Former Conservative PM Kåre Willoch is one of the most outspoken and - because he's not a leftist - respected Israel critics in Norway. When someone from the far left compares Israel to South Africa or Nazi Germany, that's nothing out of the ordinary. When Willoch does, people listen up.

Hopefully, more eyebrows than usual will be raised about his latest statement. On November 9, he took part in a demonstration against the new wall that Israel is building to shut out Palestinian terrorists. The choice of date is a statement itself. November 9 1938 was the Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany, the start of and symbol of the Nazi destruction of the European Jews. This didn't seem to bother Willoch. At the rally, he called for a boycott of Israeli weapons, and proposed his own peculiar solution to the conflict:

The [Norwegian] government's statements about how both parties must cease violence is to escape from reality, because that won't happen unless a possibility for an end of the occuption is in sight.

It is Willoch who has a quarrel with reality here. The uprising in Palestine may stop if the Israelis give in to all demands, go away and take the settlers with them, but the terrorist attacks won't. There is nothing Israel can possibly do to appease Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as there is nothing the West can do to appease al-Qaeda. These groups can not be negotiated with, only tolerated or destroyed.

As if the Nazi parallel wasn't enough, the international secretary of the Federation of Trade Unions, Ingunn Yssen, another speaker at the demo, piled on the heap of pseudo-historical analogies:

- In 1989 the Berlin wall fell, in 1994 the apartheid regime of South Africa ended, and both have landed on the scrapyard of history. And yet Israel repeats these historical mistakes in 2003 by raising electric fences, guard towers and a wall which we know all too well.

If there is a scrapyard of historical analogies, these belong in it. The Israeli wall is like the Eastern German wall only in the sense that both are walls/fences erected on a border - but one was meant to lock citizens in, the other foreigners out. Palestine is like South Africa only in the sense that there are two peoples in a contest for land and autonomy, but Israel is not very racist, and ANC was not a fanatical terror cult calling for the destruction of the white race. The Israeli attacks on Palestine are like the Holocaust only in the sense that they involve the killing of some people by some other people - if Israel had wished to exterminate the Palestinians, they could have done so.

By these standards, the protest on November 9 was just like the Kristallnacht because it took place on the same day. It was just like a SA rally because it involved a lot of people taking a stand for a political cause. Willoch is just like Stalin because he makes statements that are reported by the media. He's just like Darth Vader because he's bald! I could go on and on. The disturbing implication is that any analogy is valid that compares Jews to something evil.

Even Aftenposten agrees that holding this demonstration on November 9 was inappropriate:

The memory of the Nazi crime against the Jews must not be downplayed. It is not irrelevant that Norwegian critics of the Wall choose the Kristallnacht memorial day to demonstrate against Israel. It shows a lack of respect. This unfortunately is underlined by Kåre Willoch's use of the expression "concentration camps" for what the Israelis are creating on the West Bank.

Willoch is both wiser and more historically aware than this implies.

You know, I don't think he is.

(Update: Brita Skuland and Hans Rustad has more.)

Please check out my comments on this website under Polarized America (near the end of the posts). Then check out today's Little Green Footballs (ll-ll) under Eurotrash, especially the many comments.

I think Europe is undergoing a very strange metamorphasis right now. If current peculiar attitudes toward Israel are not corrected soon, Europeans are in for some very dark times. Their smug ignorance will not save them from the barbarians.

Here is my very simple take on world history: Those who treat Jews and Israel with kindness and respect will prosper and live under a democracy. Those who foster anti-Semitism will know social chaos and mob rule.

Correction: the Eurotrash article on Little Green Footballs is listed under November 10. Sorry.

I was arguing about the fence with someone I now who was making the Berlin argument, when I suddenly blurted out “OmiGod, I’ve got a friend coming to visit and I’ve got to get him a place to stay. I totally forgot.”

ME: “Gimme your house key so I can make a copy.”

HIM: “Huh?”

ME: “Your house key, I need it, he needs a place to stay. Give it to me. He’ll only stay a week or so.”

HIM: “Uh, I don’t think so…..”

ME: “No seriously, really, I need it. Can I get it already?”

HIM: “No. I’m sorry, he’s not my problem…..”

ME: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? The law says you can’t keep me IN your house, against my will! That’s kidnapping. Illegal and immoral. Therefore, you obviously can’t keep me or my friend OUT. I mean, what’s the difference? A door’s a door. A lock’s a lock. You have no right to keep me or anyone else locked in… or out….. So give me your key already. Hurry up, I gotta get it copied quick. He’s flying in real soon.”

HIM: “Uh….. um….. I ….. uh…. well ……..”

The conversation didn’t last much beyond that.

