(Unauthorized translation by me)
Attempt at clarification
Apparently, I have been misunderstood by many on account of the literary form I used when writing the op-ed "God's chosen people," and I feel it is therefore necessary to return to Aftenposten's op-ed pages with an attempt at clarification.
WE NEED A CONVERSATION The genre was demanding, and I apologize if I have offended anyone - though I meant and still mean to direct sharp criticism toward the State of Israel. But we need the discussion and exchange of opinions of a public conversation. And with that I mean substantive discussions and exchange of opinions - not inarticulate diatribes.
The dream of a dialogue
I am thankful for all well-founded criticism - and of course all shows of support. I also take note of a wise and tempered commentary article by the chair of the synagogue [in Oslo], Anne Sender. We have been intensely in opposition to each other in this matter, but I share with her "the dream of a dialogue." In the op-ed in Aftenposten August 5th, I wrote among other things: "We acknowledge and take upon ourselves Europe's deep responsibility for the fate of the Jews, for the shameful harrassment, pogroms, and holocaust. It was a historical and moral necessity that the Jews got their own home." It is against this background and this fundamental assumption - the acceptance of the State of Israel - that I express my sharp criticism of the Israels war policy.
What "recognize" means
The op-ed opens with the rhetorical phrase: "It is time to learn a new lesson: we no longer recognize the State of Israel..." It has most certainly contributed to a lot of confusion that I consciously have played on several meanings of the word "recognize." On one place I aim to use the internationally legal recognition of a state, but I also use the word to be recognized for a practice, to win recognition, to enjoy recognition, etc. Or as I put it in my piece: "We do not recognize the rhetoric of the State of Israel. We do not recognize the the spiral of retribution of the vendetta.. etc." And toward the end "We do not recognize the State of Israel. Not today, not as we write this, in the hour of sorrow and rage" (italics added [by Gaarder]). The piece was written the same day that the pictures from Qana reached us.
1948 versus 1967
As far as international law is concerned, I have to emphasize what I have tried to underline in all interviews: "We recognize the State of Israel in 1948, but not that of 1967. This is the State of Israel that doesn't recognize, respect, and bow to the legal state of Israel of 1948." I don't dispute the Israel's right to exist within the borders of 1948, but the expansion of its borders in 1967 with use of military force violates international law. In this I have both the UN and most of the world's opinion with me.
No God-given mandate
Many have expressed that I mix religion and politics. I tried to do the opposite. When I gave the op-ed the title "God's chosen people," it is to underline that we never should accept that any party to a conflict invokes a divine mandate. First and foremost it's what we may call a "Christian Zionist" illusion I've had in mind, in other words the idea that God still has a plan for Jews, that what happens in the Middle East today is a portend of the End of Days, the return of Jesus, etc.
Back to Israel
One example of what I'm warning about is a recent utterances from a representative of the Pentecostal's work in Israel. He points to the idea that the return of Jesus and salvation for the faithful is tied to the Jews returning to Israel. Israel to him is the the "land from desert and Lebanon to the Great River, Euphrates, the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea in the west." (Joshua 1.4) According to a recent daily newspaper he says "how can we put our trust in God if He doesn't fulfill these promises? It is at the core for many evangelical Christians, including 70 million in the US." And he continues: "Neither Judea nor Samaria have been part of the Arab realm. Why does one use the term occupied land?" Also among Orthodox Jews there are corresponding opinions, especially among the settlers in the occupied territories.
Richer in humanism
I do not mean that Jewish thinking and practice have been less humanistic in what we find in Christian or Muslim history. Possibly quite the contrary, I think a comparative study will have to conclude that Jewish culture and practice by and large have been richer in humanism and more liberated from religious fanaticism than what the Christian cultural circle can show for itself (with its crusades, conquistadors, inquisitions, persecution of Jews, holocaust, etc.)
Different interpretations
But that wasn't the point. Only when it comes to the notion of "God's kingdom" do I think that the gospel of Jesus and what I perceive as Christianity has had a more humanistic interpretation than the latter-day Jewish and now Christian-Zionist idea of a political reestablishment of the Kingdom of David as a Kingdom of God for the Israelites. I am speaking here of different interpretations of the religious message - either it is Christian or Jewish - and the problems we all run up against when such extreme interpretations are put into practice.
A symbol of implacability
"May spirit and words blow the apartheid walls over," I write. I hope in other words that diplomacy and intellectual power is enough to persuade Israel that the illegal wall in the occupied territories must be torn down, not the least because it otherwise will be standing as a monumental symbol of implacability. The wall is not just a daily irritation and damage for the Palestinian people, but may in the long run be a greater danger for Israel than the land would have been without. In other words, I fear that Israel's implacable policy toward its neighbors in the long run will constitute a danger for Israel itself.
Violence against civilians
Of course, I am not advocating that any of Israel's citizens ever shall leave their country. I don't even see this as a possibility. When he evoked the picture of an Israeli civilization in flight from the "occupied areas" (such as Jerusalem and the West Bank), I understand that this can arose strong feelings. But the message is crystal clear: regardless of background and context - and no matter what religious or eschatological illusions we might have - we can never tolerate violence against the civilian population.
Provoking antisemitism
And then, finally: it can be outright irresponsible to too quickly accuse a participant in the debate of antisemitism, simply because it could legitimize and provoke antisemitism. (When he or she is an antisemite, then it can't be so bad, though...) When one of the county legislatures in Norway decided to boycott Israeli goods, some Jews said that this was "in the same spirit as the Nazis," concluding that "this is without a doubt an expression of antisemitism." Well, in my opinion, such characteristics are not just beside the point. In the long view they can be fatalistic. For what should we then call Nazism and antisemitism?
Rockets and bombs
I hope that this article clears up some misunderstandings. Meanwhile the rockets and bombs are flying, civilians die, roads, water supplies and health systems are put decades back. We all owe the victims of the war an urgent cry. Let us concentrate on what this is all about.
Comments