NRK's Odd Karsten Tveit has never been popular with Norway's pro-Israeli camp. Now he's back as NRK's Middle East correspondent, warning about the "apartheid-like conditions" created by the new barrier Israel is building. Pro-Israeli viewers aren't happy. Their handicap has always been that 1) they're few, making them easy to ignore, and 2) they're nearly all conservative Christians or Jews/Israeli citizens, providing NRK with fodder for an effective strawman defense. I'm not pro-Israeli, (at least not in their sense), but their criticism of NRK's anti-Israeli tone is valid. It was made well, for instance, in Odd Sverre Hove's book The Media Battle Over Israel, which was dismissed by other media as the work of a fanatic.

So I'm a bit surprised to see that NRK for once takes criticism of their Israel coverage seriously. Two top NRK chiefs have recently been to the area to see if Israel's barrier really does create "apartheid-like conditions", like Odd Karstein Tveit says. document.no has the story. They found that Tveit was right, of course, and explicitly approved of the word "apartheid", which isn't much of a surprise. The problem is not Tveit or the previous correspondent Lars Sigurd Sunnanå alone, but the whole institution, as well as the media climate. But I wonder what it means that they bothered to check at all. Remember, they don't have to. The pro-Israelis are few and politically insignificant, and they have to pay the license fee like everyone else. So why did NRK bother? Did they somehow sense that using the word "apartheid" could potentially cross the line from regular criticism to something more pathological?

We don't have to call it anti-semitism or Jew-hatred. Those words are so intertwined with modern history that their defining qualities have been pushed aside. But "irrational fear of and attribution of malicious intent to the only country in the world that is dominantly Jewish, and Jewish influences in other countries" covers it. It highlights the sinister part without strawman-friendly diversions like whether this is hate, or whether Hitler would have approved.

And speaking of apartheid in this context is of course irrational. I keep wondering why there's all this rage at Israel, which has done bad things but little to warrant the European level of criticism, when everything they say fits Russia's treatment of Chechnya much better. That really is a meaningless, brutal occupation, where fighting terrorism is more a justification than a reason. It can't be just that there are many journalists in the Middle East and few in Chechnya. Somebody decided to send those journalists in the first place. So we're back to the sinister element. This country that can do no good and is just like Nazi Germany, Eastern Germany and South Africa happens to be dominantly Jewish. I really don't like speaking of antisemitism here, because that accusation can be abused just like Hitler comparisons, but is there any way to explain this without a walk in that territory?

1) You don't have to be Julius Streicher (the editor of Der Stürmer) to be antisemitic. Antisemitism - like all forms of bigotry - exists in many forms and many degrees. So I don't think we should refrain from using the term just because what we see doesn't sink to the level of frothing-at-the-mouth, murderous hatred of all Jews of all kinds.

2) It's obviously a shame that you have to have numbers and political clout to convince NRK, Aftenposten, etc., to live up to their own journalistic standards. I've written many letters to these organizations, and I've never asked them to be "pro-Israeli" - I've only asked them to make a reasonable effort to be objective, nuanced, and complete in their coverage. Like all governments, the Israeli government benefits from well-argued and informed criticism.

3)The kind of rants we see from the likes of Odd Karsten Tveit is counterproductive because it's so easy to dismiss.

4) Europe is - for some scary reason - not ready to confront the fact that antisemitism might play *some* role in European attitudes to Israel. All attempts to even bring up the issue are dismissed out of hand without a moment's consideration. Given Europe's 2000 years of uninterrupted antisemitic attitudes, it's not so crazy to at least discuss it, but here I fear the lady protesteth too much.

5) Meanwhile I will tell you all that the vast majority of Israelis and Jews are absolutely convinced that Europe's attitudes toward Israel in fact are motivated by antisemitism. The most common reaction is a shrug and "what else is new?"

Letter to John Bernander.

