Response to Roar

Roar wrote:

However, I do resent the general tone, which suggests that Norwegians are not only largely anti-semitic, they also "for the most part, lack the ability to make a moral distinction between bigotry and criticism" (how inelegantly you skip the relatively massive criticism of Gaarder's text in Aftenposten from fellow intellectuals in Norway).

Well, you'll see that I have taken the trouble of documenting every article I have found that responded to Gaarder's article. I'll concede there are dangers in generalizing - some of the writers, such as Håkon Harket, wrote very sophisticated responses. But if I was hopeful that the vast majority of the cultural and political elite would draw a line in the sand, I was bitterly disappointed. What became apparent to me was that Norwegian public opinion is uninformed about basic facts related to Judaism and Israel, and therefore accepted disputed allegations as premises. It is, in fact, very difficult to draw moral distinctions. Most public discourse, whether in Norway, Germany, Israel, the US, or anywhere else is dominated by crude reductionism and rhetorical fallacies. But one would hope that in a situation like this, a few intellectually honest people would take the trouble to think this through. But too few did, and conventional wisdom still dominates the debate.

"It's a widespread belief that Israel is the cause of all the troubles in the Middle East, in spite of all evidence to the contrary."... But where is this a widespread belief? In Norway? In Scandinavia? In Europe?

I have often wished there were more opinion polls in these countries to assess what beliefs people held as true about Israel, Jews, and Judaism. My opinion derives from the preponderance of opinions expressed in the Norwegian media, what premises are accepted as true in news reporting, etc. And here there is an inescapable bias. Norway and Norwegians play lip service to the notion of a peace for everyone in the region, but I have yet to see a single one of these "skeptical" politicians praise Israel for a risk she's taken, or offer an alternative course of action to those that are being pursued.

Now, in so far as such a settlement policy has not an unimportant impact on how politics are run by the state of Israel (also in its conflict with Palestinian authories), with regards to Israeli popular opinion, Israeli elections and hence government agendas, the construction of roads in Palestinian territories by the state of Israel, the maneuvres of the Israeli army, etc - it is fair to think Gaarder concludes from this that religion does play a role in Israeli state politics.

Religion plays a role in Norwegian state politics, too. As it turns out, most of the Jewish inhabitants in the territories are secular. Only a small minority of Israelis are what you'd call strongly religious, and of these a good chunk are actually against the establishment of the State of Israel. Much is made in the Norwegian press of the religious fringe that believes that it's blasphemy to yield "even an inch" of the West Bank or Gaza. But when push came to shove in Gaza, they were evacuated - more or less voluntarily, but nobody was hurt in the evacuation. But Gaarder clearly implied that Israel's territorial policy is primarily motivated by religious conviction, which is patently untrue. The policy vis a vis the territories is a lengthy, complicated matter that we can discuss another time.

For this reason he wants to control where his text is published, as well as carefully study any translation of it...the Aftenposten piece as published by Aftenposten addresses itself predominantly to a Norwegian public. And to make a long story short, both popular and political opinion in Norway have long been informed by the opinion that the state of Israel in its territorial shape and expansion is justified from a religious point of view.

Well, thanks for making my point for me. Public opinion is largely misinformed about the motivations by Israel's territorial policy. And Gaarder shouldn't publish something he didn't want to be known. Apparently, he said his initial intent was to translate the article.

Now none of us question the existence of the written words "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," I assume.

I would recommend that you read Katrine Cohen's comment in Aftenposten on this issue. Judaism does not advocate the principle of retribution. The quote you bring up has been interpreted by the rabbis and historical analysis to relate to compensation and not retribution.

Another example is how the state of Israel openly practises collective punishment by way of blowing up entire buildings in which a suicide bomber has lived in the Palestinian territories, thereby taking innocent people's homes away as a retribution of something they're not guilty of.

I don't really support this practice, but I feel bound to explain it. How would you deter suicide attacks if you were in Israel's place? The family of suicide bombers have for a long time received financial compensation from Iraq and Saudi Arabia - you'd think it was a bitter reward for such a horribly tragic loss, but a surprising number say they're proud of their son or daughter for such an act. As it turns out, the erection of the security barrier has obviated the need for such actions, as fewer bombers succeed.

Most importantly, face his main point: the state of Israel's repeated violations of international law, international conventions, and UN resolutions constitute a failed legitimacy of the state of Israel today.

As it turns out, Israel has not violated a single element of international law or international conventions. I know there are disputes about this, but they are unresolved. You would do well to read up on this - you'll be surprised by what you find out. Start with International Law and the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia, an article that has plenty of input from both sides of the issue.