I am an older guy, a vet from end of WWII and Korea too. I am Jewish. I recall this from history: when one group losses land to another group during a way, then the two sides sign some sort of peace accord in order for the losers to get something, if much of anything, back...they are not entitled to simply recoup what was lost because they are occupied and have not made peace.

Now, an aside: everyone speakjs about "the occupation: but ignores the 30 thousand troops from Syria occupying Lebanon. Everyone calls Israel racist, yet don't realize the the constitution under preparation for the Palestinians specifically says it will be a Muslinm state, or that a Jew can not become a citizen in Jordan, or that Islam if the official and only relgiion in Saudi Arabia...a wall to keep out killers? Do you lock your door at night? your car when you leave it? Why?

It is a common tactic of Israel critics to say that one can criticise Israel without being an anti-Semite. That is of course true. One can disagree with the building of the wall, debate the merits and morality of targeted killings and collective punishment, etc, etc, and such debate exists on all levels, also in Israel.

Yet, somewhere criticism of Israel crosses that line, and Willoch is dangerously close to doing that with his Kristallnacht demonstration. We must also question what we call it when verbal attacks on Israel pretend the terror threat does not exist. Or, for that matter, criticising Israel for actions that do not draw criticism when other nations in the region do worse.

Yet, I am not so sure the mechanisms involved here are "anti-semitism" as we see it displayed by thugs with fetishes for bald heads and heavy boots. Rather, the European left is loathing the whole society they live in. They routinely blame the west for all the ills in the third world, and every military action is blamed on some capitalist grab for oil. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, and radical leftists, enjoying the freedoms of the same system in Europe, always use their heaviest verbal ammunition against liberal democracies. It's a form of self-loathing masochism, maybe an expression of guilt over living in comfort here "while children starve in Africa."

First a few corrections:

1) If you read the Israeli press (even leftist ones like Ha'aretz) you'll notice that the barrier isn't described as a "wall" - it's described as a "fence." Only a short section is a wall - the rest is fences and electronic listening devices. If you don't want to take sides, use the term "barrier" - calling it a "wall" plays into the anti-Israeli propaganda.

2) Unless you are referring to all of Israel, the territories, and the kingdom of Jordan, don't use the term "Palestine." There isn't, nor has ever been, an independent entity known as "Palestine" and prior to 1967 the term "Palestinians" referred to anyone who was born in the area that includes Jordan. Used properly, Arik Sharon is a Palestinian (since he was born in Palestine) while Arafat isn't (since he was born in Egypt).

I know that it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but terms like "the wall," and "Palestine" are evidence that the anti-Israeli crowd is winning the propaganda war. I have learned to accept "Palestinian" as an expression for "any displaced Arab who claims Israel as his/her original home," but only because there is no better term.

Comparing Israeli policies with those of the Nazis is nothing short of trivializing the Shoah and making it seem like the Jews deserved it, seeing that they are "no better" than the Nazis. I don't think that everyone who makes those comparisons are antisemitic, but I do think that they serve an antisemitic purpose.

One more thing: there hasn't been any collective punishment. It is true that many Palestinians suffer because of restrictions the Israelis impose, but the intent is not to punish anyone: it's to keep the terrorists out. And since the terrorists use children as couriers, women as suicide bombers, ambulances as transport vehicles, and dress up like haredim, every single person that crosses the checkpoints has to be considered a potential terrorist.

Leif,

Good points. Choice of words are important in propaganda wars.

The "collective punishment" I specifically were thinking about was demolishing the houses of families where one member had committed a suicide bombing, even if the owner of the house can not be demonstrated to have direct responsibility. I am sure it is pragmatic and may serve as a deterrent for some, but it is a violation of recognised legal principles in this part of the world.

The "barrier" makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. The two state solution envisioned a Palestinian state whose economy was integrated with Israel's, where goods and people crossed from one side to another every day. The Palestinians have been replaced by guest workders from Thailand and the Philippines, and what little economy Palestine had, has slowly withered away, sustained only by stipends from the Gulf states and the EU.
The Palestinians have been betrayed by their own leadership and the other arab states, and are now being strangled by the Israelis.
Stuck behind a fence, with the best land carved off by the Israelis for their settlements, the Palestinians have been left with something that resembles not so much a concentration camp as a ghetto.
It can only get worse.

Maybe the Palestinians should have thought of that before they started their Stupidfada in September 2000. Going between Israel and "Palestine" used to be like going between Chicago and Evanston (a suburb across the street from Chicago). Now the barrier will protect the Israelis, as well as probably defining the border. The Palestinians will have to made do, or go somewhere else to make a living. Whose fault is that? Too bad for them.

By the way, I just read in the Atlantic Monthly that Botswana is erecting a 300-mile-long electric fence to keep out the waves of people from Zimbabwe who are crossing the border to try to make a living. Are the Norwegians getting angry about that?