Leif: "3)The kind of rants we see from the likes of Odd Karsten Tveit is counterproductive because it's so easy to dismiss." Well it should be, but he has the numbers on his side. Everyone holds their ideological opponents to higher standards than their comrades. So it's easier to get away with saying stupid things when your audience is on your side. (This worries me a lot.)

Btw, here's the link to Leif's letter to NRK chief John Bernander:

http://www.tenkselv.no/main.aspx?mode=BLG&id=166#166

You write: "I keep wondering why there's all this rage at Israel, which has done bad things but little to warrant the European level of criticism, when everything they say fits Russia's treatment of Chechnya much better."

Russia is a 'new member' of the western world. We do not expect them to live up to our (perceived) high standards yet. We do expect Israel to do so.

We used to criticize South Africa.
We criticize Turkey quite often for their treatment of the Kurds.
We criticize Chinas treatment of Falun Gong

And we criticize Israel.

I quite frankly do not see the problem.

Interesting article, and good points as always Bjørn.

Coincidentally, I just now wrote an article asking Is Anti-Zionism a form of Anti-Semtisim?

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2003/12/01.html#a4031

When Norwegians say that Israel does "bad things" do they mean the kind of things that any other civilized nation would do if confronted with similar problems?

It's easy to stand on the sidelines, pointing fingers at those who are trying to solve problems, saying "you should do this; you should do that."

How, for example, would Norwegians deal with thousands of Laplanders (or whatever minority would be appropriate) devoting themselves to destroying the Norwegian state and setting up a Lapp (or whatever) country in the same place where Norway now stands? What would Norwegians do to keep Lapp suicide bombers out of Norwegian cities and towns? Etc. etc.

I'm trying hard here to get the critics of Israel to think about the real, not theoretical, alternatives facing the Israeli government. Any ideas?

Rune Kristian Viken,

Perhaps it is different in Norway, but here in Belgium there is no comparison between, on the one hand, what criticism there is of China for its treatment the Falun Gong and Turkey for its treatment of the Kurds and, on the other hand, the obsessional attention to Israel and the vitriolic way people talk about it.

More fundamentally, there is no understanding of the historical dimensions (like, for example, the relevance of the career of Husseini -- in many ways the proto-Arafat --in the uprising of the late 30s, WWII, and the rejection of the UN plan, as well as the liquidations of more moderate elements).

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict really can't be understood without understanding its relation to the wider Israeli/Arab conflict, yet there is also a lot of blindness about this.

Largely for reasons of political correctness, the level of old-style antisemitism in the Muslim world (substantially imported from Europe in decades past) is not widely known, nor is the content of, say, the Hamas Charter or Fatah's Constitution.

Finally there is a failure to realize that there is a war on, and the circumstances under which it began: having foresworn violence, and having refused even to issue a counteroffer at Camp David, Arafat's PA prepared and then began a violent conflict which employs war crimes as a central and deliberate strategy and which, according to public opinion polls conducted by Palestinian organizations, show that a majority of Palestinians believe is aimed at liberating Palestine "from the river to the sea," and which a majority say they would support the continuance of even if Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 line of control.

At the same time, in cartoons and imagery and speech, we have seen representations which trade in classical antisemitic tropes, like the "Jews killed Christ" idea, the "Jews are the puppet-masters ruling the world" theme, and images which evoke the blood libel. And this in a continent with centuries of problems with antisemitism, culminating in the attempted final solution, which is decidedly not the case when you are talking about South Africa or China or Turkey. And there have been numerous cases of attempts to blacklist all Israeli scholars in certain fora and so forth, which again is not happening with respect to any other country.

And, at the same time, there have been many attacks--some quite vicious and murderous--against people who are identified as Jews, along with the burnings of many synagogues. While most of this is being done by Muslims here, the wider societies (France in particular) have been very slow to admit to the problem, and reticent in addressing it.

