So you want an explanation about Gaarder?

A curious thing has happened in the debate following Gaarder's now infamous op-ed piece. It's become apparent that Norwegians, for the most part, lack the ability to make a moral distinction between bigotry and criticism.

I've been challenged on my talk page to substantiate my allegation that Gaarder's op-ed promotes bigotry and represents a contribution to antisemitism. I suppose that's a reasonable challenge.

Believe it or not, my biggest problem isn't that he denounces Israel, though I do think that someone who wishes to eliminate the Jewish state is treading on thin ice. But this is something I've - unfortunately - gotten used. 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.

Other things are more troubling:

First of all, it's his premise that Israel's policy is predicated on religious conviction, that Israel is a type of theocracy, driven by some form of religious determinism. This amounts to believing the absolute worst, not just about the State of Israel, but also about the citizens of the country. After all - and he should know this - Israel's government is democratically elected, virtually every policy decision is subject to fierce political debate, and religious considerations hardly ever come up. Conventional wisdom in Norway is very hostile to religious arguments in political discourse, so this is a harsh condemnation; and it's hard to believe he doesn't know better. Or that he couldn't have found out.

Second, his characterization of Judaism is, well, malicious even if it is completely uninformed. It is consistent with Christian attitudes toward Judaism well before the Enlightenment. He describes Phariseans who are self-righteous, a framework of moral justice ("an eye for an eye") that by all accounts never existed in Judaism, and distorts several critical episodes in biblical history. 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. Tablets and burning bushes are not particularly sacred symbols in Judaism, but they signify events with profound meaning, completely unrelated to Gaarder's understanding of them.

Third, in comparing his (utterly false and unfounded) version of Judaism with Christianity (the "Jewish rabbi," as if there is another kind), he implies that Judaism is the inferior predecessor to Christianity; what's worse, he makes it clear that Jews need to realize this. He claims that humanism was introduced by Jesus of Nazareth, which is both historically false, theologically unsound, and patently offensive. Jews don't think it's their business to criticize Christianity, but it's pretty clear that the teachings of Jesus were rather less original in their time than many Christians tend to believe.

These sorts of arguments are familiar to Jews. They resonate at the same frequency of millennia of prosecution, particularly at the hands of the European church. They are based on the rather provincial premise that Jews don't quite have it right; that if they only would see it the way Norwegians, or Swedes, or French, etc., see it, then things would work out.

All this against a backdrop of staggering hypocricy on several fronts.

I don't know of a single person within the Zionist communities who isn't thoroughly depressed by the war in Lebanon. Maybe someone can find a blog that celebrates the bombing of bridges, the shelling of towns and villages, the destruction of infrastructure in Lebanon; but I haven't come across one. Every Israeli I have heard from thinks of this operation as unpleasant, distasteful, dangerous, and potentially dehumanizing - but they see no alternative. I think Shimon Peres was making more than a rhetorical point when he asked for suggestions for another way - he (and I) would really like to see one. It should be a blindingly obvious fact that Israel, or any other nation, can not tolerate having 12,000-15,000 long range rockets and missiles pointing at them by a renegade terrorist group. There can also be no question that the abduction of the Israeli soldiers was a deliberate and belligerent step intended to test Israeli resolve.

The prevailing military doctrine in most if not all modern societies is this: wars are best won by use of overwhelming, decisive force. Otherwise they last too long and become too bloody, and there is lots of historical evidence to support this doctrine. It would be much worse if Israel had fought this war with limited incursions, shellings, strikes, etc. It would have given Hezbollah the means to maneuver, learn and fight back, setting the stage for a war that would have lasted for years and devastated Southern Lebanon and destabilized the entire region.

The truth is - and most thoughtful people know this - any country in Israel's position would have done something similar, and most would have done worse. NATO bombed targets in Kosovo to smithereens before committing a single foot soldier; we sat idely by and allowed genocide in Rwanda and Cambodia, and it's happening on our watch in Darfur. There is serious violence in Sri Lanka as I write this and it gets narry a mention.

War is nasty business. I'm against it, I despite it, I think it's a defeat for humanity every time it happens. There is nothing to celebrate about this war, even if Israel wins it tomorrow.

