Jerusalem Post’s web edition published an article last Monday, accusing Norway’s minister of finance Kristin Halvorsen of shouting “Death to the Jews” during an Oslo protest against Israel’s Gaza war in January.

The article has been “depublished” and altered twice since, resulting in a slightly more balanced [...]]]>

The article has been “depublished” and altered twice since, resulting in a slightly more balanced version – although not much. The original text has been preserved in this (otherwisely highly dubious) blog, whence I’ve extracted a few excerpts:

[...] During the war, Olso [Sic!] was fraught with violent anti-Israel demonstrations. Numerous government officials decried Israel’s actions in Gaza – including Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen, who led a march shouting, “Death to the Jews!” Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, who worked in Gaza and disseminated stories about Israel’s brutality, became a national hero in the Norwegian media. Even before the war began, local Jews were tense because of anti-Semitic cartoons, recent boycotts of Israeli merchandise, and the highly publicized affair of Norwegian comic Otto Jespersen, who made anti-Semitic remarks on national television.

[…]

Rabbi Yoav Melchior, considered the leading rabbi of Norway, said he had been “very scared during the war.”

“Hatred spread in a fast, dangerous way. This was blind emotionalism against Israel and against Jews. It gets deep at the heart of Norway’s emotional anti-Semitism. The current wave of anti-Semitism shows what people have been holding inside them,” he said.

Norwegian minister of finance and Socialist left party leader Kristin Halvorsen. Photographer: Rune Kongsro/Socialist left party

I was more than just a little surprised to learn that any member of our cabinet partook in such demonstrations, let alone a central figure, such as our minister of finance. Since other protesters participated for a number of various reasons, let’s face it; some were Muslim extremists with ulterior motives, such as the Jews’ and Judaism’s demise, Ms Halvorsen must have known it could come to this.

Granted we were all deeply shocked and appalled by Israel’s conduct during its Gaza campaign, including this blogger:

• Israel: A call for intervention – 4 January 2009
• Is Sameh still alive? – 6 January 2009
• Israeli Endlösung to succeed? – 7 January 2009
• Terrorism not terrorism when institutionalised? – 8 January 2009

Which may well, alongside the torrents of other Norwegian reactions, have contributed to the Jerusalem Post’s impression, but let’s be clear on one point: It’s nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Or, as I put it in a later post:

[...] we’d be ill advised to draw civilian Israelis or Jews into this. Let’s put the blame where it belongs: On Israeli authorities.

That’s not anti-Semitism, is it?

The Norwegian media and public see the Jerusalem Post’s articles as an attempt at waging some sort of propaganda war on Norway, but I suspect it’s all to do with something far more simple, less dramatic: An editor’s urge to boost reader/traffic figures. We see it happen up here, too, on a daily basis. Which is not to say that the Israeli’s disappointment is hard to understand.

It could easily be explained by Norway’s pro Israel traditions. Sudden criticism from a long-time friend may be hard to take. It certainly explains most Norwegians’ disappointment in, and reactions to, Israel’s warfare methods.

I do however regret to inform that widespread Norwegian antagonism has flourished over the last couple of months, but it has been directed at Muslims and Islam, not Israelis, Judaism or Jews.

A press release issued by the Socialist Left party yesteday, states that:

Kristin Halvorsen participated in a demonstration for peace in Gaza on January 8th this year. There were no anti-Jewish slogans during the event what so ever, as The Jerusalem Post alleges.

There were appeals for inter-religious coexistence and peace, calling on Israel to stop the war on Gaza. The demonstration lasted for about an hour, and was a dignified and peaceful event.

A splinter-group continued a march towards the Israeli embassy afterwards. This was not a part of the official demonstration, and Kristin Halvorsen did not join this rally. She publicly denounced the violent outbreak that occurred in the aftermath of the peace demonstration.

Anyway, here are a few scenes from one of the demonstrations in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajki0HNeQBY

Read more about it all in Dagbladet.no and VG Nett (both in Norwegian).

Also see Mondoweiss’ take on the story.

Photo: Screendump of original Jerusalem Post article accusing Norway’s minister of finance of hatred towards Israel and the Jews.