"There was no celebration about the Ten Plagues - in fact, at each Seder we make a point to diminish our joy at our liberation because it happened at the expense of the Egyptians."

So let's have a look at this passage. Gaarder claims the Ten Plagues were celebrated. But it remains textually unclair if he means they were celebrated during the actual visitation of the plagues or afterwards (sometimes in the past, probably in Israel of old). My natural inclination is to think Gaarder means the latter.

They were never celebrated.

Still for the sake of simplicity: are there Israelis at all that have celebrated Israeli military triumphs in Lebanon? If yes, have too many Israelis celebrated such triumphs from the moral point of view that killing civilians is not something to celebrate at all?

Everything I read in the Israeli press, in Israel blogs tell me there is no celebration of any kind. People are depressed, upset, dismayed about the war. When it is over, and I hope soon, it will be anticlimactic.

Where is the empathy for the Lebanese population that suffers so enormously because of Israeli military raids?

It is rampant in Israeli public opinion. Ask around. Read the newspapers, read the blogs.

I assume you relate this to the follwoing passage from Gaarder:

"We are embarrassed by those who still believe that the god of plants, animals and galaxies has appointed one particular people as its favorites and given them funny stone tablets, burning bushes and a license to kill."

These are theological points that would take some time to explain, just like the symbolism of fish and crosses, etc., are complex in Christianity. Let me put it briefly: The central drama in Jewish theology relates to the notion of revelation. Moses' first encounter with God was when he ran into a bush that burned but was not consumed, and he was told to take off his shoes. The stone tablets are an even stranger account, as Moses actually destroyed the first set when he came upon the Israelites worshipping the golden calf. There is never a license to kill implied in Judaism. In fact, murder is one of the sins that a Jew should rather die than commit.

"We only say: shame over all apartheid, shame over ethnic cleansing, shame over all terrorist acts against civilians, whether perpetrated by Hamas, Hizballah, or the State of Israel!"

It's astounding how you manage not to comment on these essential appeals in Gaarder's op-ed.

Gaarder did not write that he refused to accept Palestine in its current form, or Iran as a theocracy, or Lebanon as ruled by Hezbollah. To me, these assurances rang hollow.

Det mosaiske trossamfunn i Oslo and public figures such as Mona Levin do the same in Norway: accuse Gaarder of promoting anti-semitism...

I can't recall the synagogue in Oslo ever accusing anyone of antisemitism. In fact, they scrupulously avoid commenting on political issues, even related to Israel. But on antisemitism, read the article in Wikipedia.

Comments

[Roar]

Let me repeat: the word anti-semite isn't a verbal toy, it's best used with care. To accuse someone of being an anti-semite is a grave thing to do. That person deserves a proper explanation of why he/she is supposed to be an anti-semite - and to do that one must substantiate. This is also necessary in order not to make the word anti-semite hollow (which has sad and serious consequences of its own).

With regards to my lengthy reply to "So you want an explanation" you'd do well to d i s t i n g u i s h (as my reply distinguishes) between Gaarder and I. I am not Gaarder, Gaarder isn't me. You'd also do well to locate in Gaarder's op-ed - by the use of quote for instance - what you find problematic and begin your analysis from there. I've asked you do to so, but it appears you refuse to. And finally, you'd also do well not to produce false quotes from my reply to "So you want..." - that is, conveniently leave out parts of a paragraph so that you in the cut-and-paste quote you make have altered and/or significantly reduced the original meaning. It is for this reason that I include the following quote from my reply in full (and I should have done that to more of the quotes - that you've reduced to the effect of semantic alteration - you make from my reply):

"Also with regards to your first point: Gaarder's text relies on the context of the reader, a point Gaarder repeatedly has said he's aware of. For this reason he wants to control where his text is published, as well as carefully study any translation of it. Simply (and inadequately) put, he doesn't want the text to fall in the wrong hands (which is of course something any text risks - but to eliminate that risk, one must also eliminate text as such). That for instance means that the Aftenposten piece as published by Aftenposten addresses itself predominantly to a Norwegian public. And to make a long story short, both popular and political opinion in Norway have long been informed by the opinion that the state of Israel in its territorial shape and expansion is justified from a religious point of view. That is a crucial point and you've missed it entirely. It is also a point that hardly comes without substance with regards to many other countries in the western world - for instance, the U.S.A."