Comments

[Suha]

It seems you are not familiar with the discussion going on in Israel about this being a war of choice. Your assertion that it is necessary is just an opinion - a poorly argued one for that matter. In addition, your understanding of the conflict is very B&W and certainly biased.

You say: "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."

First of all, the belief is not "widespread", so quit the hysterics. It is a subject of debate among many and those (Israelis or others) who are more closely familiar with the situation and are able to step back a little from all the emotionality know that there are no blameless sides in this conflict.

The fact remains that it is OK for you and many others to say Israel, like some divinity, is beyond blame and the jest of Gaarder's piece is against that. So, no wonder you get all worked up about it. Gaarder does not think that Israel is the only party making mistakes. He criticizes attacks on civilians and abduction of soldiers. Although Gaarder is not beyond criticism (your third point has some merit), I really do not understand all the fuss and I certainly do not understand the anti-Semitism charge.

[She]

As a Jew and an Israeli (and one who considers herself to be on the political left), I was extremely offended by Gaarder's article.

Suha, I'm not sure which Israelis you are referring to. Most Israelis do not see the current conflict as a war of choice, but rather a necessary evil. While I don't necessarily agree with some of Israel's methods, I support the premise for this war.

I agree with Leif's assessment that there is a widespread belief that Israel is the cause of all troubles in the Middle East, and one needs only to read some of the Arab blogs and the words of their commenters, not to mention listen to the speeches Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah or any Hamas parliamentarian to realize just how popular this belief is. Indeed, I have often come across online discussions where Arabs are commenting - quite rationally - on whether or not Israel even has a right to exist.

As far as the anti-Semitism, it is obvious to me that not every anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic. However, Gaarder, simply by opting to include a Jewish angle to his story, allows us to see him for the anti-Semite he is. Israel, though referred to as the Jewish state, is a nation state like any other, and by writing such lines as "We don't believe in the illusion of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's conceits and cry over its misdeeds. To act as God's chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.", shows us his true nature.

Nowhere has Leif stated that Israel is beyond blame. The gist of Gaarder's article does not simply limit itself to blaming Israel. No mention whatsoever was made of Hezbollah's targetting of Israeli cities and towns. He also goes so far as to claim that Israelis are celebrating the deaths of 40 Lebanese children, which is simply abominable. Nearly every Israeli I speak to (and that's a lot, given that I am in Israel) is heartsick over the loss of even one Lebanese citizen, child or adult.

Gaarder writes about the picture of the Israeli girls in Kiryat Shmoneh who are seen writing messages on bombs. Nowhere has been written that they were writing messages of hate for the Lebanese people - if anything, it would have been messages for the Hezbollah, the organization that has kept them prisoner in shelters for a month and has practically decimated the town in which they live. And, if one is writing about pictures such as these, why not mention the countless photos of little Palestinian children dressed up as suicide bombers? Is that not equally horrid? Where was the public outcry over those pictures?

Gaarder's vitriolic rant is filled with hatred, ignorance and lies, and any self-respecting newspaper should be rushing to distance themselves from such caustic bigotry.

[Roar]

I'm preparing a comment to this post main entry, but it's time-consuming seeing as it carries no direct refences to Gaarder's op-ed and at best paraphrases in swift passing loose bits from it. Anybody applying accusations of such magnitude that the postulate 'this is anti-semitic' is, should have the decency to accurately substantiate such claims, as neither accusations of anti-semitism nor the meaning of anti-semitism are well served being dealt lightly with - nor is the fight against anti-semitism. Wrong and disrespectful use of the term is a mischief.

Such a substantiation is also lacking in the comment made by She. But here's the part of She's comment that I can comment on quickly:

"(...) why not mention the countless photos of little Palestinian children dressed up as suicide bombers? Is that not equally horrid? Where was the public outcry over those pictures?"

She: this aspect of the Palestinian fight for the Palestinian territories have been shown, at least in Norway. Many horrible aspects of the Palestinian fight against the state of Israel is shown and commented on in the media to the extent that the public feel fatigued by the entire issue.