Check out Europundits, Wednesday, November 12, for an interesting article by Nelson Ascher called "The End of Palestine." Maybe the Palestinian terrorists under Arafat overplayed their hand.

Bill, Canada, writes:

"The 'barrier' makes a viable Palestinian state impossible."

Very cool.

Let it return to Hashemite rule.

Leif: 1) "Only a short section is a wall - the rest is fences and electronic listening devices." Agreed.

2) "Unless you are referring to all of Israel, the territories, and the kingdom of Jordan, don't use the term "Palestine." There isn't, nor has ever been, an independent entity known as "Palestine" and prior to 1967 the term "Palestinians" referred to anyone who was born in the area that includes Jordan."

But now it refers to the people who live in Gaza and the West Bank. And Palestine is the place where Palestinians live. I don't see a problem with this. I'm aware that the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" are politically loaded, and that there are other terms pro-Israelis would like me to use, but I don't use them in a loaded sense, and I would rather not be dragged into terminology wars I'm not interested in joining. Better to fight out the real issues than the proxy ones.

Palestine - the place where Palestinians live - is a good word. Like all words it has had other meanings in the past, some of which were completely different. If you don't want me to use it, at least give me a good alternative word ("Palestinian areas" is not a name, "The West Bank and Gaza" is too long) - don't just dismiss it because it is loaded.

Let it return to Hashemite rule.

Jordan emphatically does not want them. Can't blame them, can we?

Referring to the (precisely termed) "disputed territories captured by Israel beyond the 1949 armistice lines" as "Palestine" is inaccurate for several reasons:

- The Palestinians wouldn't accept it. They consider Palestine to be the entire British Mandate in Palestine. Some of them may accept the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as sovereign - the PLO doesn't, incidentally - but most would include today's Israel as "historical [sic] Palestine."

- It assumes that borders have been established. Neither party is willing to accept this. Areas designated as "A" and "B" have some remnants of Palestinian self-rule; "C" are completely under Israeli dominion. Referring to all of them as "Palestine" is inaccurate no matter how you look at it.

- Palestinians live in many places - Jordan (where they constitute 40-60% of the population - the only Arab country where they have full rights); Lebanon; Syria; and all around the world. Some Israeli Arabs refer to themselves as "Palestinians" as well.

My preference - which I think is a fairly neutral term - would be "disputed territories." They are not "occupied" inasmuch as their administration is ruled by the Declaration of Principles signed by Israel and the PLO (among others), and by definition they can't be occupied unless they were sovereign territory before.

I've (reluctantly) accepted "Palestinians" to mean "Muslim and Christian Arabs claiming refugee status as a result of the dissolution of the British Mandate of Palestine." That in itself is questionable for many reasons, but I honestly can't come up with another shorthand, and sometimes you have to resign yourself to commonly accepted usage.

It's interesting to note that a larger number of Arab Jews were displaced by Arab countries than were displaced as a result of the formation of Israel. Most of these were settled in Israel and are no longer classified as refugees.

As per Jan's point, what we could be dealing with here might be a population exchange a la India and Pakistan, except the Arab countries were unwilling to help their Palestinian brethren that way.

By now, the PLO has been kicked out of every Arab country they've tried to establish themselves - Jordan (after they tried to topple the Hashemite monarchy); Egypt; Lebanon; and even Syria. I blame Arafat, who is an uncurable revolutionary, trained by Castro, and has done "his" people (Arafat is Egyptian) an incredible injustice.

It is folly to me to say that terrorists must be wiped out or tolerated. They must be made irrelevant, and their cause must be made irrelevant. Kill a terrorist, and you recruit two.

Divide and conquer has worked for centuries. Why not gain the support of the moderate forces within Palestine (while they still exist), and make them fight for a stop to violence? But in order for that to be feasible, Israel must stop provoking.

Jeppe: I agree that the only good way to prevent Palestinian terrorism is with Palestinian law enforcement. The Israelis think so too. It does not follow from anything that has happened over the last decade that there are moderate forces in the current PA who are willing and able to do this. Yassir Arafat is directly responsible for many of the terrorist attacks in the second intifada, and deliberately tolerates the others. Mahmoud Abbas looked like he was willing to change that - Arafat deposed him. What does this say about Arafat's willingness to fight terror? Why would the person who started the intifada in the first place as a negotiations tool (following Camp David 2000) agree to stop it merely for a cessation of Israeli attacks on Hamas? Doesn't hang together.