Also, there are quite a few people who really don't believe Israel has a right to exist, and whose attitudes are shaped accordingly.

tm, Belgium . . .

Your point that few in Belgium know the contents of the Hamas Charter or Fatah Constitution is extremely important. This may also be true in Norway. Perhaps letters to the editor in appropriate languages pointing out these elementary facts would be useful. A glance at the insignia of any official Palestinian document shows the boundaries of their ambitions to be in place of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is not a "hidden agenda."

One can never underestimate how much ignorance abounds in the media and among so-called educated people.

tm: I cannot provide an answer to your post, except point out that norwegian media criticize other oppressive states than Israel too. I don't see Israel being targetted specifically.

One can disagree and say that it's unfair to criticize them, but they're not alone in being criticized.

I also need to "correct" myself - and beorn - about Russia and their war in Chechenya. Bjørn writes: "That really is a meaningless, brutal occupation, where fighting terrorism is more a justification than a reason."

Let us not forget that several apartment buildings (strictly civilan) were bombed in moscow (and other places):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/448993.stm

Russia claims that Chechen terrorists were behind these.

Furthermore, the incident where Chechen terrorists planted bombs in that theater and helt a lot of hostages in moscow shouldn't be forgotten neither.

Attacks against purely civilian targets. I seem to remember another country attacking and occupying Afghanistan over similiar grounds.

Russia is being criticized in Norwegian media for their Chechen occupation. USA was being criticized in Norwegian media for their war in Afghanistan. I don't really see the difference.

Rune,

Andre Glucksmann discusses the difference in l'Ouest contre l'Ouest. There's a summary at innocentsabroad.blogspot.com, although blogspot is down at the moment. The difference is quite considerable.

As for the reasons for the war itself, primarily the issue is that Russia fears that if Chechnya goes, other separatist movements will be enhanced. The fear is disintegration of its territorial integrity.

Again, I'd like to say that I can't say anything about Norway, but when Bjorn spoke of "the European level of criticism," the focus was widened so we're not just talking about Norway. And down here it's clear that there's an awful lot more going on than just criticism of one country along with others. Down here, hardly anybody really cares about the situation in Chechnya. But a lot of people are obsessed with Israel, and this obsession goes hand-in-hand with a deeply distorted narrative about that conflict.

Bjørn writes,

"...but is there any way to explain this without a walk in that territory?"

Well, well, well...

A couple of months ago you were writing something to the effect that there's no anti-semitism in Norway, since, after all, none of the classic 19th century exemplars of judeaphobic symbolism, epithets or shibboleths are prominently in play.

I considered sending you a brief on this point, but it seemed pointless.

I'm glad to see that your quiet persistent inner voice of reason did the briefing for me...

Maybe it's time to bring Gill back into the fold? :)

Og

p.s. From the "Move Alone, Nothing To See Here" department:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11062

Rune: "We used to criticize South Africa.
We criticize Turkey quite often for their treatment of the Kurds.
We criticize Chinas treatment of Falun Gong
And we criticize Israel."

Your choice of words implies that criticism is a binary, and that "we" are a unity. But there are levels of criticism and levels of focus, and "we" are many different people, media and governments.

In the case of Turkey and the Kurds, the level of criticism and focus is low, and "we" are few. In the case of Chechnya the level of criticism is somewhat higher, but the focus is low, and "we" are just as few. (About Falun Gong there is no coverage at all.) In the case of Israel the level of criticism and focus is at maximum, and "we" are everyone. Why?

As for Chechnya - "Attacks against purely civilian targets. I seem to remember another country attacking and occupying Afghanistan over similiar grounds" - if the Americans had done to Afghanistan what Russia has done to Chechnya, I would have wanted them out at once. The Americans are rebuilding Afghanistan and trying to turn it democratic. Russia has destroyed Chechnya, and terrorizes its people. Big difference.