My experience from other countries in Europe such as England and Germany suggest a similar media coverage.

I would also have liked to comment on your claims with regards to the celebration of the so-called 40 dead Lebanese children in Gaarder's op-ed, but as you feel little obligation to actually refer to quotes from the text you so vehemently critisise and compare them to it's overall message by way of an analysis (that acknowledges its political context, its addressed readership, its choice of literary genre/tools, etc - anything textually relevant) - as long as you feel paraphrased fragments from Gaarder op-ed alone suffice to write it off as anti-semitic (an awfully big word), little suggests that any effort to do a serious analysis of Gaarder's allegory in question would serve a genuine purpose in discussing it with you.

I believe I'll complete my comment on this post's main entry (I feel obliged to since I asked for the substantiations this main entry attempts in a comment to a previous post). Once I've done that I doubt I'll make any more comments unless the issues in question are discussed with more seriousness and grave accusations are dealt with in a respectful way, which always begins with thorough substantiations. Not applying these criteria to accusations of anti-semitism is effectively hollowing the meaning of anti-semitism (including its historic meaning).

I don't call for us to agree. I call for us to be dignified, also in our use of the vocabulary.

[Roar]

I'd liked to have written a much more precise comment on this post's main entry, but unfortunately time didn't allow for this, nor did my energy. I apologise in advance for textual unclarities. Here is my comment:

I can't possibly cover all aspects that suggest themselves to me upon reading the last posts on your blog, as well as in this post specifically. 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). In this context I feel like a fool for taking the time to comment this post. But I believe matters of disagreement and importance can be discussed in a dignified way, so I will make an attempt.

In the headline of this post you ask "So you want an explanation about Gaarder?" Yes, I did and I still do. It was I who asked you to add substantiations to your claims about his text in Aftenposten. I'll be polite and say I'm not quite sure what is implied with the "so" in your title. Suffice it to say, I think the text we're discussing raises and relates to important questions, which is why I try to inform myself. Taking part in a discussion however always involves a certain risk in that by encountering different thinking and different perspectives, one's own opinions might change. This 'risk' is a good thing when informed by explanations / attempts at substantiations. "So" it's a good thing to ask for them.

Anyway, let's cut straight to the bone.

You say Gaarder "denounces Israel," that he wishes to eliminate it, whereas what he actually does is say "we acknowledge the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967." Following this you say: "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 am Norwegian/Scandinavian/European. I have lived several years outside of Norway - in England and in Germany. I have as a foreigner in these countries met many other foreigners, as well as people from the respective countries I've lived in. And my impression is this: Norwegians, Scandinavians, and Europeans are largely very sceptical of the state of Israel's actions towards Palestinians. But I have hardly met anybody that have claimed that Israel is the only guilty part in the ongoing conflicts in Lebanon (for the current conflict there I can only refer to Norway) and in the Palestinian territories - and the few that have blamed just one of the parts have exclusively blamed the Arabs. Yes, there are also people who only blame the state of Israel, but so far I haven't met any. Who am I? I'm left-wing. 34 years old. Student. In other words, someone prone to meeting other intellectual wannabes, a group of people known for being critical towards the state of Israel. Your postulate on 'widespread' and just one part to be blamed (which is not synonymous with being critical) do not apply to Europe, not in popular opinion, nor does it de facto meet the views of the EU and its associated member states (including Norway).

So where is it widespread? In the U.S.?

Your first point: It appears that Gaarder not only sees the post-world-war-two birth of the state of Israel as a result of the Holocaust, but also as a state that relied on pre-world-war-two migration of Jews to what they considered a Jewish homeland as defined by religious texts. It is also reasonable to believe that Gaarder sees a connection between the realpolitik of the state of Israel in the years after 1948 up until present times with regards to how it has taken territorial shape (etc) a n d not uncommon religious motives behind establishing Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories (settlements that are in no way inessential to finding a solution to the conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza and the Westbank). 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.

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.

Your second point: It would clarify matters a great deal here if you'd have taken the pain to connect your analysis with actual quotes from Gaarder. So I'll look for the quotes myself.

Am I right in assuming this passage is one of the passages you find problematic?

