The sad state of Middle Eastern "expertise" in Norway

Aftenposten has ordained a new "expert" on the Arab-Israeli conflict, one Gro Hasselknippe, of FAFO, the Labor Union's research organization.

First, let me say that this expert is more considered and less dogmatic than most of the Norwegian "experts" on this issue. She makes an effort to distinguish between her opinion and the facts, provides context for her answers, makes caveats. So she's above average, which unfortunately isn't saying much.

In a recent online Q&A, she made the following egregious errors that are emblematic of the European outlook on the conflict:

• "Military acts" by Hamas - this is an example of semantic shifts in the debate, when unprovoked suicide bombings, snipings, etc., against Israeli civilians, perpetrated by irregular combatants without uniforms, becomes a "military act." I am sure that Hasselknippe didn't mean it this way, but you have to wonder if the attacks would be couched this way if for example, missiles started falling on, for example, towns bordering Sweden.
• Rockets and military incursions, press coverage. Hasselknippe claims that Kassam rockets get more media coverage than military incursions into the West Bank. According to Wikipedia, there have been more than 1000 Kassam rocket attacks at Israeli targets across the Green Line by June 9th of this year. I don't know how many times Israeli soldiers have entered Palestinian towns to make arrests, but I do know that Israeli activities in the territories is tracked by several human rights organizations and duly reported. I would make a bet that more Norwegians recognize the word "settler" than the word "Kassam."
• "Olmert hasn't signaled a drastic deviation from Sharon's policy." One might assert, as indeed Olmert has, that his policy is a natural continuation of Sharon's "spirit," and the weasel word "drastic" is of course open to interpretation, but most people would say that Olmert's Realignment Plan is fairly radical compared to previous Israeli policies.
• "If the US hadn't supported Israel as they do, Israel wouldn't have been able to sustain the occupation." Hasselknippe should be aware that the Roadmap, and indeed the Declaration of Principles, was predicated entirely on implicit US guarantees of Israeli security. Without US support, Israel would be isolated in asserting its (clearly legitimate) security needs; and would therefore be less - not more inclined - to take security risks. Hasselknippe obviously has the right to postulate her own hypothetical situations, but a more plausible cause could be made for the opposite scenario.
• "To respond [to the kidnapping] with invasion and destruction of Palestinian infrastructure is in no proportion to the misdeed. It is collective punishment." Hasselknippe, like virtually every other "expert" is quick to reject Israeli responses, but she doesn't offer an alternative. Would she have preferred that Israel give in to the kidnapper's demands? If not, what would have been a reasonable response? Less decisive, but probably more bloody, use of force?
• "The main problem in this conflict is the occupation by Israel." No. This conflict existed before there was an Israel, and certainly before 1967. To illustrate the point, perhaps Hasselknippe would like to imagine another hypothetical situation: would she feel safer living in Ramallah if the Palestinians gave up terrorism, or in Tel Aviv if Israel gave up "occupation?"
• "Israel has never recognized Palestine." I suppose that Hasselknippe could justify this answer with a very narrow rationale, namely that since no state of Palestine has ever existed, then it hasn't been possible to accept. But by that rationale hardly any state in the world has recognized Palestine, least of all Norway. What Israel has done is to accept in word and action the legitimacy of Palestination nationhood, its aspirations for an independent state, and the official status of the Palestinian National Authority as a negotiating partner. There is no Israeli charter that calls for the destruction of any other state or violent resistance against anyone else.
• "This is also the Palestinians' big question: why doesn't the world react?" She's got to be kidding. By any standard, Israel receives more criticism and more condemnation for its policies than any other state in any other situation.
• "Most Arab states are ready to recognize Israel if it ends the occupation of the West Bank." I don't know of a single fact that justifies this supposition, so all it is, is wanton speculation.
• "But because Israel has taken military control over a land that isn't theirs, it's military occupation" and the important phrase "Pre-1967 borders." Hasselknippe can not call herself an expert if she calls the 1949 armistice line a "border."
• "This is what they call 'double standards.' One set of rules for Israel, another for Iran." Israel has never acknowledged it has nuclear weapons, has never implicitly or explicitly threatened anyone with using them, has never kidnapped diplomats of a foreign nation in their own embassy, doesn't execute women for adultery, has freedom of religion, I can go on and on and on. Yes, there is a double standard, but it doesn't work in Israel's favor.
• "Most of the arrested [Palestinians] haven't done a single thing." Again, what is the factual basis for this allegation?

OK, after having read this it is hard to believe that this "expert" has any credibility at all, but it's a sad statement that she's actually better informed and reasoned than most.