As I wrote below, I don't think "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" is anti-semitic or supports terrorism, and I don't support Zvi Mazel's form of art criticism. But if we're to grant Palestinian suicide bombers the right to a motivation, it would be unfair not to grant Mazel the same. To understand is not to support, (but it can be to excuse, which Feiler like most pro-Palestinian peace activists does), and we can't understand Mazel's reaction without appreciating how stressful it is to represent Israel in Scandinavia. The government is unsympathetic, the media hostile, and parts of the public borders on the conspiratorial. The "lower" you go, the more paranoid views become acceptable. You won't see Sharon to Hitler comparisons very often in the newspapers, but you will see plenty of signs saying just that in any demonstration that involves left-wing activists. These openly irrational prejudices are filtered out as you move upwards from public to media to government, but they're there, they're the background the more polite views play out against, and any Israeli who lives here must know this. And yet as an ambassador your job is to deal with only the polite, diplomatic form of anti-Israelism at the government level, the one that tells you to stop blowing up Hamas leaders but sends money to the PA. The uglier forms of anti-Israelism must be ignored. There are simply no diplomatically accepted ways for an ambassador to deal with opinions that aren't voiced by the government. If you do, you're accused of bullying.

Mazel's reaction should be understood (but not excused) as a protest against this overwhelming anti-Israeli mood in Scandinavia, a protest which has no diplomatically accepted form, and for which this display happened to serve as a trigger. The target was broader and less tangible - the total weight of anti-Israeli opinion, some of which in unfiltered form is pretty offensive.

What does this "unfiltered" anti-Israelism look like? To find out, we must look beneat the mainstream media, and see what regular Scandinavians write on web boards, Usenet groups, etc. Here are some examples from a discussion in Dagbladet's weblog about Mazel. I've picked the worst, and they're not necessarily representative, but they're here, and they're not fringe opinions. They're the same views we see in the media, but less polite, more negative, more openly prejudiced.

seksognitti:

Ariel Sharon is a great terrorist, he should be sentenced for his crimes and abuses against Palestinians and other people. Ariel Sharon is not a good man, he's a Hitler in my eyes, who uses law paragraphs to destroy Palestinian homes with buldozers .. The hatred against Jews in Israel is so strong that ordinary people blow themselves up to show the world what injustice they've suffered. Why don't Israel end these abuses, thus ending the terror?

Jeppe:

People with more or less fascist tendencies like to pick examples with low general appeal when they apply their censorship. At first. If this is accepted, they will try to extend this behavior so that it limits the possibility to express opposing views.

Betrakter:

A government which sends publicly hired assasins around the world, which recreates Holocaust against the Palestinians whose land they've stolen, who builds a wall on the remains of the country they've stolen, who behaves as rabid God's chosen ones - why the hell do they believe they should get an ounce of sympathy from intelligent people? Those who act like garbage, should not be surprised if they end up in the garbage heap.

Phido:

Inappropriate or not, the censorship carried out by the Israeli ambassador perhaps confirms many people's opinions that Israel is a violent and totalitarian state.

S.J.:

Israel and the US are the worlds greatest terror states, with leaders walking in Hitler's footsteps. The rest of the world should resist these disgusting states and start a boycott of their products and services.

Torb:

Curious to see how so few have commented the role of the US in Israel. Do you know that they sponsor Israel with 2.6 billion DOLLAR every year? Do you know that they do this because there exists an EXTREMELY powerful Jewish lobby in the US? Not necessarily because the presidents really want to.

Seb:

They kill Palestinian kids for throwing rocks, use collective punishment. Don't they see that these poor people don't have a future? No opportunities to work, and are shut in in areas enclosed by a wall. Without access to clean water. Is it any wonder that they see no other way to show their frustration than by blowing themselves up, and taking a few bad guys with them in the process? [eng:] GO ON PALESTINA!

Mia:

Don't forget that we had our own "suicide bombers" in Norway during the war. These were women and men of the resistance who risked their lives carrying out sabotage. Many of them knew that their lives would be lost during the act. I had in a given situation probably done the same: sacrificed my life so that Norway would be free of occupation. Can't see anything but that had I lived in what was formerly called Palestine, I would have sacrificed my life so that my country could be free of the occupation force. Another reason is perhaps that this is their only chance to open the world's eyes to the abuses that are going on.

The last one is pretty blunt. I don't think I've ever heard any pundit say "I would have been a suicide bomber too" in straight language. But what Mia writes is actually just a less deceptive version of a common view, that the Palestinian intifada is comparable to the Norwegian resistance during World War 2. In its polite form, this argument has been made by former Conservative PM Kåre Willoch. The polite form doesn't say "I would have been a suicide bomber", but that's the unspoken logical consequence. Mia's comment stands out only because it voices the unspoken part. (Another unspoken part is that if the Palestinian terrorists are like the Norwegian resistance, then the Israelis are like the Nazi's.) The essence of her argument is the same as that of Willoch's.

Actually I think that describes most of what is said above. Many pundits write about the "powerful Jewish lobby" in Washington. This isn't offensive as such, but neither does it make much sense. There are many powerful lobbies in Washington, one for every cause American politicians are sympathetic to. Why wouldn't Israel have one too? But perhaps those who say it aren't thinking of lobbies in the usual sense, but of dark puppet masters. Perhaps what they mean is closer to what Torb writes, that there exists an "EXTREMELY powerful Jewish lobby". Phrased this way the view is obviously anti-semitic. It plays on the old fantasy of the "Elders of Zion", controlling world leaders for their own gain. You can't write that, but you can imply it. With another level of obfuscation it becomes even safer: "The powerful Israel lobby", "the Israel-friendly neo-conservative cabal", etc. When we trace it back all the way, it comes down to this: The Jews control Washington. The neo-nazi's believe this openly, and the arguments they use are often similar to the ones used by those who only worry about Israeli influence on the US: This official is a Jew, that one has worked closely with such-and-such powerful pro-Israel organization, and isn't it curious how all these politicians are so friendly with Israel? We can call this "obfuscated anti-semitism" - as long as we remember that the obfuscation works both ways. It hides the essence of the opinion also from the ones who hold it.