(Note that I talk about how it's also intergrated in Gaarder's op-ed by way of its readership that Gaarder addresses his disapproval of religious convictions in Norway as a basis for support - again in Norway - of the state of Israel in its post-1948 development. By no account is that specific context an Israeli contex, it's a Norwegian one. You refer to it and thank me for underscoring your point (which is?), whereas you're either a poor reader or a dishonest writer, seeing as you don't respond to the actual points I make, nor elaborate on nor clarify yours for it to make semantic (spell it out, please) and contextual sense (because you've taken the liberty to alter by way of reduction the meaning of the paragraph you quote).

Yet again you eschew the main points in a text. I talk about this at the end of my reply to "So you want an explanation about Gaarder," a reminder I'm making on purpose also for a second reason (that I touch upon in the above-made quote): every text has a context, it also normally reaches an addressee (in this case for instance a readership), and it is often further spread by way of reference - now in order to make this textual comment short, that very response, that very reference forms risks for the original text as a writer (in this case) can only control the writing process of the original text and it's original appearance/utterance, not its later use. This may all seem very dry und dull, but if you think about the impact of all this, you might see why this is of such importance for instance in the case of Gaarder's op-ed. Further, there's just one way to undo textual risks - namely by eliminating them (the impact of this is even more disturbing). With that in mind I refer you and other readers (if they feel like it) to read the end of my reply one more time as it also relates to the point I make in this paragraph (as I also do in my reply to "So you want...").

Since I report that Det mosaiske trossamfunn i Oslo have made several accusations against people and organisations of promoting anti-semitism in Norway and since you don't recall that (yet allow yourself ample freedom to describe Norwegian society in vile ways, being quite the expert), let me recall it for you:

Roughly one or two weeks ago a window was broken in a synagogue in Oslo. Afterwards Anne Sender from Det mosaiske trossamfunn i Oslo appeared on Norwegian television (such as NRK) talking about the organisers behind demonstrations against Israel's current warfare in Lebanon and accused them of promoting ('fremme') anti-semitism in Norway, linking these demonstrations and the anti-semitic effects she claimed they have to the broken window in the synagogue and the fact that a person had left his excrement on the stairs to the synagogue (I unfortunately can't find an audio link for this tv appearance - but you can find references to this incident in most major Norwegian newspapers that are online). The same Anne Sender in a critique of Gaarder's op-ed in Aftenposten also accuses Gaarder of "preparing the ground for anti-semitism" (see http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/kultur/5747821.html).

Seeing as you take great liberties in commenting the Norwegian public and public life in Norway, it is somewhat odd that two such major medial incidents from the last fortnight have escaped you. No person can possibly process all information provided by the media, but - and this is important - one should as a result moderate one's comments on any society in accordance to the information one manages (or chooses) to process. Let me also remind you and inform readers not from or living in Norway - it is not at all uncommon that organisations, institutions, and private persons of societal rank accuse other people or organisations for promoting anti-semitism in Norway, which sadly poses a threat to people's semantic relation to the term as such - which is also something I've warned about in comments on this blog.

I have also noticed that you've taken the pain to provide your readers here a catalogue of links of relevance to the debate around Gaarder's op-ed (notably after you wrote "So you want..." and as a separate post). That you use as a counterargument for one of the many challenges I make to you for you to substantiate your postulates in previous posts. You have not however intergrated any of them in "So you want an explanation about Gaarder," not by quote, not by direct reference, not by analysis. It appears to me that your political views are so obvious and justified they transcend any need for explanation or substantiation by comparison of texts, analysis of passages, etc - formal textual treatments required to make a valid interpretation and point. Not to mention, make accusations of anti-semitism.

Her are some other answers from me with regards to your "Response to Roar:"

"Religion plays a role in Norwegian state politics, too."

Well, I never said it didn't. In fact I make a point of that - and I do so also for a specific purpose.

"How would you deter suicide attacks if you were in Israel's place?"

Is this a rhetorical question where I'm supposed to acknowldge or defend collective punishment if it's done by the state of Israel?

"As it turns out, Israel has not violated a single element of international law or international conventions."

Collective punishment is illegal according to international conventions. Whether or not you approve of Israel's policy to blow up entire buildings where suicide bombers have lived is irrelevant. Collectively depriving people who live in a building of their homes because a suicide bomber has lived there meets the criteria of collective punishment because people not guilty of this crime suffer from the state of Israel's retributional action.