There's the same big difference between Russia and Israel, but there are enough similarities for a contrast. Both Palestinians and Chechens have turned to terrorism, but the Palestinians on a completely different level, and they've had decades of practice. Chechen terrorism is rare and a new invention, possibly caused by of Wahhabi preachers and al-Qaeda members who arrived after the first war ten years ago. Both Israel and Russia claim to fight terror. In Israel's case that's largely true. If Arafat would give up terror and crack down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad, I believe that Israelis would agree to lower security at the borders and start moving towards Palestinian independence. Perhaps not under Sharon, but Israel is a democracy, so soon. I see no reason why Chechnya giving up on terror would matter to Russia.

Maybe I'm too critical of Russia, and too lenient on Israel, but the criticism of Israel still fits Russia better. Suspicions of using terror as a pretext for war are more appropriate against Russia. So is the accusation of brutality. So why is Chechnya ignored, why is _any_ conflict involving the US or Israel ignored? (And yes, "ignore" is the right word. Atenposten carries perhaps one article every other week about Chechnya, and 2-5 every day about Israel.) Even if you don't think the answer is related to anti-semitism, you can't ignore the question. Why Israel?

Og K: "A couple of months ago you were writing something to the effect that there's no anti-semitism in Norway, since, after all, none of the classic 19th century exemplars of judeaphobic symbolism, epithets or shibboleths are prominently in play."

But there isn't, not in the common sense of the word. What we have is anti-Israelism. This may be related to anti-semitism in some essential way, but the current meaning of anti-semitism is the Nazi one. Unless you're very careful, saying that anti-Israelism is anti-semitism is counterproductive.

"the current meaning of anti-semitism is the Nazi one"

No, Bjørn, the meaning of antisemitism has never been just the Nazi one, and where antisemitism is simply equated with that particular historical instantiation of this centuries-old phenomenon it hasn't yet really been understood.

Here, for example, is an old example:

"When Judas hanged himself and his bowels gushed forth, and, as happens in such cases, his bladder also burst, the Jews were ready to catch the Judas-water and the other precious things, and then they gorged and swilled on the merd among themselves, and were thereby endowed with such a keenness of sight that they can perceive glosses in the Scriptures such as neither Matthew nor Isaiah himself . . .would be able to detect; or perhaps they looked into the loin of their God “Shed,” and found these things written in that smokehole. . . . The Devil has eased himself and emptied his belly again—that is a real halidom for Jews and would-be Jews, to kiss, batten on, swill and adore; and then the Devil in his turn also devours and swills what these good pupils spue and eject from above and below. . . . The Devil, with his angelic snout, devours what exudes from the oral and anal apertures of the Jews; this is indeed his favorite dish, on which he battens like a sow behind the hedge. . . " --Martin Luther, "On the Jews and Their Lies"

Another example: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, forged by the Czarist secret police.

Another: the theory of the Jews in Marx.

tm: "No, Bjørn, the meaning of antisemitism has never been just the Nazi one, and where antisemitism is simply equated with that particular historical instantiation of this centuries-old phenomenon it hasn't yet really been understood."

I didn't say I agree with this definition. But if you call someone an antisemite today, the primary association will be to the Holocaust, to Hitler, and to modern neo-nazi's. Whatever the _real_ definition of antisemitism is, the word itself is no longer meaningful in this debate. Using it is like begging for a strawman defense.

Bjorn . . . I think that what is going on IS antisemitism. The obsession with Israel makes sense only if one discusses it in context with its being a JEWISH state.
Many people seem to like their Jews as victims, not as functioning people. One can argue till one is blue in the face about "What is antisemitism," but the fact remains that if Israel cannot defend itself with arms--and a barrier, if needed--then the JEWISH state will fall, and Jews will again become victims. I can't think about this in any other way.

So many Europeans won't face the fact that their disgusting buried crimes are rising up again like Zombies. The hate-fest in Geneva right now is one example. (Nevermind the self-hating Jews there--we will always be stuck with those, unfortunately.)