As a matter [...]]]> I’ll be the first to acknowledge a bias in my recent comments on Israel’s military operations in the Gaza strip, undoubtedly fuelled by disgust over the cruelties taking place. But we’d be ill advised to draw civilian Israelis or Jews into this. Let’s put the blame where it belongs: On Israeli authorities.

As a matter of fact, I’m equally disgusted by Norwegian protesters going after a supporter of Israel, shouting “Take him!” and “Bloody Jew!”, as was the case with the 73 year-old Mr. Sverre Martin Haug, who, incidentally, probably isn’t a Jew at all (screendump from Dagbladet.no – in Norwegian):

Norwegian Israel supporter attacked by protesters (Screendump from db.no)

It’s almost as if you hear the word Jude resounding in the street, invoking a chilling sensation I can do without very nicely, thank you.

We should be very careful not to mistake the average Jew or Israeli for representatives of their warmongering government, hard as it may seem – especially if the bloodthirsty bastards are reelected later this year. Granted, the people responsible for the above mentioned attack were morons. Then again, as were the Nazis. If anything, the incident shows how vulnerable we are, allowing for that kind of attitudes to emerge. Also, it clearly demonstrates that anti-Semitism lurks under the surface.

The Israelis are quick to drag anti-Semitism into the picture, but let’s not forget that the term “Semite” pertains to all people of Middle East origin:

The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. It was proposed at first to refer to the languages related to Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn’s “Repertorium”, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his “Einleitung in das Alte Testament” (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45. In his “Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde”, pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term.^[1]

I don’t know how the expression “anti-Semitic” came to apply to Jews only (well, I do now, obviously), but:

The term “anti-Semitic” (or “anti-Semite”) usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, “The Victory of Jewry over Germandom”. Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the “League for Anti-Semitism”.

Semantics aside, I would like to use the opportunity to urge bloggers and commentators, yours truly included, to exercise a minimum level of temperance, in spite of current atrocities resembling those of some 65 years ago – however similar.

There were Nazis and there were Germans. I think, or at least I hope, it’s safe to say that there are Israelis and there are Israelis. I only wish they had distinct designations.

And please ponder this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kIx221KCxo

It’s always been interesting to see how terrorism – or who the terrorists are, rather – is defined. In any conflict the victor or the stronger party gets to set the definitions, as it’s always been. Agreeing on an internationally acceptable definition of the term, however, turns out to be an impossible [...]]]>

It’s always been interesting to see how terrorism – or who the terrorists are, rather – is defined. In any conflict the victor or the stronger party gets to set the definitions, as it’s always been. Agreeing on an internationally acceptable definition of the term, however, turns out to be an impossible task, but I think it’s safe to say that any actions intended to instigate or, over long stretches of time, resulting in fear, qualify for the expression.

However, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, as we’ve seen throughout most of our recent history. For instance, I’m intrigued by the rhetoric used in the current Middle East conflict, especially seeing as Israeli authorities themselves are based on what was once considered a terrorist organisation:

Irgun (Hebrew: [omitted Hebrew lettering] shorthand for HaIrgun HaTzva’i HaLe’umi BeEretz Yisra’el, [omitted Hebrew lettering], “National Military Organization in the Land of Israel”) was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was established as a militant offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: “The Defense”, [omitted Hebrew lettering]). For reasons of secrecy, people often referred to the Irgun, during that time, as Haganah Bet (Hebrew: literally “Defense ‘B’ ” or “Second Defense”, [omitted Hebrew lettering]), or alternatively as Haganah Ha’leumit ([omitted Hebrew lettering]) or Ha’ma’amad ([omitted Hebrew lettering]). In present-day Israel, Irgun is commonly referred to as Etzel ([omitted Hebrew lettering]), an acronym of the Hebrew initials.

The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as “every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”.^[1] Over time the focus of their actions shifted from the Palestinian Arabs to the British.^{[citation needed]}

But here’s the interesting part:

Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,^[2][3], The Times (of London) ^[4][5], the British Broadcasting Corporation ^[6], the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry^[7], and prominent world and Jewish figures, such as Winston Churchill^[8], Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, and many others.^[9] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned “the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare”.^[10]

In fact, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin (1977–1983), whom I suspect most of my readers will remember, attracted some attention once elected, due to his terrorist background – from just Irgun.