"We do not recognize the rhetoric of the State of Israel. We do not recognize the vendetta's spiral of retribution by way of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." We do not recognize the principle of ten or a thousand [not ten thousand as your translation reads] Arab eyes for one Israeli eye. We do not recognize collective punishment or population diets as a political weapon. It's been two thousand years since a Jewish rabbi criticized the ancient doctrine of an "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

I get from your second point that you think Gaarder portrays Jewish religion as having poor moral standards, for instance because it's supposed to advocate harsh retribution. If so, the quote above is of interest.

Now none of us question the existence of the written words "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," I assume. We might also agree that it's a fair assumption that as a religious principle it once had a religious as well as a political impact. For instance long ago when Israel of old was shaped, an emergence that took place also by virtue of religion.

It is assumably in this context and because a context of Jewish religion is hardly inessential as to how the state of Israel acts as precisely a state (see above) that Gaarder considers the doctrine of "an eye for an eye" as a powerful literary image to use in order for readers to get his point on the state of Israel and how it uses collective punishment and punishment of innocent civilians as an open strategy in its military fight/raids/interventions in Lebanon and in Gaza and the Westbank. For instance, the Israeli army (or was it the minister of defense? I can't remember anymore) has uttered that for each bomb launched by the Hezbollah against Israel in the current war, Israel will respond by bombing ten apartments (or buildings - again the contunuous flow of new daily information weakens my memory) in Beirut, which is a rhetoric of severe retribution and as such alienates large parts of the public outside the state of Israel with regards to the state of Israel's state legitimacy as of today. 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.

You may of course resent Gaarder's intertextual references in his critique of the state of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians and Lebanese people - and by all means, pursue a critique of these references and what they may imply. But do so openly, use quotes, refer to the actual parallels (of old and of today) that he draws, shed substantiated light on them in actual readers' contexts (not just the one of your convenient choice), etc. 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.

Further, saying Gaarder's

"characterization of Judaism is, well, malicious even if it is completely uninformed. It is consistent with Christian attitudes toward Judaism well before the Enlightenment. He describes Phariseans who are self-righteous, a framework of moral justice ("an eye for an eye") that by all accounts never existed in Judaism, and distorts several critical episodes in biblical history"

is a display of emotive disapproval that essentially lacks substantiation (I don't see it). However your continuation appears to be a partial attempt to make up for that:

"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."

That as a critique of Gaarder's op-ed refers to the following passage, I assume:

"We don't believe that Israel mourns more over 40 Lebanese children than they for the last three thousand years have complained about 40 years in the desert. We take note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs the way they once celebrated the Ten Plagues as "suitable punishment" for the Egyptian people. (In this story the Lord of Israel appears as an insatiable sadist). We ask ourselves if most Israelis think that one Israeli life is worth more than 40 Lebanese or Palestinian lives."

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. Do not believe Gaarder is unfamiliar with religion, and in this case Jewish religion, and there is no reason not to believe that as such he's unaware of the Ten Plagues carrying an allegorical meaning in scientific religious studies and of course for non-religious people (also, he doesn't believe in this god in question, which essentially leaves out a literal interpretation of the Ten Plagues). But the question remains: were the Ten Plagues ever celebrated?

Well, old religious texts say to do so. And that might also be precisely what Gaarder refers to.

Second, he says "many" Israelis celebrate Israeli military triumphs in Lebanon and compares this celebration with the celebration of the Ten Plagues. The term "many" is of course always difficult - what does he mean by it? 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?

(For my own part, I am familiar with joyous reactions by Israelis to Israeli military triumphs in Lebanon as well as joyous reactions by Israelis to Israel's military campaign in Lebanon as such. That is not the same as saying all Israelis respond this way or that a specific or a high number or percentage of the Israeli population has done so. Yet when some Israeli soldiers have responded this way and when this has been a response at some Israeli government press conferences by the people gathered there the existence of such a response poses a moral problem in Israel. Freely responding this way in front of international media cameras poses yet another problem. That of seriously provoking the international public and society.)