Yuck. I am truly disgusted by the whole slimy picture.

Also, maybe Saudi money is behind a lot of the new anti-Semitism. That's certainly true regarding many new developments. I don't know how many radical Muslims you have in Norway, but in the U.S., it is estimated that 1/3 of the mosques are now under the control of the Wahabists.

Bjørn,

[Part ONE of 1]

You pose this rhetorical question at the end of your lead message:

"I really don't like speaking of anti-Semitism here, because that accusation can be abused just like Hitler comparisons, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS WITHOUT A WALK IN THAT TERRITORY? (Emphasis added.)

This is an unflinching look into the shadows of anti-israelism. You KNOW something is lurking there.

But WHAT?

Unfortunately, this urgent question becomes a side issue in your 2003-12-02 15:24 entry, where you seem to stumble into the "Emic versus Etic" category error :

"What we have is anti-Israelism. This may be related to anti-Semitism in some essential way, but the current meaning of anti-Semitism is the Nazi one. Unless you're very careful, saying that anti-Israelism is anti-semitism is counterproductive."

Category error: The "current meaning of anti-Semitism" may be a key question to compilers of dictionaries, but less so to us.

To make sure we're on the same page, although this is surely overkill, here are four explanations of "Emic" versus "Etic":

===

1.

Emic = a perspective in ethnography that uses the concepts and categories that are relevant and meaningful to the culture under analysis. Native view.

Etic = a perspective in ethnography that use's the concepts and categories of the anthropologist’s culture to describe another culture. Scientific view.

===

2.

Emic: the insider’s (native’s) perspective, i.e., what they will tell you they believe.

Etic: the outsider’s (researcher’s) perspective, i.e., how things really are.

===

3.

"Emic" is opposed to "etic" and may be defined as a perspective that "focuses on the intrinsic cultural distinctions that are meaningful to the members of a given society" Opposed to this, an etic perspective "relies upon the extrinsic concepts and categories that have meaning for scientific observers.”

===

4.

Emic versus Etic

* An emic view is the insiders view
+++ investigates how people think, perceive their world and interpret their culture

* An etic view is an outsiders view
+++ the ethnographer tries to objectively interpret cultural traits with cross-cultural comparisons

===

[Part TWO of 2]

Okay, now that we're on the same page, it's patently obvious that Europeans EMICALLY consider "anti-Semitism" to have evolved little since the beer hall debates in Munich 80 years ago.

Standing at a distance, however, you and I observe ETICALLY that to consider anti-Semitism a "static" meme is the height of absurdity and denial.

Anti-Semitism is a chameleon; it's a wily master of disguise... and its masquerading ALL OVER EUROPE as "anti-israelism."

========

In your 2003-12-02 17:47 entry, you write:

"But if you call someone an antisemite today, the primary association will be to the Holocaust, to Hitler, and to modern neo-nazi's. Whatever the _real_ definition of anti-Semitism is, the word itself is no longer meaningful in this debate. Using it is like begging for a strawman defense."

I beg to differ.

There is, on the one hand, a Euro-eMic definition of anti-semitism, whereby the only (or primary) anti-semites still extant amongst Westerners are holocaust deniers, neo-nazis and KKK types.

Then there's the eTic-analysis whereby one is likely to conclude that Nazis are/were but a one of many variations/innovations on a 2,000 (at least) year old anti-semitic theme; and that the underlying meme is still very widespread, mutating, and now protected with a wonderful coating of slick plausible deniability and thick self-delusion.

Bjorn, I would submit to you that the word "anti-semitism" remains profoundly meaningful and relevant in the current debate, and “emic” denial of its prevalence -- the straw man defense, as you put it -- in combination with an attitude of extreme double standards toward Israel -- are signs par excellence of the new mutant strain of 21st century anti-Semitism and the (mainly) Euro-Canadian pandemic that we are witnessing today. (An outbreak in Plains, Georgia, is duly noted.)