Israel's PM Menachem Begin and foreign minister Moshe Dayan, both former terrorist, disembarking an aircraft in America, 1978 (Wikipedia).

You will of course recognise his eye-patched friend Dayan, the very symbol of Israeli military heroism, whose merits contained numerous operations qualifying for the term terrorism.

The thing about Irgun and Haganah is that, even though they no longer formally exist, their methods and philosophy have prevailed, institutionalised as governmental bodies (the IDF, Mossad and so on), which is to say that Israeli terrorism has moved from an informal to a formal platform, as killing innocent Palestinians (now that the British are gone) remains its chief purpose.

It could be argued that the Israeli state in that respect is no different from the Al-Qaeda, even if it claims to fight (what it defines as) terrorism. No different from their own Nazi enemies, in fact. I suppose you could say that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

At any rate, to think that Hamas is the only terrorist organisation (which undoubtedly they are) in the region, would be jumping to premature conclusions.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful of his innocent victims, but I thought it best to end the dismal subject on a lighter note, as I seem to remember humorists making references to Cole Porter’s “Begin the Beguine” on Begin’s inauguration (here performed by Artie Shaw):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIYevODTsFo

Top photo: Osama bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda.

Late edit: I noticed today (Tuesday 13 January) that the Norwegian daily Dagbladet.no has picked up on this, too (in Norwegian, of course) – although in a much more thorough manner, as one would expect from a newspaper.

German soldiers during the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising or Israeli troops in Gaza City streets, 2009? Of course the uniforms and the b/w image give them away, but apart from that, wherein lies the difference?

You have to admit that the Third Reich had every right to defend itself from Jewish resistance terrorist attacks. [...]]]>

German soldiers during the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising or Israeli troops in Gaza City streets, 2009? Of course the uniforms and the b/w image give them away, but apart from that, wherein lies the difference?

You have to admit that the Third Reich had every right to defend itself from Jewish resistance terrorist attacks. Surely, incarceration in KZ Gaza a ghetto is no reason for them to act aggressively against Germany?

Then again, the Jewish resistance’s charter (if they had any) clearly stated that annihilation of the Third Reich was an ultimate goal. There’s every proof you need!

Well, who wouldn’t want to annihilate a nation set out to oust or exterminate an entire people – and then some? At the very least you can understand the underlying mechanisms driving a discouraged, starving and impoverished people to desperate measures.

Come on… If you kept an entire ethnic group in ghettos and concentration camps, like the Israeli do (and like the Germans once did to them) wouldn’t you expect some sort of retaliation – or, at least attempts at breaking loose?

The Israeli government isn’t stupid, you know. They have to see the apparent similarities, and have to understand the Palestinian reaction to their own treatment (of them).

So… Do they expect the Palestinians to respond any different from the WW2 Jewish resistance? Of course not! Is it simply that, unlike wartime Germany, Israel is supported by America, and hence finds itself untouchable, free to act as it pleases, even if it means a Holocaust 2.0?

Yes, the ongoing pandemonium very much resembles Nazi Germany’s Endlösung. Let’s include that term in the discussions, shall we? Along with KZ Gaza. Both expressions very well known to the Jewish community, I would imagine.

You have to hand it to the Israelis, though, who, unlike the Nazis, express regret over killing innocent people.

It may perhaps look a little better in the eyes of some:

“Hey, they don’t mean to be the way they are!”

Edit: Let me just recommend an article by The Independent’s Robert Fisk today: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMNrs56AtxI

Top photo: German soldiers during the 1943 Warsaw uprising (from Wikipedia)

Note: I migt stop reporting either if I die or I flee my home. Shells rain down beside my house now. Pray for me…Pray for Me….

Such are the last words of Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb (23) yesterday, blogging from [...]]]>

Note: I migt stop reporting either if I die or I flee my home. Shells rain down beside my house now. Pray for me…Pray for Me….