There's something similar at work in the view of Israel as a horrible regime. In the polite form, Israel acts like South Africa under apartheid, Eastern Germany or (implicitly) Nazi Germany. In the blunt form as quoted above, the Israelis have "fascist tendencies", they are a "violent and totalitarian state". The first is clearly anti-Israelism. It irrationally attributes evil intentions to Israel. The second may also be seen as obfuscated anti-semitism. It's not openly anti-semitic to call Israel totalitarian, but we can trace the idea to anti-semitism. A totalitarian state is based on an ideology that unites the people beneath one banner, that directs the people towards one common purpose. In this case this ideology is obviously Zionism. So we have a nation of Jews united under the totalitarian banner of Zionism, which tells them it's okay to oppress non-Jews. This is an old anti-semitic concept. It's been borrowed and transposed into a different context, but traces of its origin remain. And in the Arab world the connection is still alive. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is often mentioned in the same sentence as a condemnation of today's fascist Zionists.

So we can trace "Israel is an apartheid state" to "Israel is a fascist state" to "Zionism tells Jews to oppress non-Jews" to the Elders of Zion. What does that tell us? I'm not sure. It does not tell us that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite. It does, I think, tell us that many claims about Israel originated in and are related to old anti-semitic myths. It may also tell us that the anti-semitic essence is somehow "alive" in current European anti-Israelism, but that's more speculative. What is the essence of anti-semitism anyway? If the essence is "hatred of Jews", anti-Israelism isn't anti-semitic, only ideologically related to it. No anti-Israelists hate Jews. If anti-Israelism is anti-semitic, anti-semitism can't be "hatred of Jews". So if you believe that they're essentially the same, you need to supply a better definition of anti-semitism. The point is that there is a relation, and we see that relation more clearly when we look at anti-Israelism in "the wild", in a blunter form than what we see in the established media.

And the weight of all that anti-Israelism, with its occasionally obvious connections to anti-semitism, creates a difficult environment for Israeli diplomats to work in. But that's still no excuse for venting this frustration like Mazel did. It was also counter-productive. If the display really had been anti-semitic, or at least obviously anti-semitic to a Swede once you pointed out why, Mazel could have used this case to fight anti-Israelism in general. As it is, he's probably promoted it. (But I suppose he'll sleep a little better at night from now on.)

(Update: Comments got turned off by mistake for a while. Back on now.)

Joooooos have controlled the world for a long time and the most certainly control Amerikkka....so why have they been the most put upon in history? The ultimate aim of the Jews is to manipulate the world into despising them and trying to exterminate them or something?

Bad foolishness
*******

I would bet that Mia would have supported the Nazis when they rescued Germans from those evil oppressive Poles etc..
As for becoming part of the resistance - he/she is unable to correctly identify evil today. I suspect that the promise of "peace " "security" and "social justice" would have put Mia in the collaborator category.

Bjorn,

This is a great post. Since 1967, there's been an enormous increase in anti-Israel views in Europe. The propaganda against Israel has been unremitting. The UN and other international agencies have been hijacked by anti-Israel forces.

In the past 45 years, I've been to Israel about 20 times, for varying lengths of time. I've seen it grow from a poor country with crude housing and primitive roads to a modern country, probably like Norway. I've also been to West Bank towns many times and have seen how they grew and became prosperous too.

When the first intifada broke out, I was sympathetic to the Palestinian call for self-rule, thinking that there could be some kind of free-movement zone between Israel, Palestine and Jordan. I'm sure there are countries in the world that provide models--maybe some Caribbean countries, for example. Or, Palestine could have been like Puerto Rico--essentially self-governing, but under the umbrella of the U.S. government and defense forces.

Unfortunately, those dream-states will not occur in my lifetime. Backed by Islamofascists in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Palestinian leadership has devoted itself to unremitting warfare. The Palestinian culture has devolved into barbarism.

Israelis must protect themselves against this vicious new form of warfare. They try hard to protect civilians even when the terrorists surround themselves with civilians. I know this for a fact.

You seem to understand the problem of the anti-Israel propaganda, and I thank you for writing about it.

While I largely agree, the word "irrational" does describe Islamic terrorists accurately. And while you could say "irrational prejudices" is a somewhat redundant phrase, the implication is that they themselves are irrational. They have their reasons and use logic to come up with their methods. That they are stubborn and decline to have their goals reasoned away, does not make them irrational. That they sometimes reason ineffectively or even to their detriment doesn't do it either. And neither does the fact that they promote return to a more barbaric society nor their desire to commit genocide upon the Jewish people nor their likening of Sharon to Hitler. Devious, dishonest and despicable, yes. And maybe even delusional. Not irrational.

As I realize that this isn't a politically correct comment, I'll stay anonymous for this posting.

I find that I agree with some of what Mia says. Her argument isn't entirely coherent, but the core idea reflects how I view things.

The entire thing that norway had suicide bombers quite simply isn't true. A suicide bomber doesn't have hope of survival. To risk ones life in a dangerous mission is totally different from sacrificing ones life in a mission.

The point is that if one thinks one is oppressed, because of some stupid reason such as what "race" or "nationality" one is - one gets angry. In palestine, there is a resistance. It would be logical to associate with it. Personally I cannot understand suicide bombers, but I fully sympathise with those that create bombs, and tries to target strategically important targets. I can never understand direct attacks on civilian targets - but I fully understand those that would try to take out soldiers, tanks, and so forth.

To put it this way. If I lived in Israel/Palestine, and was a palestinian - and some of my family had been killed in Israeli actions - Israel would have a yet a new enemy on their hands.

Anonymous: "As I realize that this isn't a politically correct comment, I'll stay anonymous for this posting."

You're more than welcome here, no matter what you believe, and the more you disagree with me, the more welcome you are. But if you feel you need to be anonymous, please choose and stick to a nickname. Total anonymity tends to lower everyone's barrier for flaming.

"The point is that if one thinks one is oppressed, because of some stupid reason such as what "race" or "nationality" one is - one gets angry. In palestine, there is a resistance. It would be logical to associate with it."