With regards to unacceptable joyous reactions by Israelis to Israeli military actions that I talk about in my reply to "So you want..." you decide to ignore the actual points I make (a very convenient, yet dangerous strategy in any dialogue/communication). You also appear to be oblivious (by choice?) of the psychology of war in a national framework, which shows dark und problematic aspects of societies of people trapped in such a situation. That is not saying people trapped in war are bad - most of their reactions are indeed very human. Still it involves a responsibility from outside such societies to aid as best they can to find a solution to end war (sometimes sadly to fatal effects) - for instance by way of the international society. In so far as Israel also appears on an international politcal arena in order to make political changes, Israel in actual fact recognises the international society as carrying a responsibility.

"It's a widespread belief that Israel is the cause of all the troubles in the Middle East, in spite of all evidence to the contrary"

I had decided not to comment on the second part of this postulate (the first part of it I have commented - and you've replied to it by saying it is widespread, without providing one single valid proof), but that may have been a mistake of mine. Its second part reads: "in spite of all evidence to the contrary." Are you saying none - none! - of the troubles in the Middle East are the cause of the state of Israel? What or who is then the cause of these troubles? Arab nations? The international society?

Finally, I kindly refer other readers to read to my actual reply to "So you want...," if they find this post of interest. It's beyond my power to go through all the postulates the site manager of this blog makes with regards to my reply to "So you want..." I have not left out any problematic points the site manger makes in his reply to me because I believe they're already presented, elaborated on and explained in my said reply to "So you want..." By that I don't mean to say my reply is flawless, but I've made an honest attempt to discuss grave matters politely, explanatory, and where necessary tried to substantiate. My said reply also contains points not touched upon in this post - and I believe some of them are very important.

I also call for a serious dialogue and an honest one (by way of correct reference, direct text commenting, etc). Writing replies is time-consuming, but carry little significance as a means of dialogue if they're responded to on deliberately false grounds.

[Roar]

I can in actual fact not find an NRK clip where Anne Sender claims that the organisers behind the anti-war demonstrations in Norway promotes anti-semitism. So I withdraw that comment and apologise for making it.

[Roar]

I found the NRK clip.

Anne Sender to NRK August 3rd 2006 in a news clip that deals with an attack on the Jewish synagogue in Oslo as well as the current anti-war demonstrations in Norway, between which she draws a parallel:

"We have seen examples of the fact that the Palestina committee, well-known people [in Norway], politicians without any hesitation take part in marches where Stars of David with swastikas inside them are displayed. This is unacceptable and it legitimises over time these sorts of actions."*

A comment on the context of this interview: one or two weeks prior to it Det mosaiske trossamfunn warned Jews in Norway against revealing in public their Jewish identity. As I recall it, it did so because of an incident where a Jewish person had been attacked and because of a general anxiety that Jews in Norway might be put to blame for the current war in Lebanon by some civilians in Norway. Anne Sender later said it's hopeless to protect oneself against unprovoked violence (see for instance here http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=125269). Also the Jewish synagogue refered to is now heavily guarded by the police.

That as a context to her interview with NRK and the fact that she accuses the Palestina committee for legitimising what she calls "such actions" by way of partaking in demonstrations where other groups and/or individuals carry Stars of David with a swastika in them** suggest that Anne Sender holds the Palestina committee responsible for legitimising anti-Jewish acts that in the general public are generally understood as anti-semitic acts. How else can unprovoked violence against Jews and Jewish buildings be understood when these acts are motivated precisely because the persons are Jews and the buildings Jewish?

That Anne Sender by direct implication accuses the Palestina committee for legitmising anti-semitic acts I wouldn't even call a subtext - I would call it capital letters between the lines. Nevertheless I must correct myself: she doesn't say the word "anti-semitic" in her interview with NRK. Still by comparison a person can also describe "ocean" without using the actual word (ocean). A silly example, I know, but the reader will get the gist.

*Nå har vi sett eksempler på at man fra Palestina komiteens side, kjendiser, politikere uten å blunke går i tog med davidstjerner med hakekors inni. Det er uakseptabelt og det legitimerer over tid denne type handlinger.

**The Palestina committee is strongly against such abuse of Stars of David but claim they can't possibly control the way a demonstration develops during the actual demonstration, which is in actual fact true. However it can from badly made experiences from demonstrations it has taken part in and/or organised draw conclusions from how and with whom it wants to appear in a demonstration in public upon which it's a fair expectation and challenge it indeed will. This is also in itself a complex matter as it raises the question to which extent a group can be held responsible for things getting out of hands and not in accordance with a set framework a demonstration in advance is agreed upon to have by its organisers. That as a dilemma contra political protest Anne Sender conveniently doesn't comment.