Moreover, does a comparison between a celebration of the Ten Plagues and a celebration of Israeli military triumps in Lebanon imply more than a comment on the respective cruelties they relate to? By this I mean to say, does this comparison address itself to a support of the current state of Israel by way of religious convictions (inside and outside of Israel)? Does it draw on religious imagery or even caricature to add volume to the question it raises: where is the empathy for the Lebanese population that suffers so enormously because of Israeli military raids?

Finally let's have a look at how you conclude your second point:

"Tablets and burning bushes are not particularly sacred symbols in Judaism, but they signify events with profound meaning, completely unrelated to Gaarder's understanding of them."

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."

Well, you need to connect your criticism of this passage a little more specifically to Gaarder's wording for me to make sense of your critique. Also, what exactly is Gaarder's understanding of tablets and burning bushes? How does Gaarder fail to relate to their significant meanings?

It appears to me that he says there is no god that has one people as its chosen people, hence he doesn't believe in the Ten Commandments, nor does he believe that a god has ever revealed itself to a Jewish people. In short: religion should not play a role in forming a state of Israel - not in Israel, not outside (by way of the international society, etc.)

As for your third point I would like to refer to Suha's comment. Narrowed down to one sentence I'd say the same. But suffice it to say also that your claims refer very unclearly to Gaarder's op-ed. But I'm exhausted and have not the energy or a clear enough head to venture any analysis of or comparison between Gaarder's text and your dismissal of it.

But I have to say this: So far you've not commented on the main themes of Gaarder's op-ed. He wants Israel to reshape, that is take the form of the state of Israel as defined in 1948, and he doesn't want innocent Palestinians, Israelis, and Lebanese people to suffer - or in his own words:

"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. And I think that's the most interesting aspect of your poorly-constructed critique of Gaarder. Yet in doing so you're not alone: Det mosaiske trossamfunn i Oslo and public figures such as Mona Levin do the same in Norway: accuse Gaarder of promoting anti-semitism and (only in Levin's case) compare his op-ed with "Mein Kampf," accusations that are so massive and vile that they in volume, imagery, and moral outrage (they're wildly grim scarecrows) eschew the main themes of Gaarder's op-ed in Aftenposten because many commentators, politicians and ordinary people while in the public space do not at all want any associations of such monstrous things attached to them and the burden they represent in continually having to justify one's views. Accusing and eschewing in this manner is generally a most efficient s i l e n c e r. And silence means non-involvement. Which again would leave the state of Israel freer hands in its treatment of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians because of a non-existent popular opinion/involvement outside the state of Israel and hence no popular pressure within individual states on their respective governments that together form the international society.

Now saying that Gaarder's op-ed in Aftenposten "promotes anti-semitism of the type that was universal in Europe until the 19th century (when "race theories" became the pretext)," as you do in "Gaarder pt 1,"without looking at the main problems he addresses in his text in your critique of it, yet writing it off in full, eschews Gaarder communication in a related manner and to similar monstrous effects. Because no normal-thinking person wants to be (called) an anti-semite.

(Footnote: much milder critiques of the state of Israel than Gaarder's has by Det mosaiske trossamfunn i Oslo been accused of promoting anti-semitism. If you're well informed of public debate in Norway, you will for sure be familiar with this. Yet these accusations - when they're made they're given ample media coverage to bring their message out - are counter-criticised by some social commentators for not allowing for serious critique of the state of Israel as such. The subtext of these social commentators response to Det mosaiske trossamfunn is essentially this: to which extent, in which manner, and to which political effect does Det mosaiske trossamfunn open for a critique of the state of Israel? On these issues Det mosaiske trossamfunn remains medially silent.)

I apologise for the length of this comment.

[gaarder Wisdom]

Why is it so hard for you "anti-Semitism" guys to read what Gaarders really writes - "We recognize the State of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967". Only Zionistic settlers living on Palestinian soil will disagree. Gaarders has used the form of the prophet Amos from the old testament/Tora. Some of his statements reflect the brutality of the bible....

[Stephen Mello]

Gaarders is a very son of a bitch and does not deserve any more comments. Don´t waist your time writing about such an ilness and coward animal. That is all, folks.