==========

Finally, as you point out, Bjorn, it is highly counter-productive to point out the emperor's new clothes to the emically inclined.

So what – WHAT, pray tell – does actually advance the discussion in today’s poisoned, plausibly denied anti-semitic atmosphere?

==========

p.s. The term "anti-Israelism" is one I seldom come across. The concept seems to be expressed the locution of opposition to "Zionism," disdain for the "Likudnik" cabal, and demonization of Ariel Sharon, or who seem always to exercise either direct control or undue influence over the Zionist Entity.

Correction:

"... new mutant strain of 21st century anti-Semitism and the (mainly) Euro-Canadian pandemic that we are witnessing today."

Obviously the pandemic rages throughout Islamdom too, but the plausibly denied "mutant strain" masquerading as "mere" anti-zionism and "justifiable" demonization of Sharon (and his coterie of Likudnik orcs) to the exclusion of almost every other world leader (except Bush) seems to be a Western confection.

Og K . . .

What you said. I especially like your terms "wonderful coating of slick plausible deniability" and "thick self-delusion."

I also think of the current form of anti-semitism ("anti-Israelism," yeah, sure) as a cancer that is metastisizing rapidly.

May I ask: Is your nick from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?

Totoro writes,

"What you said. I especially like your terms 'wonderful coating of slick plausible deniability" and "thick self-delusion.'"

Thank you, but:

--- "It was the product of a mind that was not merely twisted,
--- but actually sprained." :-)
--- Douglas Adams

"I also think of the current form of anti-semitism ("anti-Israelism," yeah, sure) as a cancer that is metastisizing rapidly."

Might radiation treatment be indicated?

Chemotherapy, perhaps?

"May I ask: Is your nick from 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'?"

Nope.

Nor this Og:
http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/clemenr/ORACLE/oghist.html

And definitely NOT this Og:
http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/clemenr/ORACLE/og.html

I wasn't aware of any "Og" in HGTTG. Shows how little I know.

Og: Thanks for clearing that up. I had thoughts in that direction, but not the words to express them well. "Emic" and "etic" are a bit obscure. Perhaps we could talk about a European definition of antisemitism and a historical definition?

It's the historical definition I mean when I talk about anti-Israelism being related to antisemitism. But you won't convince me to say out loud that it is antisemitic to compare Israel to South Africa. There's no way that statement can lead to a useful debate. To define anti-Israelism as an irrational fear of Israel, and _then_ draw a connection to anti-semitism, that I believe can be done. Separate the issues - "European media is anti-Israel", and "anti-Israelism is connected to antisemitism", so they have to be defended separately, and not with a cheap but effectful strawman. "What, are you saying I'm some kind of Nazi? That I hate Jews?" Because that's what they reply. And the trick works - they fool themselves as well as anyone else.

Bjorn, good point regarding the mixing up of issues. It's always hard to discuss more than one subject at a time. I guess I try, when arguing with people, to try to keep the subject as narrow as possible and to throw in as many facts as possible.

I wrote you a post about the demonization of Ariel Sharon, but it got lost somewhere in the void. I didn't want to repost it by mistake. My point was:

After cutting through all the anti-Sharon writings in my local paper (Chicago Tribune), I finally figured out that Sharon is a perfectly good leader--as good as any single head of democratic government that could be named in Europe or North America.

Yet, he is condemned as a vicious killer. But how many "non-combatant" Palestinians have been killed in 3 years of warfare? In fact, many of the dead were killed by their own people.

I add this irrational hatred of Ariel Sharon to the insanity of Jew-hatred that hides under another name. Thanks for allowing this discussion on your blog. I'm sure you get many many readers in Europe and America, and it is important that people discuss these issues as you and your posters have been doing.