Yes, it is. But there's a limit to how much insight we can derive from trying to see ourselves in the place of the Palestinians. We bring with us a long history of revolutions and rebellions against oppression and tyranny, and the ones we still remember are the ones that were fought in the name of freedom and other values that are important to us today. Or if they weren't fought for those values, we choose to remember them that way anyway, as in Braveheart.

And when we project those experience onto the Palestinian resistance, the conclusion is obvious: They're the archetypal Western resistance fighters, and the Israelis the archetypal Western oppressors.

But this ignores the basic difference in ideology between the freedom fighter and the suicide terrorist. It's not just about different _means_, but different _motivations_. Islamic suicide terrorism is based on an outlook on life that has more in common with Nazism than with any of the Western liberal ideologies. We honor life, and so does most people everywhere. They worship death. This is a cultural disease that (primarily Middle Eastern) Islam today is more prone to than any other culture, and nowhere so more than in the Palestinian areas, where large sections of the populations support suicide terrorism and the totalitarian visions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

A somewhat better analogy than Norway during WW2 would be if Norway had been (lightly) occupied by the Soviet Union in 1930, and the resistance movement became influenced by Nazi ideas from Germany. Eventually Nazism becomes a mass movement in Norway, inspiring people with a rage towards the Communists and a vision of the perfect society that drives them into mad and possibly suicidal attacks on anything Communist. Now imagine a Swede evaluating this situation: What would concern him most, the occupation or the Nazism? At the very least he would be concerned with both, and he might reasonable conclude that the Nazism was a greater problem. Occupations come and go, ideologies stay. An evil occupant can be defeated, but what is the point when the rebellion _itself_ has been corrupted?

Israel is of course not in any way like the Soviet Union, but that only makes it even _more_ inexplicable that Norwegians show almost no concern for the spread of radical Islam among Palestinians. Their rebellion has been corrupted, first by the secular terrorism and third world dictator act of Arafat, then by the religious suicide terrorism of the Wahhabs. That corruption is a much larger problem than Israel. And that corruption is what people like "Mia" speak in favor of when they say that they would have been suicide terrorists too.

Bjørn, I think your comment above is a good addition to the post.

I have some objections to the way the Israeli state works: but then, there are things here in the US to which I object.

Yes, the US sends a lot of money to Israel. We send as much to Egypt. We send money to Saudi Arabia (don't know why), the Gulf States, and just about every state in the region. This means we are controlled by - whom?

Nor do I hear the anti-Israel or anti-semite crowd(s) talking about Israel's offer of aid to Iran. Or that when Israel offered to help during an emergency in the PA, Arafat refused and sent some injured people to Libya rather than take the risk of having "Jewish" blood used to keep his people alive.

They reverse cause and effect. A Red Crescent ambulance is found to have 1500 kilos of explosives and a number of weapons, but when Israel then insists on serching ambulances crossing from the PA that is used to show that the IDF is cruelly holding up emergency services. Bah.

Fences? Want fences?
http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Fences.htm some non-Israeli fences

And I disagree with Paul above: if you use reason to support a delusion, no matter how logically, you are still being irrational if you refuse to look at the original premise or listen to arguments against it. The arguments against Galileo wer quite logical and rational - but they proceeded from mistaken assumptions, which were not to be questioned, which is irrational. Israeli use of force is bad, period: to allow the question of why they use force is not permitted. Irrational.

Bjørn: You seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make. I agree with your argument above, but it is beside the point (at least beside the point I'm trying to make).

The point is that if I were a palestinian that had experienced that (innocent) friends or family had been killed or had lost their house/whatever due to Israeli actions against others, then I would turn against Israel and ally myself with other that fought against them - no matter their reasoning. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very good saying in such a situation.

I will never defend or agree with radical Islamism, but I would *cooperate* with such groups, due to the common goal of fighting back against Israel.

I will never understand those that commit suicide attacks against civilian targets - but if in a situation where the Israelis had wronged me in a Bad Way, I would certainly try to make weapons to fight against their military. It is quite easy to make explosives - and I really do not understand why the palestinians doesn't attack tanks/soldiers with such. It also surpise me that the palestinians doesn't attack political targets such as Sharon or perhaps more easily - his political allies. Such targets are not military, but they are not entirely "civilian" in my book neither. Those are targets I would have chosen if I were in a wronged palestinians shoes.

I'm not sure if I get my point accross now, but hopefully. ;)

Mr Anderson: Good point about the fences.

When it comes to the controversy over the Red Crescent ambulances - it is a very difficult topic. On one hand, ambulances should "Never Ever" hindered or slowed down when they need to get a patient to a hospital - however - they should Never Ever be used as a vehicle for terrorism. How to combat that problem is a very difficult question. I do not know how thorough the Israelis handles them - so it is difficult to comment on it.

If it so that ambulances is stopped for several minutes, something is wrong. If it handled in a way such as "stop the ambulance, open the back door and look in, then let it drive on" - then I can't really say it is very wrong.

To Anonymous, Oslo . . .

Your heart seems to be in the right place, but you don't seem to have very much information about the problem. Perhaps you should do some background reading on Israel's history and Israel's response to terrorist attacks since the 1960s. The clue to me that you don't have very much information is your final paragraph above:

"If it so that ambulances is stopped for several minutes, something is wrong. If it handled in a way such as "stop the ambulance, open the back door and look in, then let it drive on" - then I can't really say it is very wrong."

You might also check out why running guns and ammunition in an ambulance is generally considered a war crime.

I am not being sarcastic or nasty here--I just think that too many people have an opinion and try to be "fair" when they know zilch about a subject.

Sure, I too would be a freedom fighter. In fact, I would be a Jewish freedom fighter. Winning a war or several wars and staying alive and prospering does not ipso facto make Jews and Israelis the "bad guy." However, that seems to be the premise of a lot of anti-Israeli sympathesizers. Good Jews are subordinate Jews. Bad Jews are Jews with their own country. There must be a term for this kind of twisted thinking, but I don't know it.

