions - I want this to be as complete as possible.

Yes, I've made editorial comments a few places, but so what? It's pretty obvious they're editorial comments.

There are lots of dissenting comments left intact here, but I delete those that serve no other purpose than being abusive. It's not censorship - there are many places for abusive people to express themselves - Aftenposten's op ed pages being one of them, provided the abuse is directed at Israel.

[sebastiano comis]

like patriotism, antisemitism is the last shelter of rogue people

[sebastiano comis]

Israel raptor says:
I am not a bird of prey,
is it peace that I prefere.
Is the fish who attempts at my life
sticking his bone in my throat like a knife.

[sebastiano comis]

having learnt to fly
thank to evolution
some fish became raptors
capable of any solution (better "any action"?)

[sebastiano comis]

Israeli must live

...and for the arabs left
surviving be enough.

*

What an exageration - comments
the neocon thinker -
All people know that fish
do not feel any grief.

*

To Amos Oz

I was illuded,
now am disappointed.
I must admit
that raw fish
is better to eat.

.

An israelian pacifist
is a contraddiction in terms, he can't exist.
He is ideed a bird of prey
who wants to get his way
of eating in peace.

[Oleh Larsen]

First og all, the English translation of Gaarders piece is very much unauthorized, and cannot be considered accurate, nuances are overlloked. When that is said, I believe those who are offended by the the translation, probably also would be by the original.

Leifs "editorial comments" included the disinformation that Gaarder was catched in a lie, which for all non-Norwegian-readers would be taken at face value. The defenders of Gaarder are rideculed, his critics the oposite.

Gaarder yesterday published a clearification, where he upholds his attack on Israels doings, and states again his love of Jews and his reconizion of Israel of 1948 - but not of their posession of the territories stolen i 1967.

Personally I think his wording was not careful enough in the original text. For a careful and objective reader, it is poigent and never racist, but most readers are not careful, and many readers have strong emotions on the issuse clouding the nuances and purpose of the style. He should have known this. Anyone familiar with Gaarder, even his clear headed strong critics in Norway, knows he is not personally antisemitic, but the text could 1) offend Jews personally and 2) possibly encourage antisemittism. The first would be bad, the second worse. The first has clearly happend, lets hope the second hasn't.