Og--I don't know of any such character in "Hitchhikers." Your name reminded me of the book . . . which I think I'll soon re-read. :)

--Furthermore, the incident where Chechen terrorists planted bombs in that theater and helt a lot of hostages in moscow shouldn't be forgotten neither.--

Along w/the phone call to Saudi Arabia for a tape of the hoped-for murder of the infidels to pass around at parties.

And no comment here of the EU suppressing their anti-semitism report.

We're back in the 30s folks, better wake up.

Bjørn,

You write:

===

(1)

"To define anti-Israelism as an irrational fear of Israel..."

How accurate is that definition?

Isn’t a genetic marker common to all strains of this virus scapegoating.

Scapegoating -- not fear.

Jews -- and the Jew among nations, Israel -- are not so much feared as they are despised and hated.

To steal a line from one of our leading 21st century lights, it’s the "strong horse" that’s feared... and admired. The "weak horse" you despise and have contempt for.

Another shared and most interesting genetic marker is phantasmagoric mythology. Unbelievable stuff in the folklore of anti-semitism. Does any one really believe it, really take fright from it? Or have they convinced themselves of it? Well, if anti-Israelism is characterized by rage and contempt rather than fear -- draw your own conclusions...

====

(2)

"Separate the issues..."

Separating issues -- that is, to raise the objection of "compound question" -- is one way to reframe the debate, to try to win over the undecideds and the occasional waffler.

"...- 'European media is anti-Israel', and 'anti-Israelism is connected to antisemitism',..."

Well, this does separate the issues, at least grammatically, but perhaps not logically. Thus, even if we stipulate that Euro media is anti-Israel, does it follow that anti-Israelism is necessarily connected to anti-semitism?

Seems we may be back to square one.

From the "square one" position, Alan Dershowitz suggests raising consciousness about anti-semitism by focusing on the obvious double standards applied to Israel. The mind is a resilient creature, however, and most averse to the pangs of cognitive dissonance. In the face of conventional wisdom, new insights are readily rationalized away and may have a remarkably short half life.
===

(3)

"[Y]ou won't convince me to say out loud that it is anti-semitic to compare Israel to South Africa. There's no way that statement can lead to a useful debate."

Yours is the voice of even-tempered, diplomatic, well-considered, educated and insightful discourse. You project credibility across the spectrum. Keep it that way. It's what's made this blog so successful. It's your personal style.

There's also a place for people along the lines of J. Quincy Adams (during his congressional, post-presidential years) and William Lloyd Garrison: truth tellers who were deliberately, radically, in-your-face inflammatory, the better to put into sharp focus the deep divide in the political landscape.

Adams well understood what his provocations, his inflammatory challenges to, and his acid denunciations of the Southern slave system were leading up to:

"It seems to me that its result [that of war] might be the extirpation of slavery from this whole continent; and, calamitous and desolating as this course of events in its progress must be, so glorious would be its final issue, that, as God shall judge me, I dare not say that it is not to be desired."

===

Bjørn, thank you for allowing me to have my say. I'll now leave this "thread" to you & others to "sew" up and "embroider" further. Please do.

Bjoern, just a short comment re. Chechen terrorism against Russian civilians:

while part of it is most likely a genuine result of external jihadi's activities, the Russian-language media is full of speculations about the involvement of the FSB (Federal Security Office, formerly KGB). Furthermore, a significant part of the Russian public, especially the inhabitants of Moscow, which has suffered most so far, believes the same.

The issue with the anti-Israeli rants and general bias - apart from being inherently unfair - is that because they are unreasonable, unfounded in fact, and so shrill, they only have the effect of proving to Israeli politicians that they indeed are isolated. As long as European governments refuse to consider Israel's point of view, they implicitly encourage Sharon to do what he thinks is right.

Odd Karsten Tveit probably knows this, but his mission is not to persuade the Israeli government of anything, directly or indirectly (by influencing Norwegian policymakers or the public). His mission is simply to create hatred and mistrust among Norwegians against Israel and thereby isolate Israel further.