Such are the last words of Palestinian blogger Sameh Akram Habeeb (23) yesterday, blogging from the very heart of Gaza City. We haven’t heard from him since, and I can’t help wondering whether or not he’s still alive or if he fled his home amid the raining shells, but I can tell you this much:

Blogs – from both sides of the ongoing calamities – provide very up close and personal accounts of the havoc which struck Gaza almost a fortnight ago.

In Gaza is yet another, also silent since yesterday, and I wonder… If the blogger is still alive. I wonder what awaits the inhabitants of history’s largest concentration camp – which in effect the entire Gaza strip is. How could Jews, of all the people in the world, construct such an abomination in their very midst?

I’m at a loss for words, even if I already knew that the Israeli government’s cruelty knew no limits.

Update: It would appear both of the above mentioned blogs were updated Tuesday night, but I’m still keeping my fingers crossed.

Here we go again, then, with Israeli forces invading Palestine territories on the Gaza strip Saturday night – Live, as it were– following a week’s devastating air raids. Business as usual, really, while the international society keeps protesting, as if it’s any use at all. If Israeli territories territories were under Arab control, however, [...]]]>

Here we go again, then, with Israeli forces invading Palestine territories on the Gaza strip Saturday night – Live, as it were– following a week’s devastating air raids. Business as usual, really, while the international society keeps protesting, as if it’s any use at all. If Israeli territories territories were under Arab control, however, there’s every reason to suspect a different outcome.

Just give it a thought, if you please: Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Israel was Iraq, in the hands of a president named Saddam Hussein, renowned for cruelties against Kurds – or Palestinians, for that matter – and the destabilisation of an entire region. How would you estimate the chances of a, say, American intervention?

Highly likely, no?

Unfortunately, however, Israel’s name is not Iraq, the president’s name is Shimon Peres and their Kurds are Palestinians. Too bad for them.

All about religion?

Of course, the picture isn’t quite that black and white. There are shades of grey – as well as other factors, too, but most people would agree that the issue of a two-state solution in what up until around 1950 was known as Palestine, isn’t very likely to materialise in our lifetime. I put it to you that future generation won’t see it happen either. The conflict is much too deep-rooted for that.

For one, there’s the matter that I’ve tried to point out for years on end: The Temple Mount, to which both Muslims, Jews and Christian – even Mandaeans – have a claim. So long as religion is a factor – which, unfortunately, it is – neither (Jewish or Muslim) party is likely to give up their claim to Jerusalem.

Also, the conflict isn’t quite as obvious as one would think, or, as The Washington Post’s Anthony Shadid puts it:

From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, longtime leaders of the Arab world, the attacks illustrated a yawning divide between the policies of rulers and the sentiments of those they rule. Although the Palestinian cause is cherished on the street, the region’s leaders are viewed as paying only lip service to it.

In other words, this isn’t just a matter of the Arab versus the Western world (keep in mind that there are Christian Palestinians, too).

Spiralling conflict

Up until the declaration of Israel as an independent state in 1948, Muslims, Jews and Christians co-existed quite amicably on Palestinian territory, which, no more than 60 years later seems an inconceivable scenario. Unfortunately 60 years is ample time to form permanent antagonism on both sides.

Two to three generations of Palestinian and Israeli children have grown up to fear and hate aggressors on the other side, and have every reason to. Palestinian children losing their siblings, parents and other relatives in Israeli air raids are likely to retaliate when they grow up. So are Israeli children struck by Hamas artillery.

This conflict is perpetual.

I’m afraid the international society’s call for a ceasefire is futile. As I see it, only an international intervention will do. Israel should be put under UN (the body which once facilitated the creation of the Israeli state) administration. Which, unfortunately, isn’t about to happen.

Unless Obama… I wouldn’t hold my breath.

No international intervention, then. Well, in that case, there’s really very little to be done. Or, as already mentioned: Business as usual.

Speaking of business: Without the presence of wars I’m afraid the American economy would be in a far worse state than it already is.

Top photo: Israeli tanks on manoeuvres. Photographer: Flickr/Chatsworth Larry