Heretics' almanac

One of the worst and dumbest in this debate

Anne Elisabeth Andersen, who describes herself as a journalist, has written one of the more unimaginative rants published by Aftenposten in this whole Gaarder debate (and that takes some doing). Her article is pretty much a recitation of tired left-wing political dogma, but she provides us with one interesting quote:

No state has the right to kill to assure its existence. (Ingen stat har rett til å drepe for å sikre sin eksistens.)

Check it out. Have your Norwegian friends verify the quote. And before you criticize me for quoting this sentence out of context, please take a note that this is a categorical assertion that summarizes everything that she's written before.

(Norwegian) rejected article for Aftenposten

Selvfølgelig er det lov å kritisere Israels politikk. Som alle demokratiske land, har Israel godt av kritikk, og enhver israeler ville uten videre medgi at det er mye som er kritikkverdig. Men om det er lov å kritisere Israel, er det også lov å kreve at kritikken er saklig, rimelig og konstruktiv.

Gaarder's second op-ed

(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.

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.

A catalog of reactions to Gaarder

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

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:

Gaarder is no Amos

"You're ugly, you smell bad, you are evil and stupid. But I don't have anything against you."
"I take offense at that characterization."
"Why? I told you that I don't have anything against you."

You'd have to be a fool to buy this kind of logic, but apparently Gaarder thinks Jews are fools, in which case he's a knave. Or else he's a fool who doesn't understand the fallacy of this kind of logic. He thinks it's okay to lambast Judaism, religious Jews, basic sovereign rights of Israel; but hey, he's assuring us that he's got nothing against Jews or any of the Norwegian Jews, who apparently are among his best friends.

Aftenposten tells us Gaarder is trying to be a modern-day Amos. he's no Amos. But is Gaarder a fool or is he a knave?

How this war will progress

Every military organization operates on a military doctrine. Israel's doctrine has for many years been based on the scenario of a war:

• On several fronts
• Against one or more Arab regimes with conventional forces
• Against extreme time pressure, since the UN has a tendency to stop all wars when Israel gains the upper hand
• With no buffer against the enemy

The wars against Hizballah and Hamas deviate from this scenario. They are low-intensity conflicts where the enemy uses unconventional tactics and is not accountable in the international community. Israel can only gain a decisive upper hand by inflicting unacceptable civilian casualties.

Gaarder, part 2

I am beside myself with frustration and rage over Gaarder's op-ed piece, which can be found in its original here and my translation here. I'm sitting at my dining room table, my wife is getting annoyed at my mood, my kids have to entertain themselves, and I'm not eating much.

There have been some reactions: Dagbladet's executive editor rewrites the article with Lebanon as the subject; Document.no summarizes what little outrage there is; Jan Haugland pushes a full frontal attack on Gaarder. The piece is starting to get interest in the blogosphere. Meanwhile, comments on aftenposten.no to the article itself mostly express support for Gaarder's rhetoric.

I'm working on a letter I'd like to send to Norwegian opinion leaders. I'm doubtful it will make any difference; it simply too much of a hassle and too costly to do anything that might be misconstrued like a defense of Israel. It's easier to shrug and write Gaarder off as just a little over the top, someone who rightfully is angry over the suffering of civilians in Lebanon and doesn't know how or where to direct his anger.

Gaarder, part 1

There is both little and an endless amount to say about Jostein Gaarder's op-ed piece in Aftenposten yesterday (translated by me, here). But it boils down to this: it promotes antisemitism of the type that was universal in Europe until the 19th century (when "race theories" became the pretext). The fact that Aftenposten even printed it speaks volumes about the toxic atmosphere in Norway. That other prominent Norwegians support it, whether tacitly or explicitly, says just how socially acceptable antisemitism is in Norway. Whether or not the bigots know or care to admit that they're being antisemitic.

There are about 1500 Jews in Norway today. I'd have to say that the future for them is becoming increasingly uncertain. Not because pogroms are going to break out, or the government is likely to pass discriminatory legislation. But because popular opinion makes it increasingly difficult for Norwegian Jews to openly identify themselves as Jews. Jewish community leaders now advise their members to not wear a kippah in public, Israelis and other Hebrew speakers are advised not to speak Hebrew so others can hear it. The synagogue in Oslo is probably one of the most intensely protected buildings in Norway.