No, change will only come with a change of Palestinian leadership. Sharon may have to go as well, but that will happen eventually. Arafat will hang on to power as long as he can, like all other dictators who have been elected once and believe that's enough. And Hamas and Islamic Jihad won't give up at all until they've been crushed. That can't be done _only_ with weapons, but I doubt there's a reliable "one down = two new recruits" formula at work here - might as well be "one successful attack = three new recruits". And as the PA isn't even trying, Israel is right to at least try to fight Hamas and IJ with weapons. It won't solve the problem completely, but it has shown itself to be moderately successful.

See my article here:
http://www.tenkselv.no/main.aspx?id=155
on the cause and effect of terrorism.

Is the Israeli government's strategy working? It seems to be reducing the number of successful terrorist attacks, but a 1% success rate is still pretty devastating. Also, the terrorists adapt their tactics to what the Israelis do, which means that women, old people, ambulances all of a sudden have to go through the hardship of checkpoints the same way young men do.

Sharon's premise is that the Palestinians will turn against the terrorists in order to improve their lives - it's not gratuitous collective punishment, but Sharon has determined that he'd rather have the Palestinians suffer daily humiliation and systemic poverty than put Israeli lives at risk. One thing the Israelis have done at every turn is make it clear that the PA has it within their power to stop things.

But I think Bjørn is right - Arafat is like his mentor Castro in that he will let his people suffer endlessly rather than give up power.

And if you look at things from the Palestinians' point of view, they have to have some hope to justify their (real and imagined) suffering through all these years. A fragmented West Bank and most of Gaza is something they could have gotten a long time ago - what's the point of holding out if it's for less?

This is the other piece of Sharon's strategy - the more terrorism, the less to show for it. This is why he won't evacuate a single "settlement" even though many of them hardly worth holding on to - it would make the terrorists think they won, just like Hizballah feels about Lebanon. And that would just breed more terrorism.

What's needed, IMO, is international intervention among the Palestinians to help them form a stable society with checks and balances, real elections, freedom of press and speech, and real accountability. This is the role the EU can play - if necessary by saying to the Palestinians: "stop worrying about Israel - if you shape up, we'll deal with them." I think that the vast majority of Israelis would happily give the Palestinians an independent state if it promised to be a peaceful neighbor - in perpetuity. And all common sense dictates it would be best for everyone.

Every comment in this is intelligent but completely naive. The problem is you are all thinking like a rational Westerner. The reason the Palestinians seem to act irrationally and against their own interests is because you are viewing them in Western terms. The battle is not a battle between Israel and Palestinians. It is a battle between Jews and Muslims. The Palestinians are Muslim pawns in a war that has been raging for 1300 years. The war has been dormant with the West for 300 years becuase of Muslim weakness. But during that time Black Africans, Hindus, and Buddhists have been severely victimized by Muslim jihad. Once you view the conflict through this lens the actions of the Palestinians are easy to decipher.
The Palestinians are only interested in the destruction of Israel. The Jews may still live in the area but only under Muslim sovereignty. This is not an opinion. This is what the Palestinians themselves say. Read the charter of fatah, hamas or Islamic jihad. They are very clear and explicit about this fact.
Only a complete military defeat of one of the combatants will end the conflict. Every time Israel has had a military victory it has been restrained by the US from finalizing the conflict. The US has restrained Israel in the past because of cold war realities with the Soviet Union or Arab oil supply interests.
Any peace deal that creates a Palestinian state eill not end the conflict. Within a few short years it will rage again since the primary reason for the conflict won't be addressed. That primary reason for the conflict is Israel's existence.

Well, there's nothing genetic about Arabs that prevents them from appreciating the benefits of a free, democratic society.

And although militant Islam is one driving force, the other is pan-Arab nationalism, imported from Europe by, among others, Lawrence of Arabia (and ardent antisemite).

The war is not between Jews and Muslims as much as it is between the 21st century liberal society and the Middle Ages. Arab society is not all that different from medieval Europe - and it's not going to change unless the people in it resolve to change.

I wholeheartedly agree that a clear military victory would have made things simpler, at least as regards durable peace between Israel and her Arab neighbor states. The U.N. and the U.S. did everybody a great disservice by disallowing a clear Israeli victory in 1956, 1967, and 1973, and possibly even today. And Arafat is cynically exploiting the weakness that Israel actually holds itself accountable to the (more or less) civilized world.

The silliest thing about leftist opposition to the fence is that it was moderate LEFTIST ISRAELIS who popularized the idea. It's an example of not solving problems by force. See, when the Intifada was launched, Israeli politicians needed SOME plan to stop it and if you suggested force you weren't a leftist, and only an extreme leftist preaching to the choir would say that negotiations would do the trick.
Sharon, a moderate rightist, agreed in the end because he's not so right wing as to suggest that force ONLY is sufficient. The only mainstream objection to the fence in Israel is the cost (coupled with doubts that it will work of course).

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/545