A reasonably well-read Norwegian who tried to persuade an Israel of his point of view would probably lose credibility within seconds, since it would become apparent that he/she had no understanding of basic facts.

BTW, any search on Norwegian media would show that an inordinate amount of negative coverage concerns Israel. And it would also become apparent that as much as most people claim that "both parties are equally to blame," all coverage places most of the blame on Israel.

And it's certainly disputable that Israel is mostly to blame. My view is that both Israel and the Arabs have to change for there to be peace, but the Arabs have to change more.

Personally I am untroubled by the fact that the atrocities perpretrated by Israel are reported on and justly criticised by mainstay media sources, and political leaders, we certainly shouldn't ignore such abuses simply because they are jewish and we are afraid of being labelled racist, should we?

Alternatively we shouldn't leave untouched, the media's and leftwing fixation on the actions of Israel as another way of criticising America's foreign policy in general and in the process ignoring, some of the great atrocities in the world, such as in Chechnya, or in Zimbabwe.

What's troubling, Mr. Elson, is NOT that the media is reporting Israeli "atocities," but that the media is collaborating in the fabrication of such supposed "atrocities."

When mass murderering terrorists who deliberately target civilians try to hide amongst the Arab civilian population, it is blood on the hands of the Hamas, IJ, al-Aqsa, etc. when civilians are killed -- NOT murdered, my friend -- in the cross-fire as the terrorists are justly hunted down.

No, what's troubling is the mass trance of moral equivalence. Fortunately there's the internet and sites like this to counter the reality-bending drug-like effects of the ABC of Oz and other merchants of "Truth."

Og K: The US just killed a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan yesterday, or maybe it was two days ago. 9 children died in the same attack.

Now, the interesting thing to note here, is that the US has been _extremely_ apologetic about it. They wanted to kill the terrorist, but they Really Didn't want to kill children. They have _extremely_ stringent rules of engagement, and they're doing a thourough investigation on why civilians were killed.

Then look at the situation in Israel, where suspected terrorists are targeted in populated areas, where there _of course_ will be civilians around.

I'm sorry, it's not "just" to fire at a mass murdering terrorist when he's among innocents. It's an act of terrorism in itself. Two wrongs doesn't make one right.

Rune: There's a difference. The Americans have the support of the Afghan provisional government, and it's important to retain that support, and make clear that the Afghan people is not the enemy. Israel has no such ally, and therefore less motivation to apologize. Israelis would probably see it as weakness in the face of a united enemy.

I agree that the US should be more careful with its attacks, and as the apology implies they did not know they would kill civilians. They have the means to do better. Israel does not. The PA works against them, so the only alternative to helicopter rocket attacks is a full invasion of the city, Jenin style. They too should be careful, but as I also think it's important to destroy Hamas, I accept that this can't always be done without bypassers and kids dying.

Bjørn: Therein is the problem. The Israeli government do not have, and will not gain an ally in the Palestinian Authority if they continue such attacks. Each and every attack that kills innocents in addition to the actual target will be viewed as nothing short of terrorism by those victimized.

The palestinians will be strengthened in their resolve against Israel in all such cases. More hatred will be created, and more potential terrorists will be forged.

I'm impressed by the US' military and their spinning of the press. The provisional government in Afghanistan is making an investigation on what went wrong. I don't know how public the investigation is - but the results will - hopefully - be made public. This will hopefully help lessed the feeling of helplessness and probably hatred felt by the parents that lost their children.

In the case of Israel and the palestinians - the lack of compassion from the Israeli side will just _strengthen_ the same feelings.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/559

Secular Blasphemy: Odd Karsten Tveit tror på astrologi, February 19, 2005 02:53 AM

Det bør ikke overraske noen at NRKs Midtøsten-korrespondent Odd Karsten Tveit er overtroisk.