A wrongd Palestinian? How many are wronged when over 50% of the Paelstinian population consistently votes in polls to support continued suicide missions against Israel. Now you may not like haveing a state for yourself, but you simply are not going to get it if you turn down offers and then refuse to negotiate (walking away from Oslo)...I favor a state for the Palestinians. But only when it comes through negotiated settlement. And the settlemensts not taken down? It is easier to take down a settlement over a period of months than it is overnight, and no one is about to take anything down if there are daily attempts at terrorism (you read only about those that succeed). It takes but one hour--sending out the word--to end terrorism. Name one place where an army defeated another people in warfare and simply gave back what they had fought for (and lost lives for) without having an agreement in place before hand? You try to exterminate a country (israel) and lose, then why would Israel simply say here is land back now go try again to destroy us. (happenewd how many times already?)

Anonymous: "I will never defend or agree with radical Islamism, but I would *cooperate* with such groups, due to the common goal of fighting back against Israel."

Then you _are_ missing my point. What the Islamists are fighting _for_ is worse than what you would be fighting _against_. They're the ones who must be fought.

The same applies to a less degree with the secular bandits under Arafat. They're fighting for - has in fact already established - a regular Arab dictatorship under their control, of the kind that has been attempted so many times, and fails miserable every time. There are worse things than occupation.

Jews in France get assaulted, mostly by Arabs. Why? Because they are Israelies or pro-zionism? No: because they are Jews. If I kick the crap out of an Arab in the U.S., is it because I am anti Muslim or anti-Palestinian or anti-Egyptian or anti-white convert to Islam? In my rather long life (I am over 70) I have come to realize that those places and peoples with the greatest hatred of things and peo-ple that are Jewish are those who are most ignorant, in emotional turmoil, in countries that are 3rd rate, or are in dire need of a scapegoat to blame the troubles of Life upon...it is odd, no? that the Jews are now more than ever before so diminsi8ed in mumbers--low birth rates, holocaust, intermarriage, etc--yet some nutcases must continue to blame all things upon Jews.I sayh let's toss eggs at the next Jewish man or woman to win a Nobel!

To: John Anderson, RI USA

You've pointed out a seeming inconsistency in my position, yes, delusional and irrational go hand in hand. And I probably went to far to say they're all delusional. But it is a generalization about the population as a whole. Not every individual is delusional, and not every delusional individual is so because of an escape from reality. I think poor people in the Middle East have very little notion or experience of what the Western world is like. They have no idea at all. I say this not to excuse their actions, but to emphasize that they have a vanishingly small chance of success (that is, if the West stands up for itself). Is the elimination of Israel an irrational goal? Or assumption, or starting point, or whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't call it irrational. Evil, but not irrational. And very useful to their leaders, in a very rational sort of way, to keep themselves in power and their society cohesive.

I'm constantly fascinated (and a bit disgusted) by how little the so-called "pro-Palestine" crowd tries to understand the Palestinians. For some reason, they think that Palestinians are among the few people in the world who are utterly incapable of making rational decisions about their lives. Instead, the likes of Willoch, "Mia" and others would have us believe that suicide bombers and other terrorists are motivated by rage and desperation they are simply incapable of putting to more productive use. As if they are the *only* people in the world who are in such difficult circumstances.

The truth is that suicide bombing, sniping, mortaring, and other efforts to kill non-combatant Israelis are put in use because they *work*. If Israel doesn't retaliate, they are viewed as weak by the terrorist groups, but if they do retaliate, the terrorists get sympathy from naive left-wingers. The terrorists win in any case, and that's because so many politicians lack the moral (and possibly) physical courage to make a distinction between different acts.

The terrorists' strategy is to radicalize the conflict to the point that other Arab states get sucked into it. Their goal is the eradication of Israel and the expulsion of Jews from the area. Since they know they themselves can't accomplish this, they constantly try to widen the conflict.

I can completely understand why so many Palestinians expressly or tacitly support terrorists - there are several reasons:

- To oppose them is to invite all kinds of sactions, ranging from being ostracized to being killed.

- The terrorist groups show courage and action, and even (in the case of Hamas) lack of corruption.

- Thanks to European policy toward Israel, the terrorist campaign is likely to yield tactical benefits for more terrorism. Yes, it causes suffering to lots of non-combatant Palestinians (and Israeli) civilians, but the suffering is also what justifies the terrorism.

To Bjorn and Leif,

I would like to hear your views on why the EU and other European governmental organizations have been so helpful to Arafat and the terrorists. I really don't understand their point of view.

Unlike some, I don't look for "antisemitism" as the explanation for all things anti-Israel. In fact, in this area, I would be surprised if antisemitism WERE the cause.

I don't know anything about Chris Patten except that he was governor of Hong Kong and is now a great supporter of Arafat. Terje Larsen (sp?) was also a pro-Arafat, anti-Israel functionary. Quotations from Xavier Solana of Spain also seem to point in this direction.

As Europeans, what is your explanation for this phenomena? Bjorn, maybe you could do a post on this (or point me to one already written).

Thanks!!!!

Great post. Mr. Knutsen has hit the nail on the head, too. What is shocking to me is that vicious anti-Semitism has become so acceptable in Sweden. The world loves weak and preferably dead Jews; strong Jews who dare to fight back, who dare to live when the entire Arab world (and a good bit of Europe, too) wants them all dead, well, they're evil conspirators blah, blah. While there's little I can do to punish the Swedes quoted by Bjorn, it will be a long time before I buy any Swedish products or visit Sweden.

The world is much simpler if you believe that all it takes to make peace in the Middle East is that Israel moves a few hundred thousand Jews behind an arbitrary, more or less imagined border.

And Europeans have a long tradition of placating unreasonable megalomaniacs (Charles XII, Napoleon, Hitler) until it's too late and then having to fight long, bloody, nasty wars with myriad unexpected side effects.

Add to this a certain uneasiness when it comes to the euphemistically terms "Jewish Question," and it follows that Europe will have a much easier time living with:

- Jews being no better than Europeans
- Israel being mostly to blame
- Arab leaders who want peace and democracy for their people

than:

- Jews fighting for their lives and existence - again and still
- Petroleum-exporting countries being mostly to blame
- Arab leaders who treat their own people like shit, and the Palestinans worst of all

Pretty much the whole world ignored the genocide of Armenians, Jews, Gypsies, Cambodians, Bosnian Muslims, Kosovo-Albanians, Hutu, etc., but none acted with greater indifference than Europeans. When it has now come to light that all European countries, except Portugal, refused to let the U.S. send vital supplies to Israel during the October/Ramadan/Yom Kippur War in 1973, you have to wonder who is more motivated by oil in the world. As far as I'm concerned, the EU in general and each European country in particular have no - zero - zilch credibility when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Terje Rød-Larsen is a pretty incompetent diplomat who has a bully pulpit due to luck and not merit, but I don't find evidence that he's antisemitic. I think his perspective on the conflict are a function of his naivete more than any kind of bias.

Torb's an asshat. Does he know we give EGYPT $2 BILLION a year because of Peace and what a waste of money that is.

Anonymous is missing the point. If they want a state they have to prove they can run it. They can't. They've been independent for 10 years and squat. The press has sold their soul for access, we don't know the 1/2 of Pali-on-Pali thuggocracy. There is absolutely NO good reason why there are "refugee" camps 54 years later, other than UN/NGO livelihood. Arafat's nothing more than a butcher. If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, their lives wouldn't change. They'd just blame all their faults on America. Other than oil, what can that part of the world offer the rest of us? They can't compete w/China, India. The $5 mill a year Arafat spends on his wife in Paris could be used to better his people, or at least put her on a budget. She can't get along on $1 million???

With the multi-billions--if not a trillion--that have flowed into there over the past few decades, they should be better off than they are. They don't need Israel to work, can't they trade w/their muslim brothers? You can't want to destroy your neighbor on one hand and rely on him for your livelihood on the other. Then bitch when he won't let you in for work because one of your bretheren prefers splodydoping children. It is not an honorable culture. The Japanese were honorable.

It's just easier to blame the Joooosssss. Then they don't have to worry about the pali brownshirts coming to their doors at night to take them away. Their muslim brothers don't want them for other than a tool to beat the Joooosss with. They're the Puerto Ricans of the ME (wheeeee, that should get some responses!). Before anyone takes offense, we all have our pecking chains and you know it.

I posted a comment to the previous thread because the comments were down on this one.
[ They worship death. This is a cultural disease that (primarily Middle Eastern) Islam today is more prone to than any other culture, and nowhere so more than in the Palestinian areas ]

There was an interesting piece in The Economist recently that cast some doubt on this idea (The Economist, 10 January 2004, pp18-20). The "most prolifically suicidal terrorist group", the Tamil Tigers, "are inspired more by cultish devotion to Velupillai Prabhakaran, the group's leader, than by religion." Many other suicide bombers who are Muslim are motivated by other ideologies, such as Marxist Leninism (the PKK, PFLP and so on). Suicide bombing does seem to have been revived repeatedly by Shii, but within Sunni Islam only the Salafis and Wahhabis justify suicide attacks using religion, and they have to overcome all sorts of religious obstacles to do so. As The Economist points out, "all these theological somersaults suggest that religion may be as much a hurdle, which the perpetrators of "martyrdom operations" need to overcome, as a motive for their violence. Hizbullah's clerics, for example, have always been squeamish about suicidal missions." Let's also not forget the Japanese Kamikaze pilots.

My point is that I don't think the cause is Islam per se, rather Islam is being harnessed to the culture of death.

Anonymous, Oslo
[ It is quite easy to make explosives - and I really do not understand why the palestinians doesn't attack tanks/soldiers with such. ]

Here I think the point is right in front of you and yet you can't see it. It's easy to make explosives, as demonstrated by the regular attacks - but what should you blow up? It depends on your strategy and culture. When it comes to suicide bombing, 'Islamism' and anti-semitism (ie religion) can be red herrings because religion is so emotive for us. Originally the Palestinian militant leaders based their efforts on secular, socialist/nationalist ideology. Salafi and Wahhabi Islam has become a popular political motivator since the turn of the Muslim Century (1980AD) so many Muslim political leaders have used that as the way to mobilise their people to do what they've already been doing. This is why Arafat's second in command has renamed himself "Abu Jihad" (bearer of Holy Struggle).

You support Mia's comparison of palestinian suicide bombing to daring raids during the Nazi occupation of Norway. Would you or Mia or the norwegian resistance walk into a packed restaurant and detonate yourself? Would you attack a school bus (justifying your action on the basis that the Jugende in the bus would grow up to be german soldiers)? Would you indoctrinate your children to think that all germans are the children of pigs, monkeys and dogs? What we are dealing with is a deeply, deeply sick society that is ruled by blood, death, hatred, murder, fear and violence. Why do they not attack the military or political leaders? That would not fulfill their purpose. They want little children to see severed limbs, for mothers to be sick with terror, for ordinary people to be in despair. They want the Jews to all be dead, or to leave through fear. The Palestinian _political_ culture is a black hole.

For many on the left, this is the end of the question. The Palestinians are in despair, therefore whomever they hate (Israel, America, etc) must have caused the despair. This is not the first time in history people have been displaced. Poland shifted tens of kilometres West at the end of World War II, at Germany's expense - just before the establishment of Israel. What was once prussian territory is now polish. Where are the refugee camps and prussian suicide bombers? Where is the Lutheran hatred of Catholic Poland? It does not exist, primarily because those germans were resettled. Why were the palestinians not resettled? Ask their arab neighbours. Why have they not made their refugee camps into towns? Ask their leaders. Unfortunately, 'Palestine' has collectively taken the wrong path and descended into an abyss - the real "spiral" or "cycle of violence".

Israel did some things wrong at its founding, and under the stress of repeated (failed) wars of extermination against Israel, actions have been taken that shock us in the West. On the other hand, the Arabs have very deep problems that are intricate and intractable.

Too many commentators think they can solve the problem either by shoe-horning it into a doctrine such as post-colonialism (ie the apparent EU consensus) or by taking a side. It's easy to point at the unpleasant things being done by one side, because unpleasant situations call for unpleasant actions. However, Israel has more in common with our peaceful, tolerant culture, whereas 'martyrdom operations' are vile, incontravertibly evil actions borne of a moral vacuum - not because resisting occupation is bad, but because murdering civilians in a neighbouring country is bad.

I wanted to reiterate that my comments about Palestine's political culture refer to the leadership and a sizeable portion of the population, but not to the entire population. My best guess of the number that would happily end the terrorism and make a go of it in their own country is about 75%, but that is not enough to make a society work, particularly if the 25% are the most 'active'.

Incidentally, here's a description of Dror Feiler's upbringing on Israel's first and only communist kibbutz - as told by his mother Pnin Feiler:
"Ever since he was a child, Dror learned about communism from us. He has always seen himself as a revolutionary, a leftist and someone who loves peace. He is an artist who takes his work and himself very seriously."

From:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/386080.html

It is a mistake to condemn suicide bombers as SUICIDE bombers. Sure, it makes the Palestinians seem a little weird at first, but it doesn't really matter much whether they kill themselves or just endanger themselves. People like Mia are starting to figure that out.
We have to point out that:
1)they TRY to kill civilians, which is a war crime
2)virtually their whole population has been independent for several years, but they just became more violent
3)a wall around Gaza is NOT a prison. it is a normal border

Actually, opinion polls that militancy is pretty prevalent among Palestinians. The most recent poll,
http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/pop/03/dec/pop13.pdf

indicates that 68% support "military" operations against Israel under current conditions, 62% support suicide bombings. 46% think that a two-state solution is preferable, 25% want a single binational state, 13% want a Palestinian state only, and 3% want an Islamic state.

Trevor Stanley:
[You support Mia's comparison of palestinian suicide bombing to daring raids during the Nazi occupation of Norway. Would you or Mia or the norwegian resistance walk into a packed restaurant and detonate yourself?]

If you read what I wrote, I wrote:

"The entire thing that norway had suicide bombers quite simply isn't true. A suicide bomber doesn't have hope of survival. To risk ones life in a dangerous mission is totally different from sacrificing ones life in a mission."

I do not support the comparison. I do however view things in somewhat the same way as Mia, when she says:

"Can't see anything but that had I lived in what was formerly called Palestine, I would have sacrificed my life so that my country could be free of the occupation force."

But, there are conditions (and differences). First, I would've supported talks and so forth - unless innocent family and/or friends became collateral damage. If - for example - I had lost a child, a lover, or a close friend that did nothing more wrong than being at the wrong place at the wrong time ... I'm quite certain I would be part of an armed resistance from that point on. However - I would in all probability be more like the norwegians during WWII -- none of (to my knowledge) did pure suicide attacks but armed attacks with a chance of escaping.

simply put: are the Palestinians better off socially and economically now than they were before the 2nd intifada, and are they closer to achieving statehood than they were. If not, why not? This is not to say they ought to be placid and acept statelessness and occupation but heck, Israel gained land and occupies it till a settlement has been reached. No settlement, no state. Simple, no?

Typically thoughtful commentary from you, Bjorn. Just wanted to let you know I've posted a link to this.

OK Anonymous, you're right, I should have read your post more carefully. Yes, I'm sure a lot of us would be part of a 'resistance' to armed invasion or occupation. I had a point to make and I made a completely different, and incorrect point.

You make a distinction between suicide bombing and other forms of resistance. I agree with part of what moar is saying. There are several elements to 'legality' in war.

By focusing on suicide bombing, we are categorising attacks by the method of killing - suicide bombing, non-suicide bombing, machine gun, flame-thrower, chemical weapons etc. Some of these are illegal and immoral, but why should we be offended if the person trying to kill us intends to die in the attempt? An infantryman standing on a mine or a shopper being killed by a suicide bomber die in the same way.

The difference between these two attacks is not the weapon used, but the target. If a suicide bomber attacked an infantryman and a mortar round was deliberately fired into a restaurant, which would be the war crime? Is the method (suicide) really the measure of legality here?

Buddhist monks burnt themselves to death to protest against the South Vietnamese government. They were certain to die in the attack, but also did not attempt to kill any innocent civilians. War crime? If the test is suicide, yes.

I think you see my point. The fault of Palestinian suicide bombing is that it targets civilians. Another fault is that it deliberately perverts civilians such as children and housewives and makes them into human bombs. This rejection of basic human values is what makes my skin crawl when I think about Palestinian suicide bombers.

Leif:
Those stats are really interesting. I've saved the file for later use.

I knew my figure was fairly rough and unscientific. I had lumped together the different issues of wanting an end to violence, opposing terrorist tactics and being willing to tolerate stable coexistence.

The first thing those statistics say is that most of the population really is sympathetic to violence and terror.

But the second thing they say is that most would settle for coexistence of Jews and Muslims in one form or another. Is the current leadership representative of these views? To my eyes the leadership seems to be mainly in the categories of the 13% of the population wanting a Palestinian state without Israel, and the tiny 3% that want an Islamic State. If the majority was represented, we might expect they would use violence to precipitate negotiations to actually achieve a genuine settlement. This is supported by Figure 7: 51% favour the intifada in combination with talks. (Not pleasant, but preferable to what the Islamic parties want).

The statistics also demonstrate a point I was making earlier. Many people link suicide bombing to Islamism, and there is surely _some_ link. But if this was the direct and exclusive link it can sometimes appear, why would 62% support suicide bombing and only 3% support an Islamic state? Even if 100% of those 3% support suicide bombing, that still leaves 59% of Palestinians who support suicide bombing but are not hardline Islamists.

Incidentally, adding together support for two-state and binational-state solutions gives a figure of 71% (76% in April 2003). Close to my 75% guesstimate!

Concise Explanation of the Middle East War
by Steven Plaut

Myth #1: Israel is an aggressor.
Truth #1: Israel is the victim.

Myth # 2: The "intifada" wave of Palestinian terror was caused by Israeli
occupation.
Truth #2: The "intifada" wave of Palestinian terror was caused by removal
of Israeli occupation.

Myth #3: The territory of Israel used to be an Arab Palestinian state.
Truth #3: There has never been an Arab Palestinian state anywhere, anytime.

Myth #4: Arabs are mistreated by Israel.
Truth #4: Arabs under Israeli rule are treated infinitely better than are
Arabs living under Arab regimes.

Myth #5: The West Bank is Palestinian land.
Truth #5: The West Bank is Jewish land, even though some governments of
Israel have been prepared to relinquish it.

Myth #6: Creation of a Palestinian state will produce peace.
Truth #6: Creation of a Palestinian state will produce escalated war,
perpetual terrorism and barbarism.

Myth #7: Arab war and terrorism against Israel was produced by Israeli
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Truth #7: Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was produced by
Arab war and terrorism against Israel.

Myth #8: Israeli leftists are seeking to achieve peace.
Truth #8: Israeli leftists are motivated by hatred of their own country
and their own people, and are seeking their destruction.

Myth #9: Arab terrorism is a byproduct of poverty.
Truth #9: Arab terrorists are almost all middle class and educated yuppies.

Myth #10: The key to peace is granting Palestinians hope.
Truth #10: The key to peace is taking away Palestinian hope (of destroying
Israel).

Myth #11: The Palestinians seek to have their own state alongside Israel.
Truth #11: The Palestinians and their apologists seek to destroy Israel
and conduct genocide against Jews.

Myth #12: Zionism is a form of racism.
Truth #12: Anti-Zionism is a form of racism.

Myth #13: Arab violence is a result of excessive use of force by Israel. Truth #13: Arab violence is a result of insufficient use of force by Israel.

Myth #14: Israel can only achieve tranquility through displays of niceness. Truth #14: Israel can only achieve tranquility through displays of harshness.

Myth #15: Israeli displays of flexibility and willingness to make
concessions build Arab trust.
Truth #15: Israeli displays of flexibility and willingness to make
concessions are seen by the Arabs as signs of weakness and encourage Arab
aggression and irredentism.

Myth #16: The bulk of Palestinians want peace with Israel and oppose terror. Truth #16: Virtually all Palestinians support war and endorse
terror. None have publicly denounced terrorism.

Myth #17: Arafat is trying to halt the terror.
Truth #17: Arafat personally commands the terrorist groups carrying out
most of the violence.

Myth #18: The Road Map is an effective plan to achieve peace.
Truth #18: The Road Map is an effective plan to achieve the destruction of
Israel.

Myth #19: The Palestinian cause is similar to that of black South
Africans under apartheid.
Truth #19: The Palestinian cause is similar to that of the Sudeten
Germans in Czechoslovakia.

Myth #20: Israel is an apartheid country.
Truth #20: Israel is the only state in the Middle East that is NOT an
apartheid country.

Myth #21: The Arab war against Israel is a struggle for justice.
Truth #21: The Arab war against Israel is a struggle for injustice.

Myth #22: The Middle East war is a result of unwillingness by Israel to
share land and resources.
Truth #22: The Arabs control land from the Atlas mountains to Central
Asia. The war is because they are unwilling for the Jews to control an
area smaller than New Jersey.

Myth #23: Arabs became refugees because Israel expelled them.
Truth #24: Jews from Arab states became refugees because the Arab
countries expelled them.

Myth #25: The Middle East war is about Israel refusing to acknowledge the
Palestinian right of self-determination.
Truth #25: The Middle East war is about the Arab world refusing to allow
the Israeli Jews the right of self-determination.

Congratulations! This is the best and most balanced analise of the "Snow White Affair" I've read so far. Thank you Bjørn!

When you cut and pasted that article, you should have checked for errors. I think #17 has been swapped around.

[ Truth #22: The Arabs control land from the Atlas mountains to Central Asia. ]

Really?!
Between Central Asia and Iraq lie Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, none of which are controlled (or populated) by Arabs.
(I think Steven Plaut has confused the terms 'Arab' and 'Middle Eastern').

Reid: That's clear proof if I needed it that if you invert a bad idea, it's usually still a bad idea. This is politics at the slogan level. Not all of it is entirely untrue, but most of it is inaccurate enough to feed the flames without adding anything useful.

"Myth #1: Israel is an aggressor. Fact #1: Israel is the victim."

You mean there are no Arab victims in this conflict? Of course there are, so why not say that? Oh wait, that doesn't fit the snappy retort formula. Best leave it out then.

"Myth #3: The territory of Israel used to be an Arab Palestinian state.
Truth #3: There has never been an Arab Palestinian state anywhere, anytime."

Strawman. What a pro-Palestinian would actually say is that the territory of Israel used to be Arab Palestinian _territory_, which is of course largely true.

"Myth #5: The West Bank is Palestinian land.
Truth #5: The West Bank is Jewish land, even though some governments of Israel have been prepared to relinquish it."

What makes a land "Jewish"? Is there perhaps a Jewish majority in the West Bank?

"Myth #14: Israel can only achieve tranquility through displays of niceness. Truth #14: Israel can only achieve tranquility through displays of harshness."

No they can't. They can ensure temporary and limited security by striking down on terrorists, but actual tranquility is reserved for that point in the far future where a compromise between Israel and Palestinians becomes possible. We don't know what that compromise will look like, but we can be reasonably sure that Israeli "harshness" will not be a major factor in it, (though it will perhaps be in Israel's survival up to that point).

And so on. Shallow slogans vs shallow slogans.

Yes, Bjorn, there are Arab victims, but the world ignores it when one's own people are doing it. After all, who are we to interfere? It's their culture, we can't impose our values on them otherwise we're cultural imperialists.

Well, there's hand-wringing and such, but "the world" does not rise up and demand it stop. Look at the latest HRW statement, basically, Saddam didn't kill enough of his own to justify invasion. HRW did not, tho, specify the actual # of dead before "the world" should intervene. Suffice to say, they might not even have stepped to stop the Hutsi-Tutsi massacre.

A few hundred thousand is not enough.

This won't change anyone's mind but I have a few questions anyway:
- Do all red crescent ambulances carry explosive?many? a few? some? Does anyone care?
- Do the IDF ever use tear gas, water cannon, and other non-lethal methods? Does anyone care?
- Has any soldier been prosecuted for killing a kid? Any convictions? Anyone serve time? Does anyone care?
- Back in the sixties I seem to remember a phrase something like "A land without people for a people without a land" as an excuse for Israeli expansion. But Gaza, for example, is one of the most densely populated places on earth. Oops?
- And don't get me started on "targeted killings."

This is slight off-topic, but European supporters of Palestinian terrorism should become aware of the kind of messages circulating on e-mail. Bjorn, you are the only European I correspond with, so I pass it on to you.

"BOYCOTT WORKS TWO WAYS

Several weeks ago, Germany announced its decision to stop all arms sales to Israel. Since then, other countries have followed suit. In response, Israel has canceled its annual multimillion dollar contract for its nationwide DAN buses which were manufactured in Germany, and is looking at other bus suppliers in the U.S., and Japan.

The Europeans and their Muslim allies should understand that boycotts works both ways. When we said NEVER AGAIN, we meant it. Europe is stuck in the mentality of 1933 and conditioned to thinking of Jews as defenseless entities. The reality is very different. As long as Europe adheres to and supports its primitive Middle Ages death cult, European products must be off limits.

We continue to call for a complete boycott of travel and products from the following countries

France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, and China, due to their support, sponsorship, and/or participation in global Islamic terror. The voting record of the above countries at the U.N. openly endorses Muslim terror.

Remember, every time you buy a bottle of Evian, a Carlsberg product, a Spanish melon, a Godiva chocolate, a Dior lipstick, a Gucci bag, or a German kitchen appliance, you are financing the next Muslim mass murderer.

The European Union gives over $10 million per month to the Palestinian Authority, knowing full well that the money is funneled to buy, import, and train Muslim terrorists and their weapons of mass murder.

We strongly encourage everyone to buy Canadian, American and Israeli products instead. Buy Estee Lauder or Ahava instead of Chanel, Dior, and YSL. Tell the salespeople why. Educate the public when you shop.

Europe is underwriting the Arab war to exterminate the Jewish state. We cannot sit idly by while this happens. Make your voice heard and let them feel the sting in their pocketbooks. Let the Europeans know that supporting terror does not pay."

to Claude Tessier . . .

Sheesh--what a collection of things stuck together to make some kind of nasty stew. Where to start? I won't bother.

You sound like one of those sick Europeans supporting the primitive medieval death cult referred to above.

Claude Tessier:

[ Do all red crescent ambulances carry explosive?many? a few? some? Does anyone care? ]

Apparently some red crescent ambulances carry explosives. Let's say you were working on a checkpoint and an intelligence report said Hamas had packed explosives into one third of Volkswagons. Would you just let all Volkswagons through because after all, most of them were safe? Admitedly, Volkswagons don't hold patients... let's try another example.

If a company annouced that 10% of their baby formula now in shops had been accidentally contaminated, would it be wrong to recall all of the baby formula? To do so would mean babies would go hungry, which is dangerous. But not to do so would kill babies.

Are you suggesting that no ambulances should be checked at checkpoints, even though they have been used in bombings? Stopping ambulances slightly endangers the patient, whereas not stopping ambulances would definitely lead to a large number of bombings, as the terrorists would continue to use ambulances as their 'Trojan Horse'.

[ - Do the IDF ever use tear gas, water cannon, and other non-lethal methods? Does anyone care? ]

Yes, it does use tear gas and rubber bullets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1010841,00.html
This one has a picture of ISM demonstrators copping a dose of tear gas:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0801-05.htm

Beit Alfa Technologies (Israel) manufactures non-lethal riot control gear, which is in use in many countries around the world. Including Israel.
http://www.bat.co.il/bat/

Claude, I don't have time to exhaustively search for an answer to your third question. I couldn't find evidence of Israeli soldiers being court martialed for killing children; only for bullying and bad taste.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0l800

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,531613,00.html

Note that this second link is highly biased, and includes the astounding oxymoron "unarmed stone thowers". This is like saying "unarmed gunmen". A stone fired from a sling is most definitely a deadly projectile.

Claude, you seem completely convinced that Israel is an evil place, and that any charge you level against it will be true. It was very easy to find these links on google.com

Why don't you try it? See if you can answer these questions:
When attacking restauranteurs, do Palestinian suicide bombers ever use rubber bullets or tear gas? Do they ever assault school buses with water cannon?
Has anyone ever been charged by the Palestinian Authority for organising the killing of a bus-load of kids? (Some are charged with that duty, but have any been charged for the offence?) Does the Palestinian Authority have a respectable judicial system to try such people? How about those who fill ambulances with explosives in violation of the Geneva Convention and common decency?

You ask whether anyone cares. Of course they do. But do you? Innocent civilians are being murdered, and you ask whether Israel uses humane crowd control methods?

[ Back in the sixties I seem to remember a phrase something like "A land without people for a people without a land" as an excuse for Israeli expansion. But Gaza, for example, is one of the most densely populated places on earth. ]

Back in the sixties I seem to remember three countries massed troops in preparation for, (as Egyptian State Radio put it), pushing the Jews into the Ocean. In the ensuing war, Israel won, taking vast swathes of land. Most of it has been given back, but a couple of areas such as Gaza are still held. What would you practically suggest Israel should do?

Totoro is correct about boycotting European goods. I have sold my SAAB and have purchased a Ford. I will not purchase another European car until there is a complete change in Europes attitude towards the Jews, Israel and the US. I do acknowledge that German and Swedish cars are superior to American cars but I am willing to accept inferior quality so that I don't support my enemies. And lets be honest. Europe is the enemy of the Jewish people and Israel. Europe has decided to be allies of the Arab world. That's their choice and they will live with the results. Europe has cast their lot with a civilization of losers. The Axis of Losers, Europe and the Arabs. Europe is dying and the Arabs have been dead for centuries. PATHETIC!

Fortunately for Israel, their military products are world class. Many of their weapons systems are the worlds finest and have a long line of customers.

Israel has more high technology startup companies than France and Germany combined. After Silicon Valley in California, Israel has the highest density of high technology companies on the planet. Israel is a phoenix risen from the ashes. Europe is a fat old man dying from cancer.

In your free time, visit the sites about http://www.online-gambling-4u.net/ http://www.online-gambling-4u.net/ online gambling http://www.onlinegambling-4u.net/ http://www.onlinegambling-4u.net/ online gambling http://www.flowers-4u.net/ http://www.flowers-4u.net/ flowers